07-12-2011, 06:17 PM
Tony Williams Wrote:I like this bit:
If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on the conclusion being something like this:
"Winning carbine X is clearly better than the M4 in all respects. However, the improvement programme to the M4, with a heavy barrel, auto switch, and gas piston system among other things, greatly improves the performance of the M4. While it still isn't quite as good as carbine X, the differences are too small to justify the cost of change."
Adding an op-rod driven system to the AR only makes it worse, not better. That has been the result time and again with the HK416, POF, ARES kits, etc. Bad news all around, plus more weight where you don't need it, and now you really need to clean carbon off the piston to make the gun run, whereas carbon build-up on the AR increases gas system seal, and does not induce malf's contrary to gun rag propoganda.
I think the defense contractor world is really fretting hard to try to come up with a better design than the direct impingement AR15, and they are failing consistently. No weapon so far has proven to have better muzzle control, as there are no off-axis reciprocating parts in a DI AR15. Reliability is a gun rag fantasy perpetuated for decades now, claiming "piston" systems are superior somehow, when in fact, it is very difficult to match the AR15/M16/M4 reliability record. Sure, they can rig tests in favor for whichever contractor greased the committee of the day (XM8, SCAR, etc.), but you still end up with guys who cling tighter to the M4, especially seasoned veterans in Special Operations units who have more clout than a young soldier who is dazzled with something new and sexy.
FN has been pushing the SCAR for years now, and it still is in the teething stage, with an inferior operating system compared to the M4, a totally unacceptable line-of-sight above bore height, and even magazine incompatibility issues with lot-to-lot. That is a big indicator of QC failures, and the AR18 design never caught-on with anybody other than limited use with the IRA.
The reality is that it is going to take a major leap in firearms design to out-do the AR15 Family of Weapons. Right now, I see nothing competitive, and I attend as many trade shows as possible year-to-year, work with organizations all over the place, and try to keep up with the latest and greatest. What I see more and more is adoption of M4-type carbines as a given, with very few exceptions that seem to be more based on national pride for home-stolen designs (Sweden with the AK5, which most of them don't even realize is a licensed copy of the FNC, a sub-standard design by modern paradigms, the FAMAS, L85, AUG, etc.) Don't even get me started on the G36...
Even some of those countries have had their Special Operations units using AR15's since the early 1960's before the regular US Army even did, and prefer M4's or Diameco Carbines to this very day.
As I've mentioned before, when you see some of the most influential figures in several of the current contenders to the AR15-guys who have been closely or directly involved with the development of the HK416 and ACR, still using AR15/M4 carbines in their classes, that speaks volumes...painful volumes for those looking to break into the market that has been dominated by the AR since 1963 in the US military. There have even been scathing reports from former CEO's of certain divisions from one of the companies involved with the impetus for the Masada-now-ACR, citing serious QC problems and issues that make that system an albatross, and that company still runs its carbine courses with DI AR's religiously.