So by thier assesment I should add MORE lubrication to my weapon during a firefight in a dust storm?The dust test will expose the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a “systems assessment” at Aberdeen last year, Lipsit said. The results of ATEC assessment show that the performance of M16s and M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of weapons lubrication used.
ARs run better overall wet. Whether or not its good idea in a dust storm I also doubt.So by thier assesment I should add MORE lubrication to my weapon during a firefight in a dust storm?
Agreed, its the best of both worlds.An AR with the heart of an AK. What isn't there to like?
I almost hate to say it, but I agree completely. If the military made a move to 6.8 spc/6.5 grendel/.308 they would have a much better rifle. Better ballistics and better stopping power.It won't amount to anything more than a chamber improvement on the existing platform and call it a new gun. Colt will build them. The SCAR program is a joke, the USA had nothing to do with 416s design-other than the still forced chambering of the NATO 5.56.
The XCR should have been tested, but wasn't because of 'backroom butt kissing'......The XCR is a serious weapon.
EDIT: The problem isn't the M16, its the round it uses. If they'd just slightly taper the case-there'd be no 'issues'......I cannot believe I just said that, but its true-even my beloved AKs sometimes choke on that round...
I agree completely. It's a much more reliable design.How about we just get rid of the gas tube and move to the gas piston.
An AR with the heart of an AK. What isn't there to like?