The Gun Counter

Wow...just...wow...

There is so much crap in that article I don't know where to start.

Kommander wrote:Wow...just...wow...

There is so much crap in that article I don't know where to start.

Yeeeeeeeeeeah.

Washington Times... owned by the Moon family. Kahr Arms, owned by the Moon family. Maybe this is battlespace prep for some new wonder gizmo that Kahr is putting out?

There IS **SOME** truth in the article:

Colt did not respond to requests for comment.

The gun manufacturer’s website states that “throughout the world today, the Colt’s M4 reliability, performance and accuracy provide joint coalition forces with the confidence required to accomplish any mission. Designed specifically for lightweight mobility, speed of target acquisition, and potent firepower capability, the M4 delivers. Proven in military combat operations all over the world, it is in a class by itself as a first rate combat weapon system.”

Colt’s monopoly on the Army’s weapon ended in February 2013, when the service awarded the M4 contract to FN Herstal, a global firearms manufacturer owned by Belgium’s regional Walloon government and the operator of a plant in South Carolina.

..... said Scott Traudt, who advised the Army on how to improve the M4 a decade ago.

Today, he is a special adviser at Green Mountain Defense Industries of Strafford, Vt., a Colt competitor that is manufacturing a new rifle that it hopes to sell to special operations.

The short-barreled weapon was suited for house-to-house fighting in Iraq.

There's actually a LOT of truth in the article (ALL ON ONE PAGE), just like I posted here:

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, an artillery officer who earned the Silver Star in Vietnam, is a prominent M4 critic.

I mean, is there anything untrue which I referenced??? LOL!!!

funny that their schematic for M4 improvements, doesn't have a profile image of an actual M4. Its a 16" barrel....

CByrneIV wrote:

Kommander wrote:Wow...just...wow...

There is so much crap in that article I don't know where to start.

Ayup... that is 100% pure, lab grade, unadulterated bullshit.

Pretty much, the only thing in the entire article I can honestly agree with are the statements that:

1) the magazines dent too easily.
2) the M4 is not ideally suited to long range combat in Afghanistan.

NVGdude wrote:

CByrneIV wrote:

Kommander wrote:Wow...just...wow...

There is so much crap in that article I don't know where to start.

Ayup... that is 100% pure, lab grade, unadulterated bullshit.

Pretty much, the only thing in the entire article I can honestly agree with are the statements that:

1) the magazines dent too easily.
2) the M4 is not ideally suited to long range combat in Afghanistan.

The M4 was NOT designed for moderate to long range combat. The M-14 was MUCH better suited for that kind of combat, but we were fighting in jungles where visibility was measured in yards, NOT Kilometers. It was designed for relatively short-range combat, using very light bullets, traveling at high velocity, and perhaps needing multiple hits to take down a subject/target.

OBVIOUSLY, this was NOT your father's M1 Garand!! It was a WHOLE NEW CONCEPT, using FAR DIFFERENT TACTICS than previously used (including the focus on BODY COUNT rather than objectives achieved and held).

The M4 was good in Iraq during the house-to-house fighting (even if it couldn't penetrate their structures as well as the return fire from AK-47's), but it's close to worthless in the open spaces of Afghanistan (so I've read and been told by MANY service members coming home from there).