Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU

Ah yes, Nauru. A perfect example of a fiscally sound country. With a meager 90% unemployment, and government expenditures greater than the country's gross domestic product.

Come on now, this is not a sound logical counter to my argument. Do you know why Nauru is in the current position it is in or did you just do a google search and find your Karl Rovesque quote and paste it?
The use of logic to counter why the US has wasted resources on the M-16, the M-4 and now the XM-8 while the M-14 performance characteristics still outperform all of these "improvements" is going to be difficult. But picking on poor little Nauru is just mean and "american".

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Designation X means what? Experimental. How much money was spent on a weapon that even in its best trials cannot compete with the USMC's old M-14? $9,000,000.00 in FY 2002 alone. How many homeless people would that feed? How many landmines would that have removed from Afghanistan? American industry has been hollowed out to the point where the US of A is the world's arms dealer. And when taken with a $7,800,000,000,000.00 government debt and personal debt ratios of the population show that fully one third are so far in debt that they cannot recover without bankruptcy you have what amounts to one huge pawnshop. Its wasteful.

The M-14 is more accurate, costs less, more deadly and more useful in hand to hand combat. Why does the government keep developing weapons? Improving on things that are better than the damn improvement? Instead of bragging about being the first country to make George Lucas's fantasy weapons come to life while millions of American children live in poverty, perhaps the populace of the USA should stop and consider the facts and ignore the hypeof governmental press releases.
IMHO.

What, miliions of children living in poverty? Whatever.

The M14 fires a 7.62x51mm round, thats a big round. The M14 carries only 20 rounds per mag, and is about three or four pound heavier than the M16. I myself would take the M4 over the M14.

http://www.heartsandminds.org/articles/childpov.htm

Yes, millions, 15 million to be exact. Read and learn.

As for the 20 rounds, its more accurate than M-16 and has a greater effective range than the either the M-4 or M-16. It also has a history of not jamming up as easily as either as well.

The extra four pounds means when you smash someone in the face they go down. I have been struck by both and M-16 and an M-14 and I remember the hit from the M16, the M14 knocked me out cold. If the extra weight makes you tired, hit the gym.

Of course ad hominen attacks don't actually prove anything, however they do incite further responses that can be used.

Nauru is in its current situation because of extended phosphorus mining. However it certainly wasn't helped by a government that is anything but tight when it comes to how it spends funds.

You say, "It's just 4 extra pounds" like someone who has never had to carry a rifle in the port arms position over a mile. The M-14 was replaced because more effective weapons save american lives. So even though the XM-8 may have cost a whopping 9 million to develop, or about how much money 8 average Americans with a highschool diploma will make in their life time out of a country of almost 300 million. If it saves even ten American lives the research costs have been recouped. To further simplify my argument, American spends money developing new arms to save American lives. It is far easier to replace a tank or a rifle then it is to replace someone's life.

Also in melee combat, those four pounds don't mean much when you consider that a butt stroke is usually followed by a bayonet jab.

An interesting note about the American poverty line is that it's above the per capita income for China by roughly 14,000 dollars, above Poland's by 7,000 dollars, above Russia's by 9,000 dollars, and above Nauru's by 14,000 dollars. America, one of the few places in the world where poverty is linked with obesity. America's public and external debt is also less than our GDP.

I'm not sure what you mean by America's Industry being hollowed out. Last I checked Americans are still the most productive per capita of any country in the world (annually, not hourly. Hourly we're in third place I believe behind Luxembourg and Belgium).

We are getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic and out of respect for the poster I suggest we take this further in another thread if you would like?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

We are getting WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic and out of respect for the poster I suggest we take this further in another thread if you would like?

I think waaaaaay out of line is a more appropriate statement. If you can't stand Americans, don't be a sissy, come on out and say it.

it is also a natinal pride of being able to produce world-class weaponary


i am sure young americans feel good when they see their weapons praised all over the world

http://www.patria.fi/modules/page/sh...ayout=2005_eng

- Finnish self production

http://www.denel.co.za/LandSystems.asp

- South African Self production

Bulldogg, do try to contain your anti american zeal....

And the rest of you, dont go straight to someones throat will ya?

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Designation X means what? Experimental. How much money was spent on a weapon that even in its best trials cannot compete with the USMC's old M-14? $9,000,000.00 in FY 2002 alone. How many homeless people would that feed? How many landmines would that have removed from Afghanistan?

Didn't the geezer Ike Eisenhauer once say "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed."

Imagine where we'd be today if our ancestors had renounced military technology, research and industry 8,000 years ago.