Edited your post a bit, webshots doesn't like direct linking to their images..

Nice "weapon"..

Yes rovai, and maybe diffrent options for the sounds?

too 90's for me now,good old m1a1 does the job

I dont like the fact that the Army is the one testing it out when it should really be Recon and Navy Seals, those are the guys who should really be testing it out. If it can surivive with Recon and Navy Seals it can survive with the rest.

thats right,it should be put to test first,in battle if possible

Originally Posted by Marksman

thats right,it should be put to test first,in battle if possible

You want to "test" it in "battle" What would happen to the guys testing it if it fails?

Originally Posted by nulli secundus

I dont like the fact that the Army is the one testing it out when it should really be Recon and Navy Seals, those are the guys who should really be testing it out. If it can surivive with Recon and Navy Seals it can survive with the rest.

Why doesn't the Army just go back to using the Garand?

We're the most advanced, strongest, best, military power in the whole world yet we cannot design a good rifle. Go figure.

Note: Of course I speak from a total lack of experience and prejudgement, just putting two and two together after all I heard about them.

You want to "test" it in "battle" What would happen to the guys testing it if it fails?

Then the rifle is no good

Originally Posted by FutureRANGER

We're the most advanced, strongest, best, military power in the whole world yet we cannot design a good rifle. Go figure.

The M16 family are great weapons, as are the M4s. Any weapons platform is going to have things about it that are less than perfect, and these rifles are not exceptions to this rule, but they are very much good weapons.
You were joking about the M1, right?