![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Well you're going to get no argument from me about the ammunition bulldogg, I think we're on a similar level there.
However, I'd much much rather be sent into battle with an XM-8 than an M-14. Although I would like to see better ammunition than a glorified .22 round. But, ammunition issues aside, I have a very hard time taking you seriously when you say you'd rather be room clearing in Baghdad with a M-14 than an M-4. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Ruger Mini-14 with folding stock and banana clip would be my personal choice, second choice would be the Thompson SMG issued my grandfather as a commo man in WWII in the Pacific. .45 caliber rounds have far better take down power and with the pistol grip he had on his made an ideal CQC weapon.
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
I've never fired any SMGs before but I have wondered about the .45 vs. the 9mm.
Seems to me if you're engaging in CQB (emphasis on CLOSE) it would be preferable to deliver knockdown power over accuracy. But really don't have an idea of what the recoil is like between a 9mm and .45 SMG in fast firing other than what it feels like in a pistol, which of course is way different. But in the end, can we lay to rest this conspiracy theory about people putting out new weapons just to make money and all that? Just in theory I'd rather have a 7.62 XM-8 more than a 7.62 M-16 than a 7.62 M-14. I think it's relevant to criticise various weapons and ammunitions for their strengths and weaknesses but of every branch of the government I firmly believe that it is the millitary that wastes the least money. |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
SOCOM-16 or SOCOM II for me. ![]() SOCOM 16: 37.25" long M16A2: 39.60" long M4: 32.99" long I think what Bulldog is getting at, is that the Army had 40+ years of prefecting the M16, which they have and now they want something new. Getting rid of the M14: Mistake Getting rid of the M16/M4: Really big mistake My question is why the Army didn't keep the M14 on with the M16? |
![]() |