- Messages
- 2,234
- Reactions
- 2,551
Here's an interesting article likely to stir up some discussion:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Maybe he should have been focusing on priorities of work. One of the first things covered in basic.Robert H. Scales, US Army Artillery officer.
He didn't clean his rifle.
He didn't check his troops rifles.
He didn't secure their perimenter.
He slept.
Now he's an expert
A live expert.
With an opinion.
End of story.
Nite-Nite.
Good point and I like the FAL too.Look if you want a gun that feeds better. Go with the FN FAL.
The feed lips are built into the receiver. Not the magazine.
But ''Features that make the perfect gun'' Is another thread.
I just don't like to see somebody disparage any gun with lies. And half truths. The article discredited it's self with embellishments. We all know the highlights and problems with certain gun designs. And we make our choices and live with them. We have to. There is no perfect gun. Just compromise.
Maybe that's why there is such a big argument over AK vs. AR. We hate to compromise.
So we passionately argue! It's our way of lying to ourselves.
Do you believe there are politics involved it fielding a new service rifle?
How many here have carried a M-16 or M-4 or one of the other variant's of these in combat???
The military would very much prefer not to put humans at risk. It makes war much easier to sell to the public if their family in the military is not put in harms way.You would think it's because they want wars to be fought without troops.
Why spend money on tech for ground troops when they don't want troops occupying other companies.
There is more money in selling arms to other countries and hiring contractors to do your dirty work.