Posts
The M4 is proven in the various conflicts on Tara.
The FAL is proven in many conflicts on Communism.
Some of us have not seen the M4 in action, but have seen the FAL work its magic.
Likewise, there are a lot of us who've seen the M4 function well and don't doubt it.
There's scant amount of overlap.
But for those of us who've been there, done that... The rifle that did what we wanted, when we wanted, IS the correct choice.
The gun that didn't let you down when it mattered is the obvious choice.
Old timers who were blooded with an M14 will never accept a "poodle-shooter" and those who've survived the mountainous terrain of the Hundu-Kush will feel that carrying a "musket" is excessive.
In between are a number of folks who used the FAL in the field, opposed by the AK and SKS, who would not take an AR variant into battle regardless of the bribe.
It's interesting to watch the debate.
It's also interesting to add in the folks who used an M16A1 in a real live war who wouldn't carry the cumbersome FAL nor accept the compromised M4.
It all boils down to, "The best combat rifle in the world is the one that worked when you needed it to. The worst combat rifle in the world is the one that failed when you needed most."
This is often the same gun when you get two veterans talking.
Yet to be "blooded" but served with all except the FAL. I think I understand the virtues and vices of each and can perform at least third-echelon maintenance on all. Actually carried an M16A3 for a time as well. The constraints of age and injury make it likely that an M4 (clone) will be what I'll carry, but if the commute is short enough I'll use a "real rifle" in a defensive or harassment role.
ReplyDeleteBeen training a number of folks on "America's Rifle" in recent years.
Boat Guy
Hey Angus;
ReplyDeleteI carried the A1 and the A2, when I deployed, I had the A1 version, but it looked like an "A2" because I was the unit armorer, I had converted it to the A2 standard with the Barrel, grip and everything, I liked the upgraded version except for the 3 round burst, in my mind any decently trained soldier can be trained to control their burst capability and having the ordinance dept putting that 3 round burst in was a substitute for good training. I get the reasons, but I hated it. I would go to war with the same kind of rifle again, I think the 855 62 grain performs better with the full length barrel and what i would do now would go with the M16A4 variant where I would keep the "giggle switch" but have the flattop version and get some good optics. and put a backup flipup on it in case "Murphy" makes an appearance. But that is me :)
Considering that both an M16A2 and M16A3 and M4 and M4A1 are distinguished by designation by having happy-interruptus or pure joy selectors...
DeleteAn M16A4 with pure joy should be an M16A5.
The military has long since abandoned trying to use their designation system.
The SOCOM barrel on an M4A1 should have been an M4A2, for example.
Not a big fan of hand-held full-auto but find the "happy-interruptus" professionally insulting; thus was happy with the A3. Got a goodly bit of crap from some GO for carrying a long gun as a "senior officer". Thanks for sharing, general...
ReplyDeleteBoat Guy