When I say NATO service rifle I mean the standard rifle, as in the most common and numerous rifle fielded by x nation's particular Army. If you break it down for Europe, the countries I remember off the top of my head:
UK- L85A1
France- FAMAS
Germany-G36
Belguim- F2000
Czech R- VZ58
Slovakia- VZ58
Poland- AK
Romania- AK
Austria- AUG
Now I did look up and indeed there are some militaries that use the C series of M16 derived weaponry. I stand corrected
What I know regarding France and Germanys current weapon adoption was that the Ar platform had at least one entry, but it was beat out by domestic competitors.
I have no doubt that the AR is a successful weapon, but the following excerpt from the defense industry daily article says it all:
Like its predecessor the M16, the M4 also has a reputation as an excellent weapon – if you can maintain it. Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli “Galil” applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt’s M16 and M4 have never done so.
I'm not trying to derail my own thread by any means but the fact of the matter is, the AR series doesn't exactly have a stellar track record, from the same article:
3rd ID soldier: “I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”
25th Infantry Division soldier: “The M4 Weapon in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan was quick to malfunction when a little sand got in the weapon. Trying to keep it clean, sand free was impossible while on patrols or firefights.”
82nd Airborne Division soldier: “The M4 is overall an excellent weapon, however the flaw of its sensitivity to dirt and powder residue needs to be corrected. True to fact, cleaning will help. Daily assigned tasks, and nonregular hours in tactical situations do not always warrant the necessary time required for effective cleaning.”
75th Ranger Regiment member, SOCOM: “Even with the dust cover closed and magazine in the well, sand gets all inside; on and around the bolt. It still fires, but after a while the sand works its way all through the gun and jams start.”
The 507th Maintenance Company, ambushed outside Nasariyah in 2003 during the opening days of the ground invasion of Iraq, might concur with all of the above. The post-incident report released by the US Army had this to say:
“Dusty, desert conditions do require vigilance in weapons maintenance… However, it is imperative to remember that at the time of the attack, the 507th had spent more than two days on the move, with little rest and time to conduct vehicle repair and recovery operations.”
And this isn't 10 years ago, this is much more recent and with this basis I think I'm entitled to make improvements to the design.
Even if it is not affected nearly as much as believed by hot gases from the tube, using ideas from the ljungman have some clear advantages:
Reduction in fouling in breech and chamber, reducing need to clean the rifle
Lowered heating, as a rifle as a general rule operates better at cooler temperatures.
Now onto the one comment that is puzzling:
The ljungman system handily avoids the issue of hot gas inside the reciever by venting it directly into the shooters face.
Amusing, but unless your face is directly over the bolt carrier I can't see this happening, since the bolt carrier is a little distant from the comb of the stock, where your cheek lays. Even so, have you actually handled an AG42?
I have, and while sort of awkward my face was not anywhere near where the breech opens during firing.
I never made any claims regarding the ergonomics of an AR, they are great and I love my friend's AR, a gas piston variant in .308. I wouldn't, however be able to justify the $1300
he shelled out for it in my budget.
