"Most every single claim in it has been debated to minutiae levels here in the rifle forum. And some of it is just stupidity - 5.56 is too weak so replace it with a G36? M4s got hot and stopped functioning at Wanat (without mentioning that they also overheated two belt-fed SAWs)? The only thing worse than the article was the comment section."
They debated the round and the gun separately in the article, for what that's worth. And you'll probably remember that none of those debates was settled, either, implying merit on both sides of the issue. While a whole 'nuther can of worms, the M249 is a large part of the problem we have with keeping magazines functional. The real lesson at Wanat was that heavy support was too lacking and those guys had to rely on their guns in the first place, to be sure. And of course the comments suck; why do you think I posted the article here for discussion
"The magazines also play a monster role in the full auto jams."
I've never understood why no one ever designs these guns to have a rate-reducer that's driven by the magazine. All you'd have to do is lock the bolt momentarily, the have the rising round release it, and you could have the wimpiest mag spring in the world pushing through molasses --and the rounds would still strip.
"I can see why the AR has its fans too. It is lightweight, modular, ergonomic, low recoil, and bar none is the most accurate service rifle ever adopted by any country. In our short history on this planet, we Americans have established a reputation for accurate arms. Russians like simple and utilitarian. Germans like sophisticated and over engineered. Americans, we like our rifles to be accurate. Which is why every service arm we've adopted since 1903 has enjoyed a successful career as a target/competition rifle as well. Americans are willing to make sacrifices for accuracy. How much is the question..."
I think Americans are probably known for volume of fire more than accuracy (not that that isn't actually a smarter strategy). Come to think of it, our volume of
everything (tanks, bombs, ships, airplanes) has always been so far and away superior to what we opposed, that it scarcely mattered we had antiquated rifles or horrifically under-armored tanks to win battles with. We tend to have well made stuff, designed well, that may or may not be what we actually need at the time. The fact it isn't poorly made garbage makes it pretty darn accurate; the M1 Garand is operationally so similar to the AK/PSL it's hilarious to me, but the expensive forged/milled receiver contraption is so much nicer than the cast/stamped noodle on the AK and its rough-shod parts that we think it's the zenith of accurate design.
The Germans over-engineer stuff, but that is not the same as complication. They just distill everything into a neat, tight, efficient package that is difficult to duplicate
well. But they really haven't had kludge designs since WWII, when they were trying anything and everything in order to prop up the arms companies (that's my theory, anyway)
The Swiss, however, those are the kludge guys who are into accuracy
. Anything goes, so long as it makes the gun more expensive. A 14lb G3 that requires an 8ft man to operate and incredibly tight tolerances? Why not? Make your machinegun ammo accurate to less than 1MOA? Why not?
You're right about the Russians; all about utility. I think the majority of their success comes not from design or execution, but simply recognizing what is needed for a given problem. To supply and unite a vast armed empire, and support and influence regimes abroad, you don't need an accurate rifle, you don't even need a well-designed rifle (the AK is lacking in a number of places); you need a
cheap rifle, first and foremost. Secondarily important, it needs to work more often than not in the hands of idiots. Meet those criteria, and your 3rd world proxies have all they need.
Meanwhile, we were perfecting the art of high-end die forging and automated machining to make yet another revision to the weirdo pressurized-bolt rifle action seen nowhere else on the planet, that we could scarcely afford to pay for, ourselves
. American ingenuity made it work, but a lot of it has been required to get where we are, today.
TCB
