Ignoring the M4 vs. HK416 test will get you nowhere, sir. That occurred recently, under controlled conditions, and STILL showed the magazines as the weakest point in the M4. Of course, that won't cause you to tell the truth, will it?
As for the lame
Why not blame the real cause of the failures, the governements choice of gun powder, the lack of training on how to properly clean the weapon, and user error.
The original magazines were trash, and were quickly replaced. Since then, the follower design has been upgraded three times, the springs twice, and the mag bodies once more. The original furniture has been replaced, once just after issue commenced, as it was brittle, then again as the A1 and A2 variants. Sights were also changed almost immediately. The initial issues of M16 rifles had no forward assist, either. Then, the initial issue was recalled piece-meal to be replaced with chromed chambers and barrels. Even the flash-suppressor had to be replaced for use in jungle environments. Heck, even the buffer units were replaced quickly with better pieces.
Lack of training means what? The average grunt receives less than 12 hours of actual training in their introduction to the M16, with additional time devoted to hands-on evolutions. The soldiers in Vietnam, 45 years ago, were given poor ammunition, lousy instructions about cleaning, and sent out to work. User error? I can agree with that, NOBODY should have had to use that piece of trash at issue, and it was an error to do so. The system was not ready for prime-time issue, and, had it not been a political hot potato, it should have been recalled until the problems were corrected. Had the issue been handled properly, the M16 would have been re-issued by late 1969 in a combat ready form.
"Unlike you, how long somebody spent, or what medal they earned, doesn't entitle them to be considered experts on a weapons system to me."
You were the one who brought this up.
Really? Are you sure? Where did I respond about qualifications to state which weapons system were related to length of service, or combat time before:
A friend who served 6 tours in vietnam in the Marines and was a POW at one point in time loved the M-16, he is an avid gun collector, military historian, and retired marine recon. He told me the same thing my brother told me about the M-16 when he served in Vietnam, take care of it and it will take care of you. In fact I know several Vietnam vets (all professionals, former paratroopers, Marine infantryman, SF, and volunter Army infantryman) who loved the M-16 over any rifle they ever tried, and never saw a single problem that could not be traced back to laziness, or lack of maintance.
Please, try to remember who posted what before you embarrass yourself again.
Again, anyone who is actually going to state that the problems of the M16, and it's magazines were all the fault of poor training, error on the part of the operator, and careless maintenance, should grow up. The guns wear out, as do the magazines. neither you, nor anyone else can deny that, or the fact that some of these weapons are still in use. Only the naive can state that they should work.
Remember, no matter how much you, as an M16 apologist, might want to downplay the problems inherent in a system that has been changed so many times, and then mixed-and-matched by the system, only a fool denies their existence.
Once more, explain the Army tests, under controlled conditions, of the new M4, with new magazines, and the HK 416, and the resultant failures related to the magazines. Latest test, with the best magazines 50 years of R&D has provided the soldier. The numbers don't lie, only the apologists.
