skidooman603 said:
Don't think you can blame a rifle for this
Other than it's lacking in areas that rifles like the Garand excel in? Like stopping power (oh thats right, Stopping Power is a myth to AR owners)? Or reliability? Or maybe it's just that the AR platform simply does not inspire a lot of confidence? Soldiers have been complaining about that rifle since Veitnam,
and well into today. No one doubted the M1 Garand's ability to put lead down range that would kill what it hit. No one doubted that it would fire.
How about we just look at the US Military's record from before and after the adoption of the AR/M16 platform eh?
Before the AR-15:
Revolutionary War - Won
War of 1812 - Ended on a Treaty
Civil War - Won (note I said "US Military", the Confederate Army thereby not being the US Army)
Spanish-American War - Won
Philippine–American War - Won
Mexican-American War - Won
World War I - Won
World War II - Won
Korean War - Ended in Truce
Since the AR-15:
Veitnam - Lost
Grenada - Won (if you can call that a War, but I got to give AR's something)
Gulf War - Ended with Sadam in power and left us one hell of a mess.
Afganistan - Still going after nearly nine years, twice as long as WWII.
Iraq - Ending with us pulling out and the Iraqis cheering for us to leave.
So thats six wins, two truce/treaty for prior to the AR.
That's one surefire loss, two long-ass wars which have had no victory so techincally losses, one loss on grounds that we didn't accomplish any long-term victory (Gulf War), and one win on a tiny island that had a mere three days of fighting!
With the AR we haven't seen victory. With the AR we have to make excuses and look for the dim light we call a bright side. And let me tell you something, the light? It's in a very large, very dark cave.