Cosmoline
Member
I make specific charges against the AR-15, and the AR lovers come back asking if I've ever served in the military. It's a non sequitur, boyo. And it's also a good sign you have LOST this argument!
That is not to say that the person that wasn't in the service's opinion isn't important, but when they tell me something can't be done, and someone that has the experience is saying 'I just did it', I think the second has a bit more credibility.
the M16 isn't nessisarily that kind but perhaps the US military isn't looking for the weapon you are looking for.
I know that some testing was done by NATO back when the 5.56x45 round was under consideration at the time, circa 1982. (I also remember that the usual suspects were included in such tests--the AUG, FNC, FAMAS, G41, M16A2, Galil, and others I cannot remember. I remember also reading that the M16A2 was the MOST RELIABLE of all tested at the time.)AZjeff, you're right. We do need to have some serious side-by-side torture testing ............ Has this ever been done?
The major cost for this type of test wouldn't be the test articles (the rifles). It would be the test set-ups. Such things as standardized sand, temperature chambers, humidity chambers, driving rain test fixtures, etc, cost a whole lot MORE than $15K to rent or buy for a comprehensive test like this.I volunteer to run this test if someone will give me $15,000 for the rifles