DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Eat DT's Dust » M4 Comes in Last Place in Dust Test

M4 Comes in Last Place in Dust Test

FL_sandtest_072707.jpg

Well, the results are in…and it doesn’t look good for the M4 carbine.

You’ll remem­ber that Defense Tech and Military​.com were on top of the story of wor­ries over the M4’s reli­a­bil­ity in the dusty con­di­tions found in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn insisted the Army con­duct side-​​by-​​side test­ing between the M4, SCAR, 416 and XM8 in an “extreme” dust environment.

Well, the tests are com­plete and it seems the M4 came in dead last against its com­peti­tors. And, guess what…the Army’s not budg­ing. The M4 is still the best.

I’ll have the full story posted tomor­row morn­ing at Military​.com, but here’s a pre­view: Ten of each weapon; 6,000 rounds per weapon; 120 rounds fired per “dust cycle” (and when they say dust, they mean DUST…testers had to wear res­pi­ra­tors and Tyvec suits); wiped and light lube every 600 rounds, fully cleaned and lubed every 1,200 rounds.

XM8: 127 Class I, II and III stoppages.

Mk16 (5.56 SCAR): 226 Class I, II and III stoppages.

HK 416: 233 Class I, II, and III stoppages.

M4: 882 Class I, II and III stoppages.

Army top gear buyer, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown: “The M4 car­bine is a world-​​class weapon. Soldiers “have high con­fi­dence in that weapon, and that high con­fi­dence level is jus­ti­fied, in our view, as a result of all test data and all inves­ti­ga­tions we have made.”

An “in the know” con­gres­sional staffer: “These results are stun­ning, and frankly they are sig­nif­i­cantly more dra­matic than most weapons experts expected. It’s time to stop mak­ing excuses and just con­duct a com­pe­ti­tion for a new weapon.”

Be sure to check out the full story tomor­row morn­ing at Military​.com.

– Christian

Share |

December 17th, 2007 | Eat DT's Dust | 271636 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2007/12/17/m4-comes-in-last-place-in-dust-test/M4+Comes+in+Last+Place+in+Dust+Test2007-12-17+20%3A43%3A50Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Cyber Threat Matrix | …And Here’s the Rest of the M4 Story… » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Sam says:
    December 17, 2007 at 5:26 pm

    Hmm, inter­est­ing results, but noth­ing too out of the ordi­nary. I knew that the XM8 would do well, but to beat the poten­tial spe­cial forces weapons says a lot about the qual­ity of weapons that our forces are get­ting. The wiki arti­cle on the ACR pro­gram seemed like some of the weapons would have been a bet­ter fit for todays needs.
    http://​en​.wikipedia​.org/​w​i​k​i​/​A​d​v​a​n​c​e​d​_​C​o​m​b​a​t​_​R​i​fle

    Reply
  2. Simon says:
    December 17, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    Just for laughs, I’d like to have seen them run an AK-​​47 through the same tests. It’d be nice to know how reli­able (or not) your ene­mies weapon is com­pared to your own.
    Or per­haps it’d make them look bad?

    Reply
  3. Joe says:
    December 17, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    Engage an enemy at 300 meters with an AK.
    But I agree the M-​​4 is 50 year old tech­nol­ogy. Lot like using a Krag/​Jorgensen in WW2.

    Reply
  4. ohwilleke says:
    December 17, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    The great shame is that updat­ing the U.S. military’s car­bine is not expen­sive. Every sin­gle car­bine used in Iraq can be replaced for the cost of about 2 F-​​22/​F-​​35s or 1 Littoral Combat Ship. Also, real­is­ti­cally, the expen­di­ture would be spread across a few years.
    Better small arms won’t make American sol­diers faster than a speed­ing bul­let, able to leap tall build­ings in a sin­gle bound, or any­thing so dra­matic, but a mod­est price to upgrade some­thing used every day by more than a hun­dred thou­sand sol­diers in war zones, once every gen­er­a­tion or two, seems worth the price.
    If some­thing much bet­ter comes along a few years later, we can buy that then. The best is the enemy of the good.

    Reply
  5. Roy Smith says:
    December 17, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Off topic,somebody start a new thread about the F-​​22 & grounded F-​​15s please.I just watched a seg­ment on Fox News “Special Report” about the Navy ground­ing their P-​​3 Orions & the Air Force ground­ing their F-​​15s & then empha­sized the con­tro­versy over the Air Force using this to request more F-​​22s.
    On the sub­ject of M-​​4 rifles.I have to seri­ously ques­tion the patri­o­tism & loy­alty of the flag offi­cers & Pentagon civil­ians who refuse to give the best equip­ment to the troops.There is more than being bribed by Colt Arms involved in this.

    Reply
  6. Jack D. Ripper says:
    December 17, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Pretty nice for some­one who sits behind a desk to deter­mine that a near 7X in fail­ures is accept­able. Things like this anger me. We aren’t ask­ing for gold plated weapons. We’re ask­ing for weapons that work.

    Reply
  7. doc75 says:
    December 17, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    M-​​16/​M-​​4 fam­ily of weapons has been around for awhile. What’s keep­ing them from being replaced? Knowing the Army, some­one (prob­a­bly a logis­ti­cian) is con­cerned about try­ing to sup­port two wholly dif­fer­ent weapons in wartime to include train­ing, spares, etc. I say, Get over it!
    And speak­ing of the AK-​​47, the Russians don’t even use it any­more. Can we move on, too?

    Reply
  8. CE1371 says:
    December 17, 2007 at 7:22 pm

    I’ve been dis­gusted with this weapon since my intro­duc­tion to it in boot camp. A sig­nif­i­cant amount of my time con­duct­ing train­ing with this weapon has con­sisted of per­form­ing drills to clear the many expected stop­pages dur­ing com­bat. What makes it even worse is the cheap clean­ing agent we are given (CLP) which prob­a­bly does more harm than good, by attract­ing even more dirt and dust. This whole sub­ject sick­ens me.

    Reply
  9. Mang says:
    December 17, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    Also, I won­der how much noise this is going to make in the national media. Body armor and vehi­cle armor was cer­tainly a big issue in the runup to the last elec­tion. Democrats ham­mered the admin­is­tra­tion with it.
    But they can’t really hit Bush with this again, because he’s already a lame duck with no cred­i­bil­ity. And the Republican party can­di­dates are dis­tanc­ing them­selves from him as much as they can. Will the Democrats adopt this M4 rifle thing, with every­thing it says about cor­po­rate patron­age and the Pentagon wast­ing money? Will it be a bipar­ti­san issue (after all, it was a Republican’s pet project)? Will the only peo­ple who care be a few Republicans?
    Or will any­one care at all? Aside from the mil­i­tary itself.

    Reply
  10. ExurbanKevin says:
    December 17, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    This is espe­cially funny (as in pathet­i­cally funny) given the fact that the Army had to be dragged kick­ing and scream­ing into adopt­ing the M-​​16/​M-​​4. And now they cant let it go.
    Assuming they get some sense knocked into them, can we please look at the effec­tive­ness of 5.56mm vs. 6.8mm next?
    Some of our tra­di­tions are deadly to the ene­mies sol­diers, and some are deadly to ours.

    Reply
  11. Camp says:
    December 17, 2007 at 9:30 pm

    Wouldn’t it be funny if Moms, Dads, & Soldiers said, “FTA, we’re buy­ing XM8s for those deploy­ing”.
    I truly hope the Brig.Gen. has solid data to put forth, in order to back up a state­ment like that. If he doesn’t, then Brig.Gen. is a rank/​responsibility that he should not bear. For too many young lives are at stake with issues, such as this.

    Reply
  12. Sam Adams says:
    December 17, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    We may need a new weapon, but the imme­di­ate action is to stop buy­ing M4s, start buy­ing com­plete 416s instead. Also start buy­ing 416 uppers and refurb all low­ers to the 416 spec. That is assum­ing this is a rel­e­vant test, and wasn

    Reply
  13. Sam Adams says:
    December 17, 2007 at 10:02 pm

    Plus, the Army et. al. can sell the old uppers through the CMP, and if Heller VS DC goes the right way, they could just sell the whole M4 to us civies.

    Reply
  14. Thag says:
    December 18, 2007 at 12:28 am

    Can we also see the M16A2/​A4 tested under the same conditions?

    Reply
  15. Roy Smith says:
    December 18, 2007 at 2:16 am

    Maybe the Pentagon doesn’t trust their troops to shoot at the enemy only.Maybe they are afraid of increased “frag­ging” inci­dents if the troops get reli­able weapons​.In other words,the Pentagon has “trust issues” with the men & women serv­ing in the Armed Forces.I’m not advo­cated or say­ing that the men & women harm their leaders.I’m just say­ing that maybe the Pentagon is so para­noid & distrusting,that they would delib­er­ately give s**tty weapons to their own troops.

    Reply
  16. Wren Mandagorn says:
    December 18, 2007 at 3:09 am

    I had the plea­sure of test­ing the XM8 last year here in the UK. It was one of a num­ber of weapons being tested by the Royal Marines as part of the UK’s plans to replace the SA-​​80 by 2014.
    I found it to be an excel­lent weapon, and hav­ing fired the other weapons in the test you men­tion, it’s prob­a­bly the best of the 4 on the list.
    However hav­ing said that both the XM8 and Mk 16 are only pro­to­type weapons only a small num­ber of each have been pro­duced. Whereas the M4 and HK 416 are pro­duc­tion weapons, and as we all know, indeed as his­tory has taught us, pro­to­types are ALWAYS more reli­able than the final pro­duc­tion ver­sion.
    So scrap the M4 replace it with th HK 416 for the time being and get on with devel­op­ing the XM8, Mk 16 and other weapons for the future.

    Reply
  17. Big Daddy says:
    December 18, 2007 at 3:18 am

    No sur­prise with that test. Why didn’t they test the other mod­els avail­able, built here and designed here in the USA. The POF ver­sion and the Masada.
    We also need a new round to defeat poten­tial future threats. Soon every­body will be using body armor and we need a more pow­er­ful round that is some­where between the 5.56 and 7.62. We already have them in the 6.8mm and the 6.5mm. The 6.8mm can be used with the same bolt and mag­a­zine in an M4/​M16 based weapon, same lower and upper receiver too, basi­cally it just needs a new bar­rel.
    Our Armed Forces pro­cure­ment nabobs do it again. Research their his­tory going back to the civil war and you will see the most incom­pe­tent Army bureau­cracy at work. How many sol­diers lives we could have saved all those years and all those wars?
    This is the side of our coun­try I am ashamed of.

    Reply
  18. Solomon says:
    December 18, 2007 at 4:52 am

    This is just not my week here. I’m agree­ing with that General but for dif­fer­ent rea­sons. The M4 was ini­tially sup­pose to be a Personal Defense Weapon for vehicle/​certain air­crew, Officer’s and SNCO’s and finally as a close quar­ters weapon for Special Forces. To com­pare it to full size bat­tle rifles is not doing the M4 jus­tice. As far as the bitch­ing about clean­ing weapons, well thats been going on since the days of the Romans. I’m sure some Roman sol­dier bitched about sharp­en­ing his sword con­stantly. Also Soldiers and Marines buy the lat­est snug­gle gear, Ipods and have lap tops in Iraq so spend­ing a lit­tle per­sonal money (or bet­ter yet have some enlight­ened SNCO request it come from unit funds) to get one of the prod­ucts on the mar­ket that make CLP look as pre­his­toric as it is-​​is not beyond rea­son. The pro­cure­ment branches haven’t shined with glory but I do believe that the stuff com­ing out of Infantry Boards of the Army and Marines are light years ahead of what was being issued even 5 years ago. I just don’t believe that this is an issue they’ve failed on. If the M4 is sub­stan­dard then revert back to the M-16A4…and wait for the next gen­er­a­tional advance­ment before we do an Air Force and cry for some­thing that we really don’t need.

    Reply
  19. Roy Smith says:
    December 18, 2007 at 7:37 am

    I agree with who­ever men­tioned the Masada as a replace­ment weapon.I really do not under­stand what makes the M-16,or its variations,the “great­est weapon of all time.” Sure the AK-​​47 was made for expend­able illit­er­ate throw­away soldiers,but it did develop a well deserved rep​u​ta​tion​.As far as the Russians not using it anymore.They are still using a vari­a­tion of the AK-47,just like we are with the M-​​4 being a vari­a­tion of the M-16.I bet the rifles that the Russians are using today still causes your trig­ger fin­ger to lose all feel­ing when you fire auto­matic just like the AK-​​47 does.I also bet that the Russians still “pray & spray” with their cur­rent rifles just like they did with the AK-47.The XM8 looks too bulky & too much like a “phaser” rifle out of Star Trek or a ray gun out of any other SciFi movie.

    Reply
  20. Roy Smith says:
    December 18, 2007 at 7:47 am

    All of our mil­i­tary equip­ment is falling apart.We are declin­ing & falling like the Roman Empire & the Soviet Empire.The Navy has had to ground most of their P-​​3C Orions.WE already know about the F-​​15s & our hav­ing to ask the Canadians to cover the air for us in their F/A-18A(CF-188) “Not a Super Hornet” jet fighters.I’m telling you that the day is com­ing where Mexico will have the strongest armed forces in North America by default​.BY DEFAULT,because we pissed away our mil­i­tary edge all the while talk­ing about the brand new high tech “super­weapons” com­ing down the ever elu­sive pike.

    Reply
  21. rix says:
    December 18, 2007 at 8:32 am

    I would be curi­ous to know how the new Israeli Tavor would stack up. A bit more ori­ented to CCQ but might be an inter­est­ing to see what the com­pe­ti­tion might do if opened up to new chal­lengers.
    Shocking to me that the M4 is so bad rel­a­tive to oth­ers. This isn’t rocket sci­ence– most of the tech­nol­ogy is pretty much 50 years old now.

    Reply
  22. Lugo says:
    December 18, 2007 at 8:46 am

    Congratulations to Roy Smith for his series of what are the most spec­tac­u­larly stu­pid com­ments I have yet to see on this site. His com­ments here have been abysmal even by the extremely low stan­dard of com­par­i­son with his other inane com­ments regard­ing other sto­ries! You go, Roy.

    Reply
  23. Mang says:
    December 18, 2007 at 8:55 am

    Fact: the “POF” rifle and the Masada are going nowhere. They will be pur­chased mainly by civil­ian enthu­si­asts.
    A lot of half-​​baked obser­va­tions are con­stantly made by peo­ple who like guns. It’s the same with foot­ball fans.

    Reply
  24. Mang says:
    December 18, 2007 at 6:07 pm

    (includ­ing me)

    Reply
  25. Mike says:
    December 19, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Forget about the short­com­ings of the AR sys­tem and cur­rent 5.56 cal­iber but the sheer fact that the ser­vices are switch­ing to even a lesser lethal rifle (M4) car­bine than the full M16A2/​4 rifle is pathetic. The car­bine as a lower lethal range (tum­bling) due to the shorter length bar­rel and veloc­ity.
    And I agree with one of the pre­vi­ous posters in why is that the ser­vice can­not look to a domes­tic solu­tion (Robinson Arms XCR for exam­ple) because their get­ting greased by HK and FAL that’s why.

    Reply
  26. duffy says:
    December 22, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    Way back in 1890 or so,our future think­ing Govt.
    armourors,stated that our troops don’t need a rifle hold­ing more than 1 rnd. Then in 2 years,decided that we’d go with an infe­rior rifle used by Denmark.Still cling­ing to the “One” shot idea and hold four in reserve . Our old 30 US. Krag. Meanwile Most of the worlds armies were using a proven Mauser design that blew our troops away in Cuba.Only in the 1930’s did Uncle Sam make a ‘mis­take’ and arm our guys with one of the best rifles ever, The Garand. IT too was shunned by the bolt action crowd.
    We need some­one in our coun­try to quit cow-​​towing to these “Fat Gen’s on the take” and get rid of them with NO pen­sion. We need a new shoul­der weapon– NOW!

    Reply
  27. SGTPPR says:
    January 2, 2008 at 10:49 pm

    How about this?
    Let mar­ket decide which 5.56mm NATO stan­dard rifle is good. Give to sol­ders 900$ allowance to buy shoul­der arms of their choice (can be 416, SCAR, G-​​36, Styer, Tavor,SIG etc)
    I think their live are worth more, than pity 800 bucks. Also let them have Dragon skin vest (

    Reply
  28. Devin says:
    March 27, 2008 at 8:15 pm

    First of all, who­ever keeps say­ing the Russians don’t use an AK is dead wrong. Their cur­rent stan­dard weapon is the AK-​​74, an AK-​​47 in 5.45mm. Second, to that guy who said that sol­diers should be given $900 for a per­sonal 5.56mm weapon, as in the G-​​36, Steyr AUG, SIG 551, etc. obvi­ously dosn’t know all that much abotu the pric­ing of guns. Even the civil­ian semi-​​auto vari­ants of these guns can’t be had for that price. With $900, sol­diers could at best afford a semi-​​auto M-​​4 with absolutely no acce­sories. That solves noth­ing. That being said, this is absolute B.S. that the mil­i­tary is stuck with these P.O.S’s. The DOD wouldnt even have to buy a new gun, just get the HK 416 upper and throw it on an M-​​4 lower. It would work a hell of a lot bet­ter then the M-​​4. Maybe thats why sev­eral SF units arre latch­ing onto the 416, because it works!! And to who­ever was ques­tion­ing how an AK would stack up against an M-​​4 reli­a­bil­ity wise, I have put thou­sands of rounds through my cheap ass Romanian AK. I occa­sion­ally clean it with a few patches down the bar­rel, but not reg­u­larly. This weapon has yet to jam on me once! In a reli­a­bil­ity test, I would wager on an AK over vir­tu­ally any other assault rifle. This is the reli­a­bil­ity we need in the sands of Iraq.

    Reply
  29. Cavscout says:
    October 3, 2008 at 12:37 am

    How about this folks? Lets get the hell away from the poodle-​​shooter .556X45 cal­iber round that we all know (those of us who have had to use it in com­bat) is inef­fec­tive as a fight­ing round to start with. Next lets have a com­pe­ti­tion for a new pis­ton dri­ven rifle of 6.8mm cal­iber @ the LEAST. The sons-​​of-​​bitches who send us and our chil­dren into harms way car­ry­ing the cur­rent weapon are no bet­ter than those whom we oppose. There are 3 very capa­ble com­mer­cial cal­ibers avail­able that would do the job very well. 6.8Rem SPC, .7.62X51(.308Win), and, ready for this?… 6mm(.243Win).
    Now before you start scream­ing I’m nuts just think about it for a moment. The .308 win is a proven com­bat round in use in our cur­rent GPMG and sniper modes. I know, too much recoil and ammo to heavy for mamma’s lit­tle dar­lins’. If thats the case then you don’t belong in uni­form.
    6.8 SPC. Meets all require­ments for a com­bat effec­tive round, 80% of the .308Win strength with half the recoil and alot lighter to tote. NOW. the .243Win or, 6mm. Here we have a missed round that is per­fect for com­bat use. It is a .308Win case necked down to take a 6mm bul­let. The 6mm bul­let is one of the most bal­lis­ti­caly effi­cient rounds on the planet, not to men­tion it has a great sec­tional den­sity which equals excep­tional killing power. Recoil is hardly more than the cur­rent .556 poo­dle shooter that is in cur­rent ser­vice and weight is not a fac­tor as far as car­ry­ing a stan­dard com­bat load. With an 100 grain bul­let @ 3000FPS it is also effec­tive out to 1000 yards in com­pe­tent hands. It’s time for a sec­re­tary of defense with some balls to do like mac­na­mara did with the M-​​16. Just tell the ord­nance depart­ment “you will field this rifle in this cal­iber and thats that” Betcha it’ll never hap­pen. Those in power just don’t care, and I do mean the Military Brass as well as the Politicians. None are inno­cent.
    ScoutOut

    Reply
  30. rlp says:
    December 12, 2008 at 1:06 pm

    Actually the Ruskies are on the AK-​​10x series now. And they’re reli­able AND accu­rate. Not to men­tion the bet­ter bal­lis­tics of the 7.62x39.

    Reply
  31. bob says:
    October 13, 2009 at 11:58 am

    It is rare to have a ‘for­ward thinker’ buy­ing rifles for the USA.
    That goes back to the civil war, and before.
    “Why would any­one need a repeat­ing rifle? muz­zle­load­ers are fine.“
    And when they pick a rifle, they must be cheer­lead­ers for it.
    But, that said, very lit­tle changes fast. On this level.
    bob

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      Liberals just slay me… The liberal news...
      Cannon Fodder
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      It is quite an experience to see fat bellied old men shooting...
      Zandor
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      This is for Sam and Duality. It appears that you both are Muslim....
      Cannon Fodder
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I wonder if anyone noticed: This attack happened right after...
      freefallingbomb
    • Keep it Simple
      To the poster "Zandor" : You wrote: "Your last post...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      Part III : You wrote: "These airbags are made similarly, so the...
      freefallingbomb
    • Airbag Defense
      To the educated guesser: Part I : …………...
      freefallingbomb
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      Only two companies in the world are...
      Frank Hols
    • Adapting Women to Subs
      Dear Designer; It is somewhat strange that the German Armed forces...
      Zandor
    • Special Forces Say ‘No’ to M4 Barrel
      The first priority is to get a reliable...
      Brian
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage