“I didn’t think twice. I jumped out of the hummer and did what had to be done. I ran under fire until I reached Netanel [Yahalomi], but when I saw his condition, I told my commander there was nothing we could do to save him and we must move on.” That’s the account “Corporal S.,” a member of the IDF’s Caracal battalion, gives of a recent attack by terrorists along the Israeli/Egyptian border. “After Yahalomi was killed, S. managed to kill one of the terrorists who was carrying powerful explosives. ‘One of the terrorists exploded right in front of us,’ she said. S. then managed to make her way to one of the injured soldiers Mati Yalovski. ‘I told him to stay strong and most importantly stay awake.’ While S. is described as a sniper, it appears she handles that IWI Tavor pretty well, too. Sure, they look good with rifles slung over their shoulders in their bikinis at the beach, but piss them off and you’ll get a whole different view.

50 Responses to Protip: Don’t Piss off An IDF Infantrywoman

  1. Hey, what do you know…..

    women are people too!

    Gee, who wudda thunk it…..

    A woman in one of the best armies in the world could follow her training, kick ass and don’t bother to take names, as well as carry her rig with her to beach to catch some well deserved rays for putting a few rabid-inbred-women-beating-muslim-pedophiles in their proper place….hell.

    This is the “WIN”story of the day, I hope.

    Too bad you guys did not finish the story of the engagement.
    I hope she made it out O.K. with the rest of her squad.

  2. Just to let you know I’ve talked to a bunch of guys about the Tavor and got a list of likes. It feels comfortable to hold, but I doubt I’ll be getting trigger time.

  3. That is some crazy stuff right there. Israel puts up with a lot of crap.
    If the USA had to deal with neighbors like this we would bomb them back to the Stone Age before breakfast.

  4. Good for the female sniper! Seems like she did a great job. However, not all the Israeli infantry women did their duty.

    from the link:

    “Soldier who killed terrorist recounts events leading to attack on Egyptian border; says ‘I did what had to be done.’ Meanwhile, it has been revealed that another female soldier hid behind bush during incident, was feared to have been kidnapped

    Meanwhile, as the investigation continues, the IDF has learned that not all soldiers followed protocol during the incident: One of the soldiers, who was afraid of facing the terrorists, hid behind a bush throughout the attack and stayed there even after it ended.

    While other soldiers were under fire, the soldier in question hid behind a large bush for an hour and a half.

    The soldier was reprimanded by her commanders shortly after.

    An initial military investigation launched into the incident reveals that the terrorists took advantage of the arrival of African infiltrators and the fact that IDF soldiers left their post to offer them water.”

    — Reprimanded? That is all? Would a male soldier have gotten off so easy?

      • Remember Israel is a very small country.
        Everyone knows everybody.
        This goes not just on her record but with her reputation.
        She will never get any post of profit or trust in the government or private sector.

    • Well it’s not America. Reprimanded means something different without the huge political correctness burden we carry here. And famously take Gen’l Patton’s example of dressing down the scared soldier, clearly American’s don’t accept excesses in ‘reprimanding’ soldiers.

      Israel has allowed female soldiers for quite some time, they seem to have their shit buttoned down. Until I know what ‘reprimanded’ means in the IDF, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

    • From what I have heard her fellow troops are standing by her and offering her support. Not saying running and hiding is what we do, but she reacted. I have a feeling she will quietly transfer to a non combat unit. As for Corporal S. She met with Benny, who is head of the military. He was a guest at my wedding of my first wife as well, and a nice guy. I am sure Mrs. S. will get a pin and a promotion. Maybe she can work with Mikey. He ran the sniper school near Jerusalem when I was there, and now think runs the new weapons development program. He did the vetting on the Tevor.
      Check him out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5Z5e8CUUM
      He doesn’t have a southern drawl anymore but he is from Texas.

    • I’ve known men to fold under the pressure of being under fire. It happens and from one time to the next you never know who will stand and who will crack.

      My biggest concern about female soldiers if I had to serve today is simple. When I served I was six foot one and weighed 190 pounds. If I got hurt and needed to be carried could a slight built woman do the job. A couple of my buddies topped out at 140 to 150 and I had reservations about their ability to carry me out if it became needed.

      • jwm, there were small guys in my company that would have had problems getting the bigger guys out. When the US Army was drafting us it didn’t seem to matter what size we were.

      • Well while I was in Sheked we did cross training drills with the newly forming female groups, back on 2004. They might not have all the exact same strength as us heavier guys, but that didn’t stop them from tossing my 190 lbs butt onto a stretcher and hauling on down the road.
        More importantly usually when we get to a wounded soldier unless under a rare circumstance any move is short to cover and evaluate the injuries. Compression bandages, and if they can walk great, if not, then make a plan to move where you don’t wind up getting both shot.
        In most cases the longest someone had to move a downed comrade is 30 maybe 40 feet. You have to remember the hardest areas we dealt with were all urban environments. This was rare in that it was in open territory. Not what we have been dealing with over the past decade.
        Also to note, Corporal S. was not with the initial group, she and her commander responded after hearing it on the radio. So help is never far to off, under most cases.
        The girls that do volunteer to go into a fighting group know full well ahead of time the expectations. No one is easy on them, not by a long shot. In many cases we were harder on them, but it was to try and make sure they knew what they were in for. Course we all went out for beers on the weekend and the training craziness goes away.
        That was some of the nicest parts of being there. You make friends outside the army, and hang out off duty. You have a strong bond so when TSHTF you all rely on each other.

        • Oh noes, think of the women. I’m not sure if you noticed but men get raped too. That ambassador who was recently killed was raped. If you want to use the broader term of sexual assault, look at what happened to all the men at Abu Grahib.

      • I imagine the adrenaline dump that goes along with combat would also give them strength they might not show in normal situations (if military training can be considered “normal”).

    • Combat is scary. Deal with it.

      True, not everyone can handle combat. Soldiers who can’t still need to be held accountable for freezing up as an example to others who do not fulfill their duty and fail to support their fellow soldiers. If a male soldier had frozen up would the other soldiers have stood by him and offered support? Or would they have held him in disdain for cowardice, being focused on himself, and not supporting them? Women are held to a lower and easier standard in Judeo-Christian cultures and are not nearly held to the same standards of accountability. It is sometimes called the puzzie-pass. Either way, the female soldier was a volunteer for a combat unit. Along with the glory and bragging rights goes the responsibility and the risk. It was typical of the media to glorify the female sniper as a great warrior (“see guys, we can do it too just like you!”) in an article that reported the female hidden-bush soldier.

      Some soldiers left their post and as a result they all got hit hard. I wonder, if the unit had been all male, if they would have left their post to give water to the Africans or did the presence of the females and their group influence cause it to occur in the manner that it did.

      • Women are held to a lower and easier standard in Judeo-Christian cultures and are not nearly held to the same standards of accountability.

        Look at Bin Laden’s wife, she decided to be a human shield.

        • The issue is of course about people being held equally accountable for their actions regardless of sex. In the West, modern women have not just equal opportunities they get preferential treatment. Yet, women are held to less of an accountability standard than men. America does not have a rraappee culture. However, America does have a false rraappee allegation culture. How often do you read about those false accusers being punished for messing up a man’s life, filing a false police report, and lying in court? Almost never. Usually only when the accused was a police officer.

  5. Don’t piss them off because they’re carrying a Tavor.

    A rifle the Israeli’s designed to replace Stoner’s failure-prone-in-any-combat-scenario-especially-sand M-whatever because they couldn’t tolerate it malfunctioning anymore. Go ahead, ask them…

    • not remotely true.

      Israel has been taking measures to become more self sufficient. another combat rifle is one of many steps.

      The Galil wasn’t as well received as the M16 and M4 in IDF service. the IDF saw it fit to supplement and replace both with their own weapon design.

      The M4/M16 is plenty reliable.

      • You might want to do some reading on that one. The M16/4 whateva routinely places at the bottom of tests done by the DoD. Especially the M4. Here’s just one of the dozens of articles – though I doubt you’ll see them on AR15.com…

        http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

        The Tavor was developed to replace the M4 simply because the M4 isn’t reliable enough for the Israelis. They fix lots of the crap weapon systems coming out of the political boondoggle that is our procurement process. IDF considered retrofitting a gas upper (which is how you fix any of the Stoner M-guns so that it functions reliably) but that leaves the next step of making an M4 a useful CQB weapon. More money and still not as effective as a bull-pup in an urban theatre.

        Israel is a nasty desert environment, not an indoor range or the back 40 where an M/AR will probably do just fine. But I would never trust my life to an AR if there was just about any other battle rifle to be had.

        • “You might want to do some reading on that one.”

          From where? the internet? ill bite for now.

          “The M16/4 whateva routinely places at the bottom of tests done by the DoD. Especially the M4. Here’s just one of the dozens of articles – though I doubt you’ll see them on AR15.com…”

          AR15.com? i wouldnt know. And those tests? everybody knows the 2007 dust tests between the M4, HK416, XM8, and and SCAR were deeply flawed. Its interesting how your link did nothing to highlight the M4 as a unreliable and troublesome weapon. Of course soldiers have been killed because their weapons jam; it hasn’t only been occurring with the M4 and M16. That is a emotional argument.

          Here’s one for ya http://www.defensereview.com/an-operators-view-of-m4m4a1-carbine-and-ar-15-carbine-malfunctions/

          and another, http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-part-ii-diagnosing-the-root-cause/

          and another http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/

          and its obvious you havent ever heard of the BCM rifle “Filthy 14”.

          “The Tavor was developed to replace the M4 simply because the M4 isn’t reliable enough for the Israelis.”

          If that was true then the M4 and M16 would be completely withdrawn from service. It hasn’t been yet and wont be completely until another number of years.

          “They fix lots of the crap weapon systems coming out of the political boondoggle that is our procurement process. IDF considered retrofitting a gas upper (which is how you fix any of the Stoner M-guns so that it functions reliably) but that leaves the next step of making an M4 a useful CQB weapon. More money and still not as effective as a bull-pup in an urban theatre.”

          Bullpups are a ergonomic mess. I would rather have a Mk 18 or 416C loaded with Mk 318 cartridges than a bullpup just because of my familiarity with it. Other soldiers would agree. If bullpups were so great then they would be replacing conventional layout rifles in droves. gee, that doesnt seem to be the case.

          “Israel is a nasty desert environment, not an indoor range or the back 40 where an M/AR will probably do just fine. But I would never trust my life to an AR if there was just about any other battle rifle to be had.”

          Yes and M4’s perform just fine in afghanistan and iraq if they’re properly maintained and their spare parts replaced at the proper intervals. Any weapon that is needlessly neglected will be unreliable.

          Its a interesting thing that despite SCAR rifles being purchased by SOCOM, many of those aforementioned units still mostly operate with M4s with the SOPMOD II package.

        • The IDF retrofits everything. Their apaches, f-16s. They tweek it all so it works better. The Markava is something that was developed out of nessecity. In fact it is still in development in the field.

      • “From where? the internet? ill bite for now.”

        Well that’s the easiest place to read reports from the people at Aberdeen who do the tests, as well as other vetted sources, but if you prefer the library, up to you.

        “AR15.com? i wouldnt know. And those tests? everybody knows the 2007 dust tests between the M4, HK416, XM8, and and SCAR were deeply flawed. Its interesting how your link did nothing to highlight the M4 as a unreliable and troublesome weapon. Of course soldiers have been killed because their weapons jam; it hasn’t only been occurring with the M4 and M16. That is a emotional argument.”

        Fair enough, the AR15.com thing is a humor device nothing more. The ‘deeply flawed’ tests are the ones where the Army cherry picks the data to make the M look better than it is, and it still places last after brass arbitrarily tosses out half the misfires and jams.

        “Here’s one for ya http://www.defensereview.com/an-operators-view-of-m4m4a1-carbine-and-ar-15-carbine-malfunctions/

        and another, http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-part-ii-diagnosing-the-root-cause/

        and another http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/

        I read those just like the other excuse fests – blame operators for not having a showroom cleaned battle rifle and armorers for not constantly replacing enough parts. Is that really what you want troops to worry about on a 16 hour patrol? Cleaning their rifle?

        As many have said, “Shoots fine clean. But it also need to shoot dirty.”

        “and its obvious you havent ever heard of the BCM rifle “Filthy 14″.

        There’s always one guy that runs an amazing reliability test. Regardless, not done with a combat issue rifle, simulating a combat environment. Done at a range where it was lubed more than more than a cheap hooker. “Biohazard” as they said jokingly. Which you could never do in the sandbox. So while neat, rather irrelevant.

        “If that was true then the M4 and M16 would be completely withdrawn from service. It hasn’t been yet and wont be completely until another number of years.”

        They are being phased out by IDF as quickly as possible. At least according to IDF. It takes time and costs money to change battle rifles. This has been a decade long program. Money. That’s the reason our troops still carry it. There’s a big pile tied up in training, spare parts, armorer training, tools, storage, accessories, etc.

        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-phasing-out-uzi-and-m-16-in-favor-of-tavor-assault-rifle-1.96813

        Bullpups are a ergonomic mess. I would rather have a Mk 18 or 416C loaded with Mk 318 cartridges than a bullpup just because of my familiarity with it. Other soldiers would agree. If bullpups were so great then they would be replacing conventional layout rifles in droves. gee, that doesnt seem to be the case.

        That you don’t like bullpups is certainly your personal choice. Completely understandable. Especially if you’ve been on Ms for decades. For anything resembling CQB, bullpups are taking over. As to the rest, well we flooded the markets with cheap Ms to counter-act the Soviets and Chinese flooding the other markets with cheap AKs.
        BTW – The 416 is how you correct the Ms direct impingement design defect.

        Yes and M4′s perform just fine in afghanistan and iraq if they’re properly maintained and their spare parts replaced at the proper intervals. Any weapon that is needlessly neglected will be unreliable.

        Any infantry rifle that needs anything more than ammo and maybe a wipeoff during a multi-day patrol is a liability. That’s not neglect, that’s battlefield conditions. I wouldn’t take an old Ferrari out on a patrol. That’s where the the M fails in basic premise – if everybody says you” just have to constantly maintain it”, the real question is, why such a maint intensive rifle?

        Its a interesting thing that despite SCAR rifles being purchased by SOCOM, many of those aforementioned units still mostly operate with M4s with the SOPMOD II package.
        Last I read, they cancelled the SCAR-L buys 2 years ago, replacing with funding for SCAR-H (7.62×51). Insignificant in any case. Also, AFAIK they upgraded all the M4 to HK416s back in 2005- which addresses the inherent design defects of the M series rifles. Since it has a piston instead of direct gas impingement, the parts last longer, far less prone to dust malfunctions, and the parts last longer since they’re not constantly bathed in combustion byproducts.

        I understand people are heavily invested in the ARs. You dig it? Cool. It’ll be fine for anything most of us will ever do with it stateside.

        • “Well that’s the easiest place to read reports from the people at Aberdeen who do the tests, as well as other vetted sources, but if you prefer the library, up to you.”

          Like I said before, Ill bite with the internet. As I have pointed out, there is a mountain of evidence that perhaps the M4 is a acceptable weapon after all and that its “unreliability” is over-exaggerated myth.

          “Fair enough, the AR15.com thing is a humor device nothing more. The ‘deeply flawed’ tests are the ones where the Army cherry picks the data to make the M look better than it is, and it still places last after brass arbitrarily tosses out half the misfires and jams.”

          You mean the data from 10th Special Forces Group at Fort Carson that compared the HK416 to the Mk 18 and found the Mk 18 to be more mechanically reliable?

          Im sure that was cherry picked too LOL.

          “I read those just like the other excuse fests – blame operators for not having a showroom cleaned battle rifle and armorers for not constantly replacing enough parts. Is that really what you want troops to worry about on a 16 hour patrol? Cleaning their rifle?”

          Sorry but if you read the accomplishments of those posting those articles, you would think twice before you used the stupid set of words like “excuse fest”.

          It is the armorer’s and operator’s fault that any weapon doesnt work. blaming the gun is a pathetic excuse used by untrained amateurs. Blaming the gun will get you either chewed out or laughed at during the course of any professional training course.

          After a 16 hour patrol, soldiers in other armies with other weapons besides M4s DO clean their rifles. They clean 416s. SCARs. AKs. and many, many other designs just the same. The Soviets covered up their AK74s in Afghanistan to keep them from malfunctioning. Weapons maintenance is part of being a warrior, even after 16 hour patrols (more excuses).

          “There’s always one guy that runs an amazing reliability test. Regardless, not done with a combat issue rifle, simulating a combat environment. Done at a range where it was lubed more than more than a cheap hooker. “Biohazard” as they said jokingly. Which you could never do in the sandbox. So while neat, rather irrelevant.”

          The test was relevant because it effectively debunked the AR15s are not reliable myth. It demonstrated how reliable they can be made when they are properly lubricated and have had their parts replaced at the proper intervals. Btw, ARs are supposed to be “lubed” more than a cheap hooker. Any weapon that operates frequently requires the same thing.

          “They are being phased out by IDF as quickly as possible. At least according to IDF. It takes time and costs money to change battle rifles. This has been a decade long program. Money. That’s the reason our troops still carry it. There’s a big pile tied up in training, spare parts, armorer training, tools, storage, accessories, etc.”

          Money is the big reason. There is no platform out there that is a measurable improvement over the M4 to warrant the billions it would take to change calibers, training manuals, and troop training itself.

          “That you don’t like bullpups is certainly your personal choice. Completely understandable. Especially if you’ve been on Ms for decades. For anything resembling CQB, bullpups are taking over. As to the rest, well we flooded the markets with cheap Ms to counter-act the Soviets and Chinese flooding the other markets with cheap AKs.
          BTW – The 416 is how you correct the Ms direct impingement design defect.”

          bullpups are not superseding conventional layout rifles in CQB or any other role. get that idea out of your head. Its interesting how China has the QBZ95, but they are reintroducing the conventional QBZ03 to units because the bullpup is rather disliked. The next generation of rifles will be mostly conventional layout.

          “Any infantry rifle that needs anything more than ammo and maybe a wipeoff during a multi-day patrol is a liability. That’s not neglect, that’s battlefield conditions.”

          A M4 does just need a wipeoff and proper lubrication after a multi-day patrol. I have given you sufficient evidence for this fact.

          “I wouldn’t take an old Ferrari out on a patrol. That’s where the the M fails in basic premise – if everybody says you” just have to constantly maintain it”, the real question is, why such a maint intensive rifle?”

          Its not a maintenance intensive rifle and you dont have to constantly maintain it. I already showed this to you.

          “Last I read, they cancelled the SCAR-L buys 2 years ago, replacing with funding for SCAR-H (7.62×51). ”

          No. they didn’t “cancel” the SCAR L. individual SOCOM services can and do purchase “L” rifles (such as the Navy). the remainder of the funding was used to go towards the Objective SCAR program, which was to yield a more flexible weapon system using the SCAR H platform.

          “Insignificant in any case. Also, AFAIK they upgraded all the M4 to HK416s back in 2005- which addresses the inherent design defects of the M series rifles.”

          No they didnt. the 416 is used in limited numbers by certain DOD agencies, DEVGRU, and Delta Force, though many operators in those units still use the Mk 18 and M4 in many instances.

          The 416 is not measurably more reliable, though it is superior in maritime environments and perhaps with a suppressor.

          “Since it has a piston instead of direct gas impingement, the parts last longer, far less prone to dust malfunctions, and the parts last longer since they’re not constantly bathed in combustion byproducts.”

          That is true to a extent. It is especially useful with a suppressor. the 416 is a fine weapon. Though i believe the SCAR is far superior because it was designed for a gas piston from the ground up rather than being a retrofitted weapon.

          “I understand people are heavily invested in the ARs. You dig it? Cool. It’ll be fine for anything most of us will ever do with it stateside.”

          Im not invested in any gun. I fire a variety of other weapons besides the AR15. I just dont appreciate myth being spread around like a group of monkeys throwing shit.

        • Like I said before, Ill bite with the internet. As I have pointed out, there is a mountain of evidence that perhaps the M4 is a acceptable weapon after all and that its “unreliability” is over-exaggerated myth.

          Sooo, lemme get this straight. The source and quality of the data doesn’t matter, it’ the delivery device that makes it credible. Anything off the net from Aberdeen, DoD or anything else is suspect because it slays your beloved mythology. Got it.

          You mean the data from 10th Special Forces Group at Fort Carson that compared the HK416 to the Mk 18 and found the Mk 18 to be more mechanically reliable?

          Im sure that was cherry picked too LOL.

          Haven’t read that particular test. I’ll look it up. In every other test the 416 reigns supreme. I guess they’re idiots at SOCOM for going 416 when they can do whatever they want. Here’s one of the dozens of articles about how data is cherry picked

          http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/12/army_M4numbers_071227w/

          Sorry but if you read the accomplishments of those posting those articles, you would think twice before you used the stupid set of words like “excuse fest”.

          Blaming an operator for the inherent and correctable design flaws of a machine, whatever that machine is, is always a fools’ errand. Otherwise known as an excuse fest. Those articles you linked tell about the myriad of mechanical issues one can encounter and how the operator should address them. My point is they shouldn’t have to nearly as frequently as they do in the first place.

          If we followed your theory, nothing should improve because if it breaks, regardless of the design flaws, it’s the operator’s fault because they didn’t baby it enough.

          It is the armorer’s and operator’s fault that any weapon doesnt work. blaming the gun is a pathetic excuse used by untrained amateurs. Blaming the gun will get you either chewed out or laughed at during the course of any professional training course.

          Any trainer is aware and will tell his students about the inherent limitations of whatever tool they are to be working with. Once again, denial of mechanical issues and blame shifting does not make any tool better – fixing it in design does.

          After a 16 hour patrol, soldiers in other armies with other weapons besides M4s DO clean their rifles. They clean 416s. SCARs. AKs. and many, many other designs just the same. The Soviets covered up their AK74s in Afghanistan to keep them from malfunctioning. Weapons maintenance is part of being a warrior, even after 16 hour patrols (more excuses).

          They DO clean their rifles, but they don’t HAVE to on anywhere near the schedule of an M. As far as “just the same” – you might want to clean a few rifles some day. It takes an order of magnitude more time to field-strip and clean an M than an AK(or many others). The AK will work just fine for weeks, months, sometimes years without cleaning – to suggest otherwise is to just ignore 40 years of fighting against people with AKs.

          The test was relevant because it effectively debunked the AR15s are not reliable myth. It demonstrated how reliable they can be made when they are properly lubricated and have had their parts replaced at the proper intervals. Btw, ARs are supposed to be “lubed” more than a cheap hooker. Any weapon that operates frequently requires the same thing.

          That ‘test’ is apples and oranges from start to finish. It’s a range gun. It sits in a box when not in immediate use. It’s not a mil-issue gun. It’s not in a desert environment – it’s a range gun. As to lubing an M/AR well that depends on where you are and what day of the week it is. Just through the Gulf II the “official” lube procedure has changed at least four times that I’ve heard about, and I’m sure several more. It started as light lube, then almost dry, then heavy lube, then almost dry, then heavy again – and much depends on who your serving under. The current testing seems to indicate heavy lube is the best as long as it’s constantly cleaned and maintained.

          Money is the big reason. There is no platform out there that is a measurable improvement over the M4 to warrant the billions it would take to change calibers, training manuals, and troop training itself.

          Nobody said change calibers, that’s a maguffin. There’s plenty of measurable improvements over the highly dated M platform, but the current procurement regime is to ignore them. You know why we had .30 M1 Garands when the .276 Garands won the competition by a landslide? We had big piles of .30 Ball leftovers. The military would love to replace the M rifles, but the more they order to get by till the next rifle comes, the more stuck in the pattern they become.

          bullpups are not superseding conventional layout rifles in CQB or any other role. get that idea out of your head. Its interesting how China has the QBZ95, but they are reintroducing the conventional QBZ03 to units because the bullpup is rather disliked. The next generation of rifles will be mostly conventional layout.

          You’re right, I’m just imagining that the Brits went all bullpup in what was it, 1990? That the Israelis are almost there too? Australian battle rifle has been the Steyr for 25 years? The Argentinians, Austrians, Irish, Netherlands, New Zealand, all plus more, bullpup is the MBR. I could do this for 30 more countries when we get to special forces and counter-terrorist squads. And that’s just the Steyr. Lets talk P90 and Tavor next.

          I may not be 100% current, but I read Jane’s and defense industry mags as I can. I know pretty well who carries what and what the future is. Your suggestion that “nobody’s moving to bullpups” is hilarious, because so many have been doing it and actually arrived.

          Oh and…the QBZ03 in 5.56 is a replacement conventional rifle for the old codgers who are used to the type 56 and 81s which were chambered in 7.62 instead of the current 5.56. Newbs get the bullpup. Dance as fast as you want, I can still see your feet.

          A M4 does just need a wipeoff and proper lubrication after a multi-day patrol. I have given you sufficient evidence for this fact.

          Sooo, a fieldstrip, clean and lube (every day maint on an M) is the same as a quick wipe on an AK. Got it. All you sandbox vets, you were working way too hard. You know how you spent hours breaking that M down every day? The way you were taught and the way you need to to keep it firing in that baby powder sand? It just needed a quick wipe and some lube.

          You should try that standup routine near a firebase in A-stan. You’ll have them rolling. Rolling I tell ya…

          Its not a maintenance intensive rifle and you dont have to constantly maintain it. I already showed this to you.

          All you showed was a test of an Mforgery range gun that generally in a box. And one test that makes an 18 look pretty good. Not an M4. Sorry, but a gun that you have to constantly clean in theatre even if it never got fired at all, has some serious design issues.

          No. they didn’t “cancel” the SCAR L. individual SOCOM services can and do purchase “L” rifles (such as the Navy). the remainder of the funding was used to go towards the Objective SCAR program, which was to yield a more flexible weapon system using the SCAR H platform.

          I’ll split that one with you. They reallocated funds to focus on the H (7.62), but they can (and do) still get the L. Fair enough. Regardless, the SCAR is also superior to the M rifles – like every single rational gas op, it’s piston not direct impingement.

          No they didn’t. The 416 is used in limited numbers by certain DOD agencies, DEVGRU, and Delta Force, though many operators in those units still use the Mk 18 and M4 in many instances. The 416 is not measurably more reliable, though it is superior in maritime environments and perhaps with a suppressor.

          Delta, SEALS, SOCOM all have a ton of press saying they went HK416 7+ years ago. It’s everywhere. You can say that some operators do use M4/Mk18s and can’t prove it any more than I can prove they don’t. All I know is what I can prove. The press is clear and piled high – HK416 since 2004-2005. Doesn’t mean they don’t and can’t use something else (like a SCAR, MP5, whatev they want), but it doesn’t show up in the press releases.

          That is true to a extent. It is especially useful with a suppressor. the 416 is a fine weapon. Though i believe the SCAR is far superior because it was designed for a gas piston from the ground up rather than being a retrofitted weapon.

          Exactly true, the 416 is a retrofit. No matter how good it may be, it’ll never be as “right” as something properly scratch designed. SCAR should ultimately be the superior firearm.

          By the way, everything gas-op is designed with a piston. There has been only one gun that eats by puking in their own mouth – the M.

          Even the MAS 40 and the AG 42 though technically direct impingement had a cylinder recess where the gas tube operated. And they dumped those for a real gas piston.

        • “Sooo, lemme get this straight. The source and quality of the data doesn’t matter, it’ the delivery device that makes it credible. Anything off the net from Aberdeen, DoD or anything else is suspect because it slays your beloved mythology. Got it.”

          Please point out these Aberdeen and DOD “tests”. Your last post didn’t have them. And the source matters but the delivery boy also does matter.

          “Slays them”? LMAO!!! sure. whatever you say cupcake. you havent provided anything that highlights the slaying of a M4 besides a infamously flawed dust test in 2007 that has been long discredited.

          “Haven’t read that particular test. I’ll look it up.”

          http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat

          this is what you’re looking for.

          “In every other test the 416 reigns supreme. I guess they’re idiots at SOCOM for going 416 when they can do whatever they want. Here’s one of the dozens of articles about how data is cherry picked”

          SOCOM didn’t “go to the 416”. only a few units use them because they’re more ideal with a suppressor and during maritime operations. SOCOM still largely uses the M4 with the block II kit.

          and yes. the article is shite. I take the Marine Corps Times about as seriously as the Army Times. Not very at all.

          “Blaming an operator for the inherent and correctable design flaws of a machine, whatever that machine is, is always a fools’ errand.”

          If that were only the case. I demonstrated to you in previous links the reasons why M4s malfunction and why theyre operator induced. Blaming a machine that is well known to work fine, especially when you push it past its mechanical capabilities, is utter stupidity. Like I said before, blaming the machine will get your ass laughed off any respectable training course.

          “My point is they shouldn’t have to nearly as frequently as they do in the first place.”

          you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The 416 needs parts replacements too and so does every other weapon. Hell even AKs do. if 6-10K rounds is that much of a inconvenience to replace springs then you are in the wrong line of work.

          “If we followed your theory, nothing should improve because if it breaks, regardless of the design flaws, it’s the operator’s fault because they didn’t baby it enough.”

          and anybody with two neurons rubbing together would know thats not what I said. If you had any experience with small arms repair in the Army you would know how these weapons get pushed past their maintenance schedules and abused.

          “Any trainer is aware and will tell his students about the inherent limitations of whatever tool they are to be working with. Once again, denial of mechanical issues and blame shifting does not make any tool better – fixing it in design does.”

          yes there are inherent limitations of whatever tool theyre using. when have i said otherwise? its not about “mechanical issues”. the only “issue” that exists is with training and the mythology that people like you keep spreading around that M4s are unreliable. That is simply bullshit and you know it.

          “They DO clean their rifles, but they don’t HAVE to on anywhere near the schedule of an M.”

          have you ever carried a M4 in a combat environment? I have. It takes a minute or two, if that. Field strip, wipe down, bore snake (if needed), lubricate, done. Oh, here’s the kicker, my M4 worked. Imagine that!

          “As far as “just the same” – you might want to clean a few rifles some day.”

          I guaranteed I have accidentally forgot more about cleaning rifles than you will ever know. Next.

          “It takes an order of magnitude more time to field-strip and clean an M than an AK(or many others).”

          No it doesnt. Jesus christ dude.

          you are just removing the charging handle, bolt and carrier group. that takes a second to disassemble, to include the other bolt carrier parts.

          “The AK will work just fine for weeks, months, sometimes years without cleaning – to suggest otherwise is to just ignore 40 years of fighting against people with AKs.”

          Simply untrue. AKs will jam if neglected too. They had issues in afghanistan when they were not taken care of properly. Hell, it is well known in Russia that the combination of corrosive ammunition and arctic conditions will mechanically ruin a AK rifle. The AKs in Iraq and Afghanistan? yup they were neglected and unreliable. bad magazines, springs, not to mention pathetically inaccurate.

          “That ‘test’ is apples and oranges from start to finish. It’s a range gun. It sits in a box when not in immediate use.”

          and it gets tens of thousands of rounds shot through it. you keep ignoring that little fact.

          “It’s not a mil-issue gun.”

          it is built to M4 TDP standards; ipso facto, it is a bona fide M4.

          “It’s not in a desert environment – it’s a range gun.”

          So this undoes the individual carbine competition as well? simply because it is not conducted in a desert environment? LOL.

          “As to lubing an M/AR well that depends on where you are and what day of the week it is. Just through the Gulf II the “official” lube procedure has changed at least four times that I’ve heard about, and I’m sure several more. It started as light lube, then almost dry, then heavy lube, then almost dry, then heavy again – and much depends on who your serving under. The current testing seems to indicate heavy lube is the best as long as it’s constantly cleaned and maintained.”

          Here’s a word of advice: the army has its head up its ass when it comes to knowledge like this. The Navy tried to say dry lubes were statistically more reliable, which wasnt the case in my opinion. My platoon lubricated their weapons with synthetic motor oil from the motor pool. All weapons issues were because of bad magazines. Our weapons worked, even in a desert environment (so much for the “lube turns into glue when combined with sand” Bullshit).

          “Nobody said change calibers, that’s a maguffin. There’s plenty of measurable improvements over the highly dated M platform, but the current procurement regime is to ignore them.”

          …because the cost that it would require is a unnecessary expenditure for such little gains. If there was something groundbreaking and better, it would be in our troops’ hands.

          “You know why we had .30 M1 Garands when the .276 Garands won the competition by a landslide? We had big piles of .30 Ball leftovers. The military would love to replace the M rifles, but the more they order to get by till the next rifle comes, the more stuck in the pattern they become.”

          yes, we had massive stockpiles of 30-06. It was also the Great Depression. Adopting the 276 pedersen was a big mistake for somewhat understandable reasons. Us forcing the 308 on NATO, effectively shelving the 280 British? utterly stupid and inexcusable.

          “You’re right, I’m just imagining that the Brits went all bullpup in what was it, 1990? That the Israelis are almost there too? Australian battle rifle has been the Steyr for 25 years? The Argentinians, Austrians, Irish, Netherlands, New Zealand, all plus more, bullpup is the MBR. I could do this for 30 more countries when we get to special forces and counter-terrorist squads. And that’s just the Steyr. Lets talk P90 and Tavor next.”

          and conversely, you can look at all the countries with conventional layout rifles in service.

          Bullpups are not passing conventional layout ones. I know they look cool and sci fi, but they are simply not groundbreaking enough. The only bullpup thats well balanced in terms of weight, ergonomics, and modularity in my opinion is the Tavor. F–k, ill even drop the money on one when they are released to the american public.

          “I may not be 100% current, but I read Jane’s and defense industry mags as I can. I know pretty well who carries what and what the future is. Your suggestion that “nobody’s moving to bullpups” is hilarious, because so many have been doing it and actually arrived.”

          and where did i say “nobody’s moving to bullpups”!? put words in my mouth much?

          Bullpups are not succeeding conventional layout rifles in the world small arms picture. get over it.

          “Oh and…the QBZ03 in 5.56 is a replacement conventional rifle for the old codgers who are used to the type 56 and 81s which were chambered in 7.62 instead of the current 5.56. Newbs get the bullpup. Dance as fast as you want, I can still see your feet.”

          no. The QBZ03 is also chambered in the new 5.8x42mm cartridge and is issued to many units in the PLA because not every unit has given the bullpup QBZ95 a warm welcome. A export version in 5.56 is also available. Lookup the Type 05 “strategy rifle” while youre at it.

          keeping spinning, I need the amusement.

          “Sooo, a fieldstrip, clean and lube (every day maint on an M) is the same as a quick wipe on an AK. Got it.”

          No you dont “got it”. Quick wipe and lube a M4. Takes a minute, if that. You act like you have to detail strip the entire motherfucker down just to keep it reliable. Not the case. Not remotely.

          “All you sandbox vets, you were working way too hard. You know how you spent hours breaking that M down every day? The way you were taught and the way you need to to keep it firing in that baby powder sand? It just needed a quick wipe and some lube.”

          Exactly. Most military personnel are poorly trained with their weapons in my opinion. Its a interesting thing that in a light airborne infantry unit, getting weapons into action after a patrol is a simple, short, painless process. imagine that.

          “You should try that standup routine near a firebase in A-stan. You’ll have them rolling. Rolling I tell ya…”

          Been there and done that. You obviously dont know what youre talking about.

          “All you showed was a test of an Mforgery range gun that generally in a box. And one test that makes an 18 look pretty good. Not an M4. Sorry, but a gun that you have to constantly clean in theatre even if it never got fired at all, has some serious design issues.”

          Nope. Incorrect again. You obviously dont know shit about BCM or their AR15s. Here’s a word of advice: dont quit your day job.

          “Regardless, the SCAR is also superior to the M rifles – like every single rational gas op, it’s piston not direct impingement.”

          I actually agree based on extensive time with the SCAR platform I have been blessed with. The military’s reasoning for not massively adopting the SCAR platform as a replacement (or the FN advanced carbine for the ICC) is a catch 22: they wont massively adopt it because it is not a measurable improvement over the M4, but the SCAR can never be a measurable improvement because the military wont move away from 5.56.

          “Delta, SEALS, SOCOM all have a ton of press saying they went HK416 7+ years ago. It’s everywhere.”

          Its not “everywhere”. A few units have them and thats it. Then there is the SOPMOD II M4s and SCARs also. Delta Force exclusively uses the HK416; additionally, they helped design the damned thing simply because it was the best option at the time (in 2004). Now? not so much. Times have changed considerably.

          “You can say that some operators do use M4/Mk18s and can’t prove it any more than I can prove they don’t. All I know is what I can prove. The press is clear and piled high – HK416 since 2004-2005. Doesn’t mean they don’t and can’t use something else (like a SCAR, MP5, whatev they want), but it doesn’t show up in the press releases.”

          The press is piled high? I could care less. I suppose this cherry picking hasn’t notice the SOPMOD II kit being adopted and used by SOCOM. I suppose theyre doing that just for the exercise LOL

          “By the way, everything gas-op is designed with a piston. There has been only one gun that eats by puking in their own mouth – the M.”

          The M4 is technically not direct impingement. The bolt and carrier group acts like the piston. Just read Armalite.com’s “technical note 54: direct impingement versus piston drive”

          “Even the MAS 40 and the AG 42 though technically direct impingement had a cylinder recess where the gas tube operated. And they dumped those for a real gas piston.”

          Those rifles got superseded because they were rendered obsolete by a little invention you might have heard of: the assault rifle. Enough said.

          It wasn’t because they were direct impingement (true direct impingement, unlike the internal piston operated AR15/M16/M4). In fact, the MAS49 had a reputation for being a rugged, reliable weapon that loved motor oil.

          Despite these rather lengthy responses, your contention that the M4/M16 rifles are unreliable is simply not true. I think you need to re-evaluate your “facts”.

    • Hey Genius, what has been the primary issue rifle for the IDF for the last, oh, I dunno, thirty years?

      • Please point out these Aberdeen and DOD “tests”. Your last post didn’t have them. And the source matters but the delivery boy also does matter.

        “Slays them”? LMAO!!! sure. whatever you say cupcake. you havent provided anything that highlights the slaying of a M4 besides a infamously flawed dust test in 2007 that has been long discredited.

        Discredited by whom exactly? Because the only part that has been ‘discredited’ is the numbers the Army posted after arbitrarily discarding a bunch of misfires and jams. That was what was discredited.

        http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/12/army_M4numbers_071227w/

        http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

        The original Aberdeen reports are available from the GAO as well as many reprint services. Or a decent uni library.

        These articles also talk about the poor AR/M test results from 2005, 2006, 2007. As well as the 416 having a failure rate one third the AR/M. In 2004. How far shall we go back?

        “http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2010-07/what-really-happened-wanat

        Read it. There’s almost nothing there. None of which has anything to do with discrediting the 07 dust test failures. Just one combat scenario, lots of them out there. Did you read the comments? They all say the same thing, this is a puff piece, there’s nothing there.

        SOCOM didn’t “go to the 416″. only a few units use them because they’re more ideal with a suppressor and during maritime operations. SOCOM still largely uses the M4 with the block II kit.

        That’s what they are buying. Are they buying other things? Sure. Are there lots of old rifles out there? Of course. As I noted, it’s not a unit that anyone can know what is actually in use today by everybody, just what they say they buy in press releases, and put out for aquisition bids.

        If that were only the case. I demonstrated to you in previous links the reasons why M4s malfunction and why theyre operator induced. Blaming a machine that is well known to work fine, especially when you push it past its mechanical capabilities, is utter stupidity. Like I said before, blaming the machine will get your ass laughed off any respectable training course.

        I read those links. They do is list the multiple failure modes and how to address them. The rest of that logic is blaming the Lotus driver for not knowing the axle housing was too thin for that last corner and racing hard destroyed it. It was his fault for not pitting. Right. Blaming the operator for poor design is the refuge of those unwilling or unable to build a quality product. It’ll get you laughed out of mechanical design class.

        you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The 416 needs parts replacements too and so does every other weapon. Hell even AKs do. if 6-10K rounds is that much of a inconvenience to replace springs then you are in the wrong line of work.

        Don’t have to work as hard to eat on the 416. Once again, nobody said the 416 was maint free. But what every study that it has ever been in, says is that it needs much less maint and fewer parts less often. It doesn’t puke in its mouth.

        and anybody with two neurons rubbing together would know thats not what I said. If you had any experience with small arms repair in the Army you would know how these weapons get pushed past their maintenance schedules and abused.

        That’s exactly what you’ve said at least twice. All the operator’s fault. I’m fully aware of how far they get pushed, I didn’t learn this stuff from Chuck Hawks, thanks.

        yes there are inherent limitations of whatever tool theyre using. when have i said otherwise? its not about “mechanical issues”. the only “issue” that exists is with training and the mythology that people like you keep spreading around that M4s are unreliable. That is simply bullshit and you know it.

        Are you a Colt employee or just that willfully blind to what everybody who actually knows anything about that gun says? What you’ve said time and again “it’s the operators”. What is bullshit is the myth that it’s reliable in an actual combat (especially desert) environment without heavy maint. It can work, and sometimes it does flawlessly. But not always and it takes wayy too much work.

        have you ever carried a M4 in a combat environment? I have. It takes a minute or two, if that. Field strip, wipe down, bore snake (if needed), lubricate, done. Oh, here’s the kicker, my M4 worked. Imagine that!

        Personally haven’t carried one in combat. Can clean one just fine thanks. Which in the actual baby powder of A-stan requires more than a 2 minute quickie on that gun. I’ve played with that dust. Maybe you’re just a special snowflake. I do know many who have from GW-I and GW-II as well as people in the world of labs. Good for you, yours worked. Nobody claimed 100% failure rate.

        I guaranteed I have accidentally forgot more about cleaning rifles than you will ever know. Next.

        I always know when I’m up against someone with marginal facts, who doesn’t even understand what the arguments
        are when they start the I’m-a-bad-ass routine.

        “It takes an order of magnitude to field strip and clean an AR/M vs an AK.”

        No it doesnt. Jesus christ dude.

        AK field, clean, lube, re assemble 2-3 minutes in the talc. It just isn’t that sensitive.
        AR/M 20 minutes to get the talc out of everywhere it gets. I’d love to know what part of even the green zone didn’t require at least that much cleaning. Because every grunt I’ve met tells of a 20 minute clean. I have an AR too, and for the talc, that’s about right.

        you are just removing the charging handle, bolt and carrier group. that takes a second to disassemble, to include the other bolt carrier parts.

        If you’re getting those truly cleaned, lubed and reassembled in under 10 minutes I’d love to see it.

        Simply untrue. AKs will jam if neglected too. They had issues in afghanistan when they were not taken care of properly. Hell, it is well known in Russia that the combination of corrosive ammunition and arctic conditions will mechanically ruin a AK rifle. The AKs in Iraq and Afghanistan? yup they were neglected and unreliable. bad magazines, springs, not to mention pathetically inaccurate.

        The AKs the USSR issued in A-stan were so far beyond roached it wasn’t funny. The empire was crumbling, those guns were used up like everything else that went there. Everybody who knows that war knows that. Guys routinely were issued guns that had visibly bent barrels. What newish guns came in, got blackmarketed out the side door by the supply staff for the wages they didn’t get paid.

        As to corrosive ammo, that’ll kill anything eventually if you don’t clean it. Fact remains we are shot at alot by guys who wouldn’t know a boxer from a Berdan. Let alone that they need to clean that thing. I can still throw an AK in a puddle, cover it with mud, pull it out of the puddle hours later and it’ll fire after pushing the mud off the handle a quick rack.

        I won my AR on that very bet, curiously, nobody AR guys will bet me anymore.

        “That ‘test’ is apples and oranges from start to finish. It’s a range gun. It sits in a box when not in immediate use.”

        and it gets tens of thousands of rounds shot through it. you keep ignoring that little fact.

        I have a 350 Chevy Autozone stock crate and a 350 Chevy full forged internals. The comparison would be just as valid, which is to say, not at all. There’s nothing to ignore, it’s a different gun. Same basic pattern, different firearm. Irrelevant. That you don’t understand that basic fact speaks volumes.

        “It’s not a mil-issue gun.”

        it is built to M4 TDP standards; ipso facto, it is a bona fide M4.

        Same fire control group? Same exact materials? Ipso facto, no matter how much you spin it, it’s not the same gun.

        “It’s not in a desert environment – it’s a range gun.”

        So this undoes the individual carbine competition as well? simply because it is not conducted in a desert environment? LOL.

        Well, as one of the M4’s biggest weaknesses is a desert environment, and that’s where it’s design flaws jump right the hell out, yup. Oh, and not the same gun. One more, if you actually knew anything about the ICC test, those desert combat conditions (and the rest) are part of the testing. LOL.

        Current ICC? There really isn’t one as most either dropped out or written it off as the DoD announced what they were planning and nobody wanted to waste much time/money.

        Here’s a word of advice: the army has its head up its ass when it comes to knowledge like this. The Navy tried to say dry lubes were statistically more reliable, which wasnt the case in my opinion. My platoon lubricated their weapons with synthetic motor oil from the motor pool. All weapons issues were because of bad magazines. Our weapons worked, even in a desert environment (so much for the “lube turns into glue when combined with sand” Bullshit).

        Really? I never would have known. Hence why I made the initial statement about the flip-flops in policy. Of course lube doesn’t turn into glue when mixed with sand, but it does turn into grinding paste that wicks the baby powder sand ever deeper into the crevices. Which won’t come out in 5 minutes without a can of solvent. The actual solution is PVD/DLC coatings and changing the materials on a couple of parts to allow them to be operated dry. As in dry. Costs too much though.

        …because the cost that it would require is a unnecessary expenditure for such little gains. If there was something groundbreaking and better, it would be in our troops’ hands.

        You are joking right? Out of the hundreds that I’ve met over the last 40 years you are the ONLY veteran to ever say anything so mind blowingly ridiculous about anything provided to anyone who served. Especially infantry. Only the best for our boys? Riiighttt. They’ll get right on that. How good was your body armor?

        and conversely, you can look at all the countries with conventional layout rifles in service.

        The getting fewer and farther between? There’s only two conventional platforms that are left out in numbers. The AR/M that we sell/give away, and the AK that the Russians sell/give away. If they supply themselves and aren’t sucking someone’s money nozzle, they carry bullpups. Or are likely moving mostly there.

        Bullpups are not passing conventional layout ones. I know they look cool and sci fi, but they are simply not groundbreaking enough. The only bullpup thats well balanced in terms of weight, ergonomics, and modularity in my opinion is the Tavor. F–k, ill even drop the money on one when they are released to the american public.

        So even though I gave you a list of all the countries that are bullpup, and the fact the Chinese are still moving there means that it it’ll be the largest platform without any debate, you’ll still deny that it is. Got it. Have no idea what kind of “cool and sci- fi”, has to do with this. Too many video games?
        Bullpups are a better layout for CQB, there’s simply no valid debate. Polar moment of inertia? Angular mass? Motion studies? Look it up.

        and where did i say “nobody’s moving to bullpups”!? put words in my mouth much?

        “bullpups are not superseding conventional layout rifles in CQB or any other role. get that idea out of your head.”

        Do tell how that should be translated oh spinner of spin.

        “Oh and…the QBZ03 in 5.56 is a replacement conventional rifle for the old codgers who are used to the type 56 and 81s which were chambered in 7.62 instead of the current 5.56. Newbs get the bullpup. Dance as fast as you want, I can still see your feet.”

        no. The QBZ03 is also chambered in the new 5.8x42mm cartridge and is issued to many units in the PLA because not every unit has given the bullpup QBZ95 a warm welcome. A export version in 5.56 is also available. Lookup the Type 05 “strategy rifle” while youre at it.

        You’re right 5.56 is the export rifle. 5.8 is domestic. Still , fact remains that the newbs get the bullpup and the 03 is for the guys who can’t see the future and are used to the old ways. And those highly limited scenarios where a long rifle is better.

        The 05 “strategy rifle” is a proto for a whole manpack weapons systems with a grenade/airburst laucher and video, and all the largeness that requires.

        No you don’t “got it”. Quick wipe and lube a M4. Takes a minute, if that. You act like you have to detail strip the entire motherfucker down just to keep it reliable. Not the case. Not remotely.

        I had 2 guys who had done FOB tours laughing about that.

        “All you sandbox vets, you were working way too hard. You know how you spent hours breaking that M down every day? The way you were taught and the way you need to to keep it firing in that baby powder sand? It just needed a quick wipe and some lube.”

        Exactly. Most military personnel are poorly trained with their weapons in my opinion. Its a interesting thing that in a light airborne infantry unit, getting weapons into action after a patrol is a simple, short, painless process. imagine that.

        Just because you may have lucked out, doesn’t discredit all the instances where there are issues. With arms maintained to a far higher standard than yours apparently were.

        Been there and done that. You obviously dont know what youre talking about.

        I read this exchange last night to the aforementioned FOB guys. There was much laughter. And a whole lot of other fun-n-friendly terms of endearment for your mechanical wisdom that jarheads use.

        Nope. Incorrect again. You obviously dont know shit about BCM or their AR15s. Here’s a word of advice: dont quit your day job.

        Is it the exact issue M4 rifle? Nope. Therefore any comparison is invalid. Is it tested in anything remotely resembling a combat ready condition? Nope. You obviously don’t know the basics of conducting a valid scientific test. Here’s a word of advice: don’t ever try to talk to a serious armorer, or anyone that does weapons testing.

        “Regardless, the SCAR is also superior to the M rifles – like every single rational gas op, it’s piston not direct impingement.”

        I actually agree based on extensive time with the SCAR platform I have been blessed with. The military’s reasoning for not massively adopting the SCAR platform as a replacement (or the FN advanced carbine for the ICC) is a catch 22: they wont massively adopt it because it is not a measurable improvement over the M4, but the SCAR can never be a measurable improvement because the military wont move away from 5.56.

        SCAR out-tests the M consistently. That’s all the measurable improvement required. Might cost a billion. Chump change in the world defense spending. The M lives on for politics and contracts to political allies, nothing more. But yes, a caliber change is long overdo. Which would cost, but once again, compared to the other stuff we piss $5B away on, cost is not a solid argument.

        “Delta, SEALS, SOCOM all have a ton of press saying they went HK416 7+ years ago. It’s everywhere.”

        The press is piled high? I could care less. I suppose this cherry picking hasn’t notice the SOPMOD II kit being adopted and used by SOCOM. I suppose theyre doing that just for the exercise LOL

        There’s plenty of old guns floating around everywhere including SOCOM. That they get upgraded and used is no surprise to anyone. I never said 416 was the only weapon in use. Keep trying to spin, you keep failing.

        The M4 is technically not direct impingement. The bolt and carrier group acts like the piston. Just read Armalite.com’s “technical note 54: direct impingement versus piston drive”

        Now you’re just on fantasy island. That’s what direct impingement IS by definition, shooting exhaust gas directly on the bolt and carrier group. There’s not an educated gun designer alive that would disagree that the AR/M is DI.

        “Even the MAS 40 and the AG 42 though technically direct impingement had a cylinder recess where the gas tube operated. And they dumped those for a real gas piston.”

        Those rifles got superseded because they were rendered obsolete by a little invention you might have heard of: the assault rifle. Enough said.

        There are no other direct impingement gas-ops made anywhere other than the AR/M. None. Anywhere. The design is inherently flawed and everybody knows it. Otherwise, someone, somewhere would have designed another one in the last 55 years. Never again will there be one. Ever.

        It wasn’t because they were direct impingement (true direct impingement, unlike the internal piston operated AR15/M16/M4). In fact, the MAS49 had a reputation for being a rugged, reliable weapon that loved motor oil.

        You might want to take a gunsmithing course. There’s no gas piston in an AR/M. None. Using the bolt and carrier directly as a quasi-piston is the very definition of direct impingement.

        And, as noted, the MAS actually had a cutout in the carrier for expansion, not nearly as dirty as the AR/M puking all over the bolt. So, while direct impingement, much better than AR/Ms. Also, all guns are usually quite tolerant of (and often happy) with motor oil, especially synthetics. This is no “big insider secret”.

        Despite these rather lengthy responses, your contention that the M4/M16 rifles are unreliable is simply not true. I think you need to re-evaluate your “facts”.

        Denial is not just a river in Egypt. By all objective measures it’s the same mediocre gun it was in 1970. Even Stoner’s head designer said so a year or two ago.

      • Tavor has been working in since 03-04ish and the ‘official battle rifle’ for the last 5+ years.

        The M rifles are almost completely phased out. I already posted that link, look it up yourself.

        • The 416 has a failure rate of 1/3? bullshit. I have already provided counter evidence with the 10th SF Group when they compared the 416 to the Mk 18 and found the later to be more mechanically reliable. The same goes for the Marine Corps, whose recently adopted M27 has a higher MRBF than the M4 but less than the M16A4. But why worry when you can just cherry pick “facts” that highlight the “unreliability of the M4”. Colt tried a gas piston M16 and Colt Commando during the Cold War. They didn’t adopt it because it offered no measurable improvement over the internal gas piston design.
          “Read it. There’s almost nothing there. None of which has anything to do with discrediting the 07 dust test failures. Just one combat scenario, lots of them out there. Did you read the comments? They all say the same thing, this is a puff piece, there’s nothing there.”
          Read the comments!? LOL. Who gives a fuck about the comments. I care about the information provided. The dust tests are invalid because you are comparing brand new competitors to M4s that didn’t operate within specification anyways.
          “That’s what they are buying. Are they buying other things? Sure…..”
          No not anyone can find out. It just so happens these specific units operated in Afghanistan and Iraq when I was in those countries as both a soldier and DOD contractor. You act as if the 416 is just replacing the M4 by the scores, which isn’t remotely true. The M4 platform has evolved much since the 416 was designed and introduced.
          “I read those links. They do is list the multiple failure modes and how to address them. The rest of that logic is blaming the Lotus driver for not knowing the axle housing was too thin for that last corner and racing hard destroyed it. It was his fault for not pitting. Right. Blaming the operator for poor design is the refuge of those unwilling or unable to build a quality product. It’ll get you laughed out of mechanical design class.”
          No. Not even close. The race car is fine vehicle and has been improved significantly to mitigate its existing weaknesses learned from operating in its respective environment. Mechanical design? LOL. Puuuleeeze. Dont even go there with me. Im sure mechanical design students know more than professional training instructors, USSOCOM, the US Armed Forces, and numerous other institutions that have turned gunfighting into a art. Worn out M4s with bad magazines are the fault of the operator and unit. The same applies for every other weapon out there to include the AK.
          you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The 416 needs parts replacements too and so does every other weapon. Hell even AKs do. if 6-10K rounds is that much of a inconvenience to replace springs then you are in the wrong line of work.
          Don’t have to work as hard to eat on the 416. Once again, nobody said the 416 was maint free. But what every study that it has ever been in, says is that it needs much less maint and fewer parts less often. It doesn’t puke in its mouth.
          Thats the problem. You dont have to “eat” off the 416 or any other weapon. White glove maintenance has no applicability on the modern battlefield simply because it is infeasible, unnecessary, and wastes resources. If you actually deployed in OEF and OIF, you would have encountered foreign soldiers with different weapons that maintained them just the same…not less. This is certainly true with USSOCOM elements. The “less maintenance” is less and less likely with improvements in lubrications, techniques, and cleaning equipment.
          “That’s exactly what you’ve said at least twice. All the operator’s fault. I’m fully aware of how far they get pushed, I didn’t learn this stuff from Chuck Hawks, thanks.”
          I dont think you are aware. You are making excuses for soldiers and units pushing their platforms past their maintenance intervals then blaming the weapon itself when it malfunctions. Talk about being unrealistic…
          yes there are inherent limitations of whatever tool theyre using. when have i said otherwise? its not about “mechanical issues”. the only “issue” that exists is with training and the mythology that people like you keep spreading around that M4s are unreliable. That is simply bullshit and you know it.
          Are you a Colt employee or just that willfully blind to what everybody who actually knows anything about that gun says? What you’ve said time and again “it’s the operators”. What is bullshit is the myth that it’s reliable in an actual combat (especially desert) environment without heavy maint. It can work, and sometimes it does flawlessly. But not always and it takes wayy too much work.
          Im not a Colt employee (thank god), but I am a AR15/M4/M16 (and other platforms) armorer with over 20 years of real-world experience with that platform. Here’s the kicker: Ive actually carried that weapon system in OIF and OEF and used it. It worked. Why? Because it was properly maintained, well lubricated, and my unit took small arms familiarity very seriously because thats what professional warfighters do. But why stop at desert environments? While stationed in Alaska and Korea in my career, my M16 and M4s also worked. Is everything flawless? no. there were malfunctions. It was also realistically reliable.
          have you ever carried a M4 in a combat environment? I have. It takes a minute or two, if that. Field strip, wipe down, bore snake (if needed), lubricate, done. Oh, here’s the kicker, my M4 worked. Imagine that!

          “Personally haven’t carried one in combat. Can clean one just fine thanks. Which in the actual baby powder of A-stan requires more than a 2 minute quickie on that gun. I’ve played with that dust. Maybe you’re just a special snowflake. I do know many who have from GW-I and GW-II as well as people in the world of labs. Good for you, yours worked. Nobody claimed 100% failure rate.”
          Dude, I was in afghanistan. You only need to wipe the fine dust off of the optics and the internal components if it gets in there to begin with. I havent had copious amounts of dirty inside the bolt and carrier group, just on the outside which has nothing to do with the functionality of the weapon. What chokes M4s in those environments is CLP. Use synthetic motor oil and it will run like a sewing machine.
          “I always know when I’m up against someone with marginal facts, who doesn’t even understand what the arguments are when they start the I’m-a-bad-ass routine.”
          Says the white glove, 416 loving guru that somehow believes that cleaning a M4 requires hours of time.
          “AK field, clean, lube, re assemble 2-3 minutes in the talc. It just isn’t that sensitive.
          AR/M 20 minutes to get the talc out of everywhere it gets. I’d love to know what part of even the green zone didn’t require at least that much cleaning. Because every grunt I’ve met tells of a 20 minute clean. I have an AR too, and for the talc, that’s about right.”
          That is a faulty comparison anyways because the military does the white glove bullshit routine. Ive seen it. Doing it that way will take up to 30 minutes and a hour if first lines get really stupid. AK’s arent ever cleaned to white glove standard in our military and foreign militaries that operate other platforms, such as AK’s, G36s, 416s etc etc dont take any more or less time than a American service member with a M4.
          If you’re getting those truly cleaned, lubed and reassembled in under 10 minutes I’d love to see it.
          Depends on what youre idea of “truly” cleaned is. For pretty inspection? No, not even close. For functionality? Absolutely. Its about efficiency and substance rather than just looks (the antithesis of the military). Pretty inspection cleanings also lead to worn and destroyed finishes but thats a entirely different issue.
          Simply untrue. AKs will jam if neglected too. They had issues in afghanistan when they were not taken care of properly. Hell, it is well known in Russia that the combination of corrosive ammunition and arctic conditions will mechanically ruin a AK rifle. The AKs in Iraq and Afghanistan? yup they were neglected and unreliable. bad magazines, springs, not to mention pathetically inaccurate.

          The AKs the USSR issued in A-stan were so far beyond roached it wasn’t funny. The empire was crumbling, those guns were used up like everything else that went there. Everybody who knows that war knows that. Guys routinely were issued guns that had visibly bent barrels. What newish guns came in, got blackmarketed out the side door by the supply staff for the wages they didn’t get paid.
          Thats not true at all. The Soviet Union still had a sizable budget due to the last days of the Cold War and they had recently introduced the AK74. Visibly bent barrels? You need to stick to “9th Company” and other movies. That about made me roll on the floor laughing. Im sure there was one tiny, isolated incident that got blown way out of proportion. Undoubtedly there was maltreatment of soldiers who remained ill equipped in many instances, though small arms wise, they were equivalent in terms of effectiveness to NATO counterparts (and superior in many ways).
          As to corrosive ammo, that’ll kill anything eventually if you don’t clean it. Fact remains we are shot at alot by guys who wouldn’t know a boxer from a Berdan. Let alone that they need to clean that thing. I can still throw an AK in a puddle, cover it with mud, pull it out of the puddle hours later and it’ll fire after pushing the mud off the handle a quick rack.
          Yes the AK is awesome like that. I love the design and have absolute respect for Kalashnikov. They are also inaccurate, largely effective within 300 meters only (whereas the M4 and M16 are effective up to 500 meters), have bulky magazines (that are utterly reliable in their defense), piss poor sights, and inferior ergonomics. Perfect for a third world or conscripted military. The fact remains that each system has strengths and weaknesses.
          I have a 350 Chevy Autozone stock crate and a 350 Chevy full forged internals. ..
          Its still applicable for the reasons I mentioned above. You are trying to discount the fact that the M4 is a very reliable system and easily comparable to other 5.56 weapons.
          Same fire control group? Same exact materials? Ipso facto, no matter how much you spin it, it’s not the same gun.
          Uhhhh, yes it is. The only difference is that it has a 16” barrel. Woopidie doo.
          “It’s not in a desert environment – it’s a range gun.”
          So this undoes the individual carbine competition as well? simply because it is not conducted in a desert environment? LOL.
          Well, as one of the M4′s biggest weaknesses is a desert environment, and that’s where it’s design flaws jump right the hell out, yup. Oh, and not the same gun. One more, if you actually knew anything about the ICC test, those desert combat conditions (and the rest) are part of the testing. LOL.

          Part of the testing. Not all of the testing (and I never said otherwise either smart guy).

          Current ICC? There really isn’t one as most either dropped out or written it off as the DoD announced what they were planning and nobody wanted to waste much time/money.
          And why would that be??? because there is no measurable advantage in switching from the M4 no matter how good a contender may be. The fact is that the winner would still be limited by the effectiveness of the 5.56, which is a entirely different issue. Until telescopic ammunition, caseless, or phase disruptors come out and are overall superior, the US will still use the 5.56.
          Here’s a word of advice: the army has its head up its ass when it comes to knowledge like this. The Navy tried to say dry lubes were statistically more reliable, which wasnt the case in my opinion. My platoon lubricated their weapons with synthetic motor oil from the motor pool. All weapons issues were because of bad magazines. Our weapons worked, even in a desert environment (so much for the “lube turns into glue when combined with sand” Bullshit).

          Really? I never would have known. Hence why I made the initial statement about the flip-flops in policy. Of course lube doesn’t turn into glue when mixed with sand, but it does turn into grinding paste that wicks the baby powder sand ever deeper into the crevices. Which won’t come out in 5 minutes without a can of solvent. The actual solution is PVD/DLC coatings and changing the materials on a couple of parts to allow them to be operated dry. As in dry. Costs too much though.
          The solution is proper training and familiarization with the platform, which the military still fails at in my opinion. Many individual units have taken great strides to fix this problem, but the military, ruled by bureaucracy, is slow and sluggish to adapt. Yes, that would be friggin awesome with the PVD/DLC. Fail Zero also performs extraordinarily well too, especially in sandy and icy environments. The military already uses it in aircraft engine components and inside mortar tubes.
          …because the cost that it would require is a unnecessary expenditure for such little gains. If there was something groundbreaking and better, it would be in our troops’ hands.
          You are joking right? Out of the hundreds that I’ve met over the last 40 years you are the ONLY veteran to ever say anything so mind blowingly ridiculous about anything provided to anyone who served. Especially infantry. Only the best for our boys? Riiighttt. They’ll get right on that. How good was your body armor?
          Pay attention to what I said “ground-breaking and better”. No other platform is ground-breakingly better than the M4. Sorry. Perhaps the LSAT program will lead to ground-breaking and better. Mind blowingly ridiculous? That is fact. Especially with a military that is more interested in F35s and Zumwalt Destroyers. Do I agree with it? no. I never said I did.
          and conversely, you can look at all the countries with conventional layout rifles in service.
          The getting fewer and farther between? There’s only two conventional platforms that are left out in numbers. The AR/M that we sell/give away, and the AK that the Russians sell/give away. If they supply themselves and aren’t sucking someone’s money nozzle, they carry bullpups. Or are likely moving mostly there.
          They’re not getting fewer and farther between. Look at the export numbers of M4s/M16s and AK’s. Then there is the G36 and other newly introduced conventional rifles like the ARX160 to name a few. Yes, the F2000 and Tavor are also gaining ground, especially in elite units that want a more compact weapon. With conventional militaries, not to much besides the forces that have traditionally used them (like britain, france, and austria)
          Bullpups are not passing conventional layout ones. I know they look cool and sci fi, but they are simply not groundbreaking enough. The only bullpup thats well balanced in terms of weight, ergonomics, and modularity in my opinion is the Tavor. F–k, ill even drop the money on one when they are released to the american public.

          So even though I gave you a list of all the countries that are bullpup, and the fact the Chinese are still moving there means that it it’ll be the largest platform without any debate, you’ll still deny that it is. Got it.
          Its not denial. Its fact. Despite China using the QBZ95, why would they conceive such rifles as the QBZ03 and the “strategy rifle” which I provided a link for?
          Have no idea what kind of “cool and sci- fi”, has to do with this. Too many video games?
          Bullpups are a better layout for CQB, there’s simply no valid debate. Polar moment of inertia? Angular mass? Motion studies? Look it up.
          Like any other weapon system, there is advantages and disadvantages. M4-type SBRs like the Mk18 and numerous other developments that are reliable and effective also play into effect. The rest is marketing BS. If they were that much more advantageous, special operations would flock to those systems since they undeniably use small arms more than anybody.
          and where did i say “nobody’s moving to bullpups”!? put words in my mouth much?
          “bullpups are not superseding conventional layout rifles in CQB or any other role. get that idea out of your head.”
          Do tell how that should be translated oh spinner of spin.
          There is a difference between “nobody’s moving to bullpups” and “they are not superseding conventional layout rifles”. They are not superseding conventional layout rifles in any measurable number. To give you some perspective, a lot of F2000s and Tavors may be exported, but so are a lot of M4s.
          You’re right 5.56 is the export rifle. 5.8 is domestic. Still , fact remains that the newbs get the bullpup and the 03 is for the guys who can’t see the future and are used to the old ways. And those highly limited scenarios where a long rifle is better.
          You forgot to mention that the 03 is also exported in 5.56 and uses M16-type mags. That should tell you something. The idea that entire units are manned by “old codgers” is simply incorrect.
          The 05 “strategy rifle” is a proto for a whole manpack weapons systems with a grenade/airburst laucher and video, and all the largeness that requires.
          Which is intended as the next step in infantry small arms for the PLA. Similar to the US OICW.
          I had 2 guys who had done FOB tours laughing about that.
          FOB tours? Thanks for that laugh. Anybody who has spent time in a isolated firebase would also laugh at that.
          Just because you may have lucked out, doesn’t discredit all the instances where there are issues. With arms maintained to a far higher standard than yours apparently were.
          Lucked out? Yeah you wish. More like hundreds of hours of research, trial and error, and the painful process of killing mythology. And if I didn’t meet those “far higher standards” then that is a good thing. Our weapons worked. Leave the garrison detail cleaning for CONUS.
          Been there and done that. You obviously dont know what youre talking about.

          I read this exchange last night to the aforementioned FOB guys. There was much laughter. And a whole lot of other fun-n-friendly terms of endearment for your mechanical wisdom that jarheads use.
          There you go again with “FOB guys”. Hilarious! Ill take the word of Jarheads with a grain of salt. Ill continue to stick to the mechanical wisdom that was taught by far more knowledgeable guys than you or I.
          Is it the exact issue M4 rifle? Nope. Therefore any comparison is invalid. Is it tested in anything remotely resembling a combat ready condition? Nope. You obviously don’t know the basics of conducting a valid scientific test. Here’s a word of advice: don’t ever try to talk to a serious armorer, or anyone that does weapons testing.
          By your logic, a brand new Colt wouldnt be a valid comparison either. Of course, anybody that continually edifies the 2007 dust tests also wouldnt know anything about a scientific test or valid comparisons either. Serious armorer? Youre talking to one.
          “Regardless, the SCAR is also superior to the M rifles – like every single rational gas op, it’s piston not direct impingement.”
          I actually agree based on extensive time with the SCAR platform I have been blessed with. The military’s reasoning for not massively adopting the SCAR platform as a replacement (or the FN advanced carbine for the ICC) is a catch 22: they wont massively adopt it because it is not a measurable improvement over the M4, but the SCAR can never be a measurable improvement because the military wont move away from 5.56.
          SCAR out-tests the M consistently. That’s all the measurable improvement required. Might cost a billion. Chump change in the world defense spending. The M lives on for politics and contracts to political allies, nothing more. But yes, a caliber change is long overdo. Which would cost, but once again, compared to the other stuff we piss $5B away on, cost is not a solid argument.
          The SCAR also has the advantage in that its platform demonstrates a high degree of parts commonality between 5.56, 7.62, DMR, IAR, and PR platforms. This makes it “better” than the M4, M14, M110 combination. It also performs each individual job extremely well. Will it become standard among big army or marine corps? Probably not. And that is shameful. SOCOM seems to think otherwise, however, so there is much hope. I want the military to ditch ONE F35, B2 or Zumwalt destroyer to re-equip the military with a extremely effective weapon, so dont mistake my position. My point is, again, the M4 is a very acceptable weapon system.
          “There’s plenty of old guns floating around everywhere including SOCOM. That they get upgraded and used is no surprise to anyone. I never said 416 was the only weapon in use. Keep trying to spin, you keep failing.”
          Im just countering what you said, “Delta, SEALS, SOCOM all have a ton of press saying they went HK416 7+ years ago. It’s everywhere.
          That is untrue. My response was entirely appropriate. It is “not everywhere”.
          The M4 is technically not direct impingement. The bolt and carrier group acts like the piston. Just read Armalite.com’s “technical note 54: direct impingement versus piston drive”

          Now you’re just on fantasy island. That’s what direct impingement IS by definition, shooting exhaust gas directly on the bolt and carrier group. There’s not an educated gun designer alive that would disagree that the AR/M is DI.
          Right. Armalite in “fantasy land”. LOL. Thats a good one! They only first built the original weapon system. What would they know!? Hahahaha.
          I can tell that you didn’t read the article. I suggest you do it. I suggest you give Mark Westrom a call and try and convince him he’s not a “educated gun designer”. Talk about getting laughed out of the ballpark.
          There are no other direct impingement gas-ops made anywhere other than the AR/M. None. Anywhere. The design is inherently flawed and everybody knows it. Otherwise, someone, somewhere would have designed another one in the last 55 years. Never again will there be one. Ever.
          And that is simply because countries that have designed newer rifles since then have been unwilling to venture outside of the AR18, rotating bolt paradigm. They stick to what works and that design does indeed work. They are also taking shortcuts in terms of research and development time.
          If you are accusing me of saying that DI/internal gas piston operated systems are “better” than you are mistaken. I personally believe keeping the heat and debris at a gas piston, far away from the bolt and carrier group is a better solution. Heat and thermal expansion are characteristic disadvantages of that system, though ones that are realistically easily remedied.
          Not that this point is anymore relevant. Those aforementioned rifles were replaced because they became obsolete, not because they were “unreliable”. In fact, the MAS49 was well known for its reliability.
          You might want to take a gunsmithing course. There’s no gas piston in an AR/M. None. Using the bolt and carrier directly as a quasi-piston is the very definition of direct impingement.
          Yes there is a “gas piston”. It is internalized in the bolt within the bolt carrier group, which acts as a de facto “piston” according to Armalite. If you read the previous document I posted you would know this. Just for convenience sake, here it is again http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf
          And, as noted, the MAS actually had a cutout in the carrier for expansion, not nearly as dirty as the AR/M puking all over the bolt. So, while direct impingement, much better than AR/Ms. Also, all guns are usually quite tolerant of (and often happy) with motor oil, especially synthetics. This is no “big insider secret”.
          On the contrary, it is a huge “insider secret”. If it wasn’t, then the plethora of wonder lubes available wouldnt exist. Those products are simply refined oil for car or aircraft engines marked up at name brand prices. Perhaps the non-toxic froglube is different (pretty damned good stuff but I do digress).
          Despite these rather lengthy responses, your contention that the M4/M16 rifles are unreliable is simply not true. I think you need to re-evaluate your “facts”.
          Denial is not just a river in Egypt. By all objective measures it’s the same mediocre gun it was in 1970. Even Stoner’s head designer said so a year or two ago.
          Take your own denial into consideration. The M4 is a reliable weapon that has been made even more reliable over the past 10 years. Stoner also took kalashnikov’s design into enormous consideration and admitted the strengths of that weapon system.
          Tavor has been working in since 03-04ish and the ‘official battle rifle’ for the last 5+ years.The M rifles are almost completely phased out. I already posted that link, look it up yourself.
          Many are still in service, so they wont be completely phased out until another five or so years, being optimistic. Of course, once again, in the grand scheme of things, this is just Israel. I can offer a list of countries that continue using conventional layout rifles, especially M4s and M16s but I think you get the picture.

          The M4/M16/AR15 works. Get over it.

      • The acts of terrorism during the founding of Israel came from both sides of the conflict.

        That said, today, one of those sides is a working parliamentary democracy where citizens enjoy numerous rights, and which is technologically advanced to the point where it designs CPUs that the rest of the world uses. The other side lives in mud houses, stones their women for adultery and beheads their men for apostasy, and shows its kids cartoons that teach them to blow themselves up to get into paradise.

        In a conflict between civilized men and barbarians, always support civilized men. The barbarians will not appreciate your support for long – once they win, they will soon find a reason to be offended enough at you to cut your head off. See also: Libya.

  6. Interesting to read about the Tavor. I’ve been out of the loop for a long time as to Isreali weapons, I thought that they were still using the Galil rifle. An excellent rifle based on the AK-47 design, but with milled receivers and better accuracy while keeping the ultra reliability. So is the Galil no longer in service? I got to fondle one some years back and I really REALLY wanted one.

    As to the actions of the IDF, I would expect nothing less, they have one of the best reputations in the world as a fighting force. And they earned it by being in a place that can erupt into a gun battle anywhere at any time since the country came into existance.

    • My understanding of the Galil in service with the Isreali’s was that it was expensive to produce and America was practically giving the m16’s for free. Accepting the American rifles freed up limited production capabilities and saved them money.

      The Isreali’s have a history of taking second hand weapons and getting more life from them. During the 73 yom kippor war they used ww2 surplus American Sherman tanks and British Centurions, reworked and with the Nato standard 105mm gun. They consistently defeated more numerous and newer Russian built tanks in the hands of Syrians and Egyptions.

      Which, once again proves it’s not the equipment but the soldiers that win the battles.

      Isreal, like all nations that I can think of was formed in violence. The Isreali’s know that to loose one war is to face slaughter. So they don’t loose.

      • The way it worked with M16 is that US was selling them, but at the same time it was also giving Israel generous credits to be spent on armaments, with only one catch: they had to be spent on US-made gear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *