+1

Exact Reasons

well, if you compare the m4 to a car...its like honda....people don't like but we see them alot for some reason....

Comparing the M4 to a Honda? That's a horrible comparison. Hondas usually run forever without problems.

And a lot of people like them.

i seriously hate Honda Civics....they piss me off each time i see them, i see them pretty often...

Next thing you're going to tell suggest is that M4 users are like the mind-boggling "Civic Nation" demography and the type to pimp their guns with pointless neon bling.

That's ridiculous.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...,00.html?wh=wh

See the above article. While we're on the subject - let's talk about real life forces. I for one think the whole argument of the 416 being twice as much pretty lame.

If we say that the M4A1 costs about $800 based on someone else's numbers (on this thread) that the Canadian version costs about that much. Say the 416 costs double.

How can we look in the face of the people who sacrifice their lives for their countries that their lives aren't worth $800. Heck let's double that figure if we factor in maintenance and training.

How many hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on safety like ejection seats in jets or anti-mine protection devices for vehicles?

And we're saying that the primary object of a soldier's effectiveness must be compromised for $1600? I don't buy that.

I've read many arguments on the net from soldiers and military procurers who quote those soldiers, that if they're maintained right, M4s run great.

However in prolonged firefights, or long missions through dusty conditions - that defense is a moot point. That's why the frontline special forces switch to 416s, because they are exposed to these bad conditions far more frequently.

So is the argument that because regular infantry AREN'T exposed to prolonged dusty conditions as frequently as frontline special forces a good one? Again I go back to the value of a soldier's life.

I respect soldiers, so obviously I think it's worth $1600 to protect that - especially if you factor in the hidden costs of a failed gun. Millions spent on insurance? Side effects from missing a target who goes on to kill someone else or becomes a suicide bomber?

Anyway - obviously this thread is not directed to anyone here, I just feel it's sad that the bureaucrats who make these decisions don't value those who sacrifice their lives. I think more people would joined the armed forces if they knew they would get the best equipment.

By the way - how many infantry ground battles have the US won since WW2?

Tavors are here. There's one local to me. I haven't shot it, but the guys who have seem to like it. Apparently, there's less recoil than an AR, and, best of all, it's non-restricted, so you can pack it around in your truck with you.

They're not easy to get, but can be had. I'd sell my AR for one, just because it's non-restricted (currently) and uses AR mags.

Troops die. That's their job.
It's the government's job to make it happen in an economicaly frugal manner.

And honestly, the gear we have is by and large pretty damn good. While I appreciate your support, I'd suggest you need to undertake some strategic studies before getting too insenced over the issue. On the topic of small arms, there are undoubtedly dozens of better personal weapon systems out there. But appropriation, if not practical, is useless and creates more problems than it will solve. For the purposes of the US/Cdn army as a whole, the AR system does a damned good job. There's no need for everybody to be Delta or SEAL with custom built rifles for every occasion. Even then, a goodly number of them use armalites.

Think of the logistics behind it: there are hundreds of thousands (likely numbering in the millions) of old weapons that will have to be replaced. Contracts will have to be made for creation, distribution, upkeep and training. Even little things such as cleaning kits and rifle racks will have to be redone, not to mention magazines and experimenting with new bullet loads. Or the cost of cancelling current contracts with firearms manufacturers. Even if a 416 drop-in reciever kit is used, most of these considerations will still apply. The fastest time frame that can get done in is years, and it would cost assloads of money that could do more good elsewhere. Utter logistical nightmare, especially considering that there hasn't been any new revolution in small arms development.

If I was in command of a unit, I'd rather have them fighting with an inferior weapon they know rather than a new one they didn't, especially given the relatively insubstantial disparity between the two. There are a number of historical examples that demonstrate this as well. Remember the army's boondoggle with the AR15 in Vietnam? You don't want to be doing field tests in the middle of a war.

ps. US ground forces have won virtually EVERY tactical engagement they have EVER been in since WW2, and most operational ones. Any failures beyond that were made on a strategic or grand strategic level.

edit: to go back to the airsoft thing - availability is an important thing. It's easy to find a v2 mechbox or mag catch when they're as common as hydrogen. Try finding a replacement parts for a v1/v5 gearbox or a P90 trigger in a time frame that isn't 'weeks to months, if ever'.

Bottom line is that in airsoft, the 416 and M4 are basically the same gun with a different grip and front end, so it's just a matter of personal preference, really. I've always loved the look at ARs in general, so that's why 3 of my 5 AEGs are Armalite variants, including the 416 I should be getting soon.

In the real world, yes the 416 is a better gun. H&K have fixed the problems of the AR. In the real world, if I had the option, I'd probably pick the 416 over an M4 or M16 if given the choice. IN airsoft it makes absolutely no difference. And the fact that it's been out for barely 2 years means it's not as readily available as the older Armalites that have been around since before most of us were even born.

The M4 is more like a ford F-150, everyone makes fun of it, yet in Canada and the states everyone and their dog has one :p

MORE LIGHTS THAN YOUR BODY HAS ROOM FOR

More exciting than a fist fight with a grizzly bear!

More exciting than a turpentine enema!

<------ Fuck Honda

So what, after firing 50,000 rounds in dusty conditions it jammed like 800 times. So every 500 rds it jams approx 8 times. If you know your stoppage drills this isn't a problem. And yes they can be ambedextrus (sp). Any of you ever fire a C7A2?

As for airsoft, it's all the same thing. Like someone said, we're trying to copy soldiers and a shit load of soldiers use m4/m16.

I like the armalite series because I love the look of the reciever and the design of it. Its simplistic and requires no rocking of magazines. You can operate the fireselector with your thumb load, charge shoot, select fire modes while still ready to fire.