Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCool
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to the original Stoner Weapon System (Stoner 63), rather the direct gas impingement system, rotary bolt etc etc designed by Eugene Stoner as has been used from the original AR-15, through the M16 and current M4 and all their variants.
The thing about firearms...we tend to like what we like. Can't judge a man for driving a Chevy instead of a Ford. My only point in getting so uppity is that I hate to see my particular Chevy criticized unfairly.
If you were in a combat unit and had experience with broken gas rings in the field, your unit armorer should have been shot. If they were range weapons...yeah, high round counts and low maintenance are the norm and they tend to be fired and not maintained until they break. But again, I can't imagine any scenario where a civilian or a police agency would put anything close to that volume downrange.
It would be interesting to see how a SCAR would fair over time in a training cadre.
|
The Arms room in my old unit is where we put the Sh1tb@gs. Nothing was ever done right. but even so it put a bad taste in my mouth. The gas rings failed in iraq. luckily it failed during qualification on a fob, but it was down range nonetheless. I was part of DART(downed aircraft recovery team) so you can imagine how that felt.
Yea, it would be interesting. Durability is more important to the military than me personally, because I don't plan on abusing my weapon. I already have a plinker, that takes up most of my rounds fired.
What benefits do you feel DI has that piston doesn't? besides price...because thats the biggest one I see. and it is a big one.
Besides, I am willing to bet you probably know more about your chevy and my ford than I do.
