Guns, guns, guns

[snoopay700]

its extremely expensive to change out all the uppers, and its only a marginal improvement. the military wont switch because the benefits don't outweigh the costs. the HK416 isn't really all that great, and gas piston systems are not as consistent as direct impingement, as the greater reciprocating mass messes with the harmonics of the barrel. you never see piston ARs in long range shooting competitions because of this. the thing with the M4/M16s is that they have very tight tolerances that make them accurate weapons, but make them more susceptible to fouling. even so in the army tests they covered it with fine dust to simulate sand, it malfunctioned 882 times after TENS OF THOUSANDS of rounds (it functioned properly 98.6% of the time), and was behind by one percent on the other rifles like the Scar, XM8 and 416. considering this was a completely unrealistic test, as no one would fire anywhere near that many rounds without maintenance. the AR-15 type weapons works fine, there is no real reason to replace them until someone makes something substantially better.

I guess that makes sense, i was just going off this:
In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon was fired for 6,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 6,000 total rounds, the MK16 SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages. The results have been thrown into question due to the M4 scoring 307 jams in a previous dust chamber test conducted only a few months before with the same conditions and lubrication.
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hk416#Evaluation

Taken of course from wikipedia but i'd also heard it on the military channel that it was something like that, and the difference in stoppages of the M4/M16 just seems too great to be all that reliable. And when i said it wouldn't cost too much, it was a relative term, and it still has very similar parts to the AR15 variants.

[CoolHand]

Coolhand, dont activate the filter. If you do fix it. Have to warn you to.

Carry on.

Sorry boss, won't happen again.

I work in construction, where curse words aren't so much for emphasis as they are just part of the language.

If you don't use at least two curse words in a sentence no one understands what you're saying.

It just kind of carries over to the rest of my life. You should see me trying to censor myself when I go on a date. Hilarity ensues. It's just a good thing I'm so durned pretty . . . . .

[Steelrat]

I guess that makes sense, i was just going off this:
In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon was fired for 6,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 6,000 total rounds, the MK16 SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages. The results have been thrown into question due to the M4 scoring 307 jams in a previous dust chamber test conducted only a few months before with the same conditions and lubrication.
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hk416#Evaluation

Taken of course from wikipedia but i'd also heard it on the military channel that it was something like that, and the difference in stoppages of the M4/M16 just seems too great to be all that reliable. And when i said it wouldn't cost too much, it was a relative term, and it still has very similar parts to the AR15 variants.

Too bad the XM8 melts like bad plastic furniture

[snoopay700]

Too bad the XM8 melts like bad plastic furniture

I wasn't supporting the XM8 because i hate the plastic that is used on it, it was more just to show the inconsistencies in how much M4's/M16's jam, and how they aren't the most reliable in desert conditions. We've made the change before, but evidently we can't do it again.

[LegumeOfTerror]

they are unreliable if you fire more rounds than you can physically carry after shoving talc into it. it works fine in a real world situation.

[Pneumagger]

they are unreliable if you fire more rounds than you can physically carry after shoving talc into it. it works fine in a real world situation.

World Domination:
1) Obtain 10,000 rounds of Federal XM193 5.56NATO Ammunition.
2) Procure 36 metric tonnes of Johnson & Johnson Talc Baby Powder.
3) ????
4) Profit

Legume, as you can see the Hk416 is relevant to my interests.

[bryceeden]

Can you cite a statue for that? 'Cause I went back and looked in my big book and it's not there.

I'm not saying you're wrong for sure, but I'd like to see some kind of reference to back it up.

Does your state have a searchable version of their CSR online?

I've got nothing, but gun nuts, police, and gunshop owners all say the same thing including people who have the licences in question. At this point all I can say is trust me, its true.

[Pneumagger]

Try calling these folks. They sell NFA items in Utah. They would know the law better than anyone.

Address: 2710 South 1900 West, Ogden, Utah (UT), 84401, US
Tel: 801 393 2474
Fax: 801 393 2476
Web: www.impactguns.com

Call the ATF office. I've spoke them in the past... very helpful people.

304-616-4500

This particular chat at arfcom and other threads at silencertalk indicate that many people do own all these NFA items in utah.

http://www.tacticalcourses.com/lite/...&f=37&t=301395

[CoolHand]

I've got nothing, but gun nuts, police, and gunshop owners all say the same thing including people who have the licences in question. At this point all I can say is trust me, its true.

Okie Dokie.

It's really not something I have to worry about, as I can't do class three transfers anyway.

It's just nice to know if my reference material is really as comprehensive as they say it is.