It should - troops go on leave on operations, weapons get damaged in contacts...
A good rail system would allow mounting the M203 to any C8 system. I think the best C8 system would mimic the KAC SR15E3 upper...
AR 15 Carry Handle or not?
- Thread starter .45colt
- Start date
It should - troops go on leave on operations, weapons get damaged in contacts...
A good rail system would allow mounting the M203 to any C8 system. I think the best C8 system would mimic the KAC SR15E3 upper...
Been in any fire fights lately?
As a section commander and then a platoon warrant, I carried an M203 because of casulties and the need for the fire support. Every weapon should have the ability to mount one. The ability to quickly mount and dismount it makes it a must for the battlefield.
Again YMMV,
Hoddie
It sounds like you are angry. What I wrote is only my opinion. You can disagree with it if you like. I am not an expert by any means. And it seems you have put me in my place
If you read what I had written I wrote that I cannot foresee using it as a LMG. In other words I was questioning the need for an ordinary infantryman to have a heavy barreled carbine when it will never see hundreds of rounds down the spout in a few minutes. If it did then the soldier is forgetting fire-discipline. Every carbine need not have the ability to mount a 203.
I'm not angry at all. You stated that the original light barrel M16 was a better infantry weapon. I and a multitude of others I'm sure, disagree. Yes, you gave your opinion, but you stated it more as fact than opinion so I attempted to explain why the more modern weapons systems are better for the current battlefield.
Anyway, I think that we've all hijacked this thread long enough.
I really like the classic looks of the carry handle. I have a Colt C7 style upper (apparently it may have even belonged to the legendary KevinB) that I plan on installing on my 11.5" upper. Would a flat top be better? Certainly more flexible when it comes to options but I dig the looks, besides I could always add a KAC FF RAS and mount a red dot over the barrel, than I'd have the best of both worlds in my opinion, good looks and more functional.
Dr van Nostran
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Lower Mainland, B.C.
I'll give you the burst system, there's really no practical purpose for that outside of the world of military bean counters, but Dave Lutz and the Marine Corps did every AR15 afficionado an immense solid by demanding those sight improvements and incorporating them into the M16A2, with the AR15A2 and the Sporters eventually following.
The Canadians missed an opportunity to enhance basic military marksmanship by not incorporating them into the C7.
Those and the other improvements such as the 1/7 barrel made an already good rifle and excellent rifle capable of great accuracy. Marksmanship is key. The Marine Corps knows that. The basic principles of marksmanship don't change. Aimpoints and Eotechs are for CQB, fine, but despite the realities of todays conflicts, not every future conflict is going to resemble street/house clearing in Fallujah.
And I'm not even knocking the M4/C8, or all of the mission specific improvements available today for the M4 platform. But at the end of the day, it's a carbine - not a rifle - and it's range and potential will naturally be limited by that.
The M16/AR15 is a modular system. It has been, is being and will continue to be adapted to the demands and conditions that it's users are faced with, for as long as the platform is viable. But the basic weapons system is best represented by the M16A2.
