Search Results
7/18/2025, 7:27:18 AM
>>63993719
>>63993719
>but if they really believed it then they wouldn't disagree with adopting true PDWs in 4.6x30mm, yet they always actually do.
Assault rifles and PDWs have more in common with each other than they do battle rifles. They both fire tiny light bullets at high speeds and at high volume in a controllable manner. All of which battle rifles fail to do. And if you advocate for adopting PDWs then assault rifles are a more powerful version of that. But battle rifles are not a more powerful version of an assault rifle.
>>63993994
>Don't you recall the ten years of battlefield experience and reports from Iraq and Afghanistan where hajjis didn't drop and returned fire after multiple center-torso hits from M855?
Hmmm, maybe because the 20" M16 barrel was cut down to 14.5" for an M4 Carbine resulting in a significant loss of velocity causing 5.56 to suffer from less reliable and abundant fragmentation and wounding potential? Couldn't be, that wouldn't fit your narrative!
>>63993719
>but if they really believed it then they wouldn't disagree with adopting true PDWs in 4.6x30mm, yet they always actually do.
Assault rifles and PDWs have more in common with each other than they do battle rifles. They both fire tiny light bullets at high speeds and at high volume in a controllable manner. All of which battle rifles fail to do. And if you advocate for adopting PDWs then assault rifles are a more powerful version of that. But battle rifles are not a more powerful version of an assault rifle.
>>63993994
>Don't you recall the ten years of battlefield experience and reports from Iraq and Afghanistan where hajjis didn't drop and returned fire after multiple center-torso hits from M855?
Hmmm, maybe because the 20" M16 barrel was cut down to 14.5" for an M4 Carbine resulting in a significant loss of velocity causing 5.56 to suffer from less reliable and abundant fragmentation and wounding potential? Couldn't be, that wouldn't fit your narrative!
Page 1