The people carrying them are all different sizes. You really going to argue that an adjustable stock is not a factor of combat effectivness? I would tend to think most CQB guys would say it helps alot, since they are all different sizes.
I may be willing to take a half point vs a full point for this one.
I disagree that they dont matter, but agree that the should have added maintenance in there. Durability goes under reliability in my opinion.
Disagree. Our rail system is seperate from the standard issue top rail for optics. Our rails let mounting and dismounting (just as easily) tac lights, ir lasers and a host of other things that give us an INCREDIBLE advantage, and advantage that is worth at LEAST 3 points lol. Optics is one thing, but accesories that make locating, IDing a potential threat and then sharing that information with others is a whole seperate ball game. IMO of course.
agreed somewhat.
He is just mad becuase his last name is sullivan. Not Stoner. Thats sad he is admitting that a Russian tank commander that had no engineering education out engineered him. I think Mr Sullivan and his son just wanted some attention
ok dammit, im biased. im going to bed. AR is still better for our military and the AK is still better for those miltarys/terrorists who cant afford ARs.
Ok u want the real winner here? HK416, no stfu
Originally Posted by Danny
The people carrying them are all different sizes. You really going to argue that an adjustable stock is not a factor of combat effectivness? I would tend to think most CQB guys would say it helps alot, since they are all different sizes.
Reply With Quote