Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
regarding PJs post,

Not sure of the actual numbers, but it has been taught at various military schools in which I attended that a very large number of dead soldiers in Vietnam were found with jammed/inoperable rifles or their platoon mates had jammed/inoperable rifles. Of course, were this true it would not exactly be something the Senate Armed Forces Committee would be excited to advertise, and could also be seen as a national security issue. I dont know, maybe it was just a reason to make us clean our rifles more, kind of like the time I got smoked because my canteen cup was dirty and, according to the TAC, "dirty cups killed 1000s in vietnam" haha. I pointed out that we never use canteen cups, because our water was bottled now, he was not impressed
The version of the story I heard, from a former British NCO old enought to have met serving Vets from Nam, was that the soldiers died trying to cock their rifles.

Quote Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger View Post
No firearm should be fired under water or full of water. Not even the venerable AK performs reliably. As such, the weapon's performance in such conditions is not indicative of the robustness of its design. The AR was revolutionary when it was designed and has stood the test of time very well. It pushed militaries around the world to adopt similar systems. The AR has actually eclipsed the AK in worldwide adoption, and is used by more special forces units around the world than any other system. Piston ARs and other third generation assault rifles do improve upon it in several ways, but only incrementally. The reason why the US military has not adopted a new service rifle is because nothing has outperformed the AR in a great enough way to justify a switch.
Most rifles outperform the AR-15 in one way or another - the M-16 series is a byword for utter crapness, it is a relatively light rifle but there is little about the design which is revolutionary or desirable. The 5.56 cartridge is too small, and it exists as a result of Post-War American Generals being unwilling to adopt the British .280, and later going overboard on the downsizing (recently, the 6.8 Remington has acknowleged the stupidity of this), direct impingement is such a stupid concept I actually can't believe Stoner created it, and the AR-18 gave us short stroke piston a few years later anyway.

there is, I suspect, exactly one reason why the AR-15 dominates the American Armed Forces - it is made by Colt.

@MRD

The early failures of the AR in Vietnam were due to the pentagon switching the type of powder used from that which Stoner designed the rifle around. In short, it gummed up the bolt and bolt carrier causing jams. That reputation for jamming has followed the rifle ever since, even though the modern AR is a very reliable platform.
Partly true - but it is equally true that Stoner's design was not, as he claimed "low maintainance" using standard powders. Face it, the flaw is in the gas system - it isn't soldier proof or combat proof.

Quote Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube View Post
It is a well-earned reputation. Even shiny fresh-from-the-factory M4s will malfunction as soon as you give them a good reason to, whether it be firing lots of rounds, getting it dirty, or whatever. Sure, it performs just fine under ideal conditions, but when is a Soldier's rifle ever under ideal conditions?
Murphy's Laws of Combat - Bear in mind your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.