The not-all-that-controversial introduction of the M27 squad support weapon to replace the Marine's M249s has been a resounding success, and before they've even received all their rifles, the Marines have put in an order for more, a five-year indefinite delivery of up to a total of 23.6 million dollars' worth of rifles.
For many of us who appreciate the fine craftsmanship of the old days of gun making, the old stuff certainly has its allure. There is nothing like the beauty of a pre-World War II Smith & Wesson revolver or an old Winchester rifle, but how do they match up against the guns of today?
It was an ambush. Not a mean-spirited one, but one that would test the mettle of our military on a different front: social and media relations. Jenkins wanted to see if our military would confront the media maelstrom that has surrounded this issue. And, by all accounts, he picked the most critical time for them to take his test - the exact day on which the DADT repeal took effect, this past Tuesday, Sept. 20th.
Jenkins put the recruitment challenge out to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines. Only the Marines answered the call. The Times article states:
It's capable of sustained fire just as much as the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, but it looks, handles, and carries like an M4, and takes M4/STANAG magazines. Being able to put thirty rounds down precisely outweighs being able to loose a hundred all over the place (and clear a jam or two in the process). On top of that, the Marines are asking for someone to make them a high-capacity quad-stack stick magazine a la Surefire hundred-rounder. Once that's done then there won't be much of a case for the M249.
Not only that, but they're cheaper, by about a thousand dollars (M249s cost four grand a pop, M27s, three).
So all I can say is that each has its own pros and cons. The old guns seem to have much better bluing and wood compared to the new guns today, but with the technology even wood stocks are quickly becoming outdated and replaced by synthetic ones. It is hard to say if the quality control is as good as it used to be. You hear complaints how the new guns just don't hold up, but I have seen quite a few older guns on the repair racks in my time. I have had to repair more than one older rifle and handgun.
So really it is like anything else in firearms, a matter of taste and preference. If you want to collect firearms than of course the old stuff is the way to go. Some companies may have seemed to have made improvements but really are giving way to the high production costs, and that might hurt them in the long run.
For many of us who appreciate the fine craftsmanship of the old days of gun making, the old stuff certainly has its allure. There is nothing like the beauty of a pre-World War II Smith & Wesson revolver or an old Winchester rifle, but how do they match up against the guns of today?
It was an ambush. Not a mean-spirited one, but one that would test the mettle of our military on a different front: social and media relations. Jenkins wanted to see if our military would confront the media maelstrom that has surrounded this issue. And, by all accounts, he picked the most critical time for them to take his test - the exact day on which the DADT repeal took effect, this past Tuesday, Sept. 20th.
Jenkins put the recruitment challenge out to the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard and Marines. Only the Marines answered the call. The Times article states:
It's capable of sustained fire just as much as the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, but it looks, handles, and carries like an M4, and takes M4/STANAG magazines. Being able to put thirty rounds down precisely outweighs being able to loose a hundred all over the place (and clear a jam or two in the process). On top of that, the Marines are asking for someone to make them a high-capacity quad-stack stick magazine a la Surefire hundred-rounder. Once that's done then there won't be much of a case for the M249.
Not only that, but they're cheaper, by about a thousand dollars (M249s cost four grand a pop, M27s, three).
So all I can say is that each has its own pros and cons. The old guns seem to have much better bluing and wood compared to the new guns today, but with the technology even wood stocks are quickly becoming outdated and replaced by synthetic ones. It is hard to say if the quality control is as good as it used to be. You hear complaints how the new guns just don't hold up, but I have seen quite a few older guns on the repair racks in my time. I have had to repair more than one older rifle and handgun.
So really it is like anything else in firearms, a matter of taste and preference. If you want to collect firearms than of course the old stuff is the way to go. Some companies may have seemed to have made improvements but really are giving way to the high production costs, and that might hurt them in the long run.
About the Author:
Guns.com is your top source for guns news, reviews, and interacting with the gun community.
Posting Komentar