Better than M4, but you can’t have it

**Stan** · 02-21-2007

JC,
You'd be correct there ! Stamped steel. The AK (I have never had the pleasure of using a real Russian AK, just the Chinese versions) was also built on a tight budget. Those weapons worked because there was no "lowest bid" then, just needed a realiable weapon and fast.

Funny you mentioning the Sten, which was made of stamped and welded metal with a paint-like coating (known today as anodized), scored higher than the Thompson when such things as simplicity, accuracy, weight and reliability were measured.

Thanks, American Rifleman, for that info ! Yepper, Life Member I be

On with your history lesson:
The M3/M3A1s were far easier to manufacture than the Thompson, and had a number of excellent design features. The low cyclical rate of fire makes the M3/M3A1 easier to control than most submachine guns. The weapon's straight line of recoil thrust also adds substantially in controlling the gun in automatic fire. Her loose tolerances allow for reliable operation even if very dirty and, with its bolt and guide rod design make it more reliable than the AK under adverse conditions.

I know my weapons

**120mm** · 02-21-2007

Frankly, I like the FN SCAR. There are limited number of civilian HK 416s out there in semiauto, and the reviews are not very high on them. They seem a little cheap in construction and regress in the areas of sighting options (unique rail system) The FN SCAR promises to be modular, like the XM8, but without the long-term polymer heat degradation which the Bundeswehr is dealing with in their rifles, which are functionally identical. The FN SCAR is also modular in calibers. The base carbine/rifle combo can be chambered in a variety of 45mm length casings, while the heavy carbine/rifle can be chambered in 7.62 x 51mm. (We dodged THAT bullet, when we cancelled the M8) Plus, FN is producing M16s, M4s, M249s and M240s for us right now, and doing a bang-up job of it. (FN is also fully supported on the civilian side in the US. Try getting customer support from H&K.)

Reading about weapons in the MSM is like nails on a chalkboard, to me. They just are NOT capable of getting details, or even overviews of the subject correct.

The bolt riding forward on the M3/M3A1 always kept me from getting good accuracy out of it. Just too much mass, firing from the open bolt for my tastes.

**jcustis** · 02-21-2007

I was pumped about the SCAR system too, until I saw how it disassembles. It's no a simple matter of pulling a pin and levering the upper receiver up. It got a thumbs down after I saw that, which may be my own M16 parochialism.

**Stan** · 02-21-2007

120,

The bolt riding forward on the M3/M3A1 always kept me from getting good accuracy out of it.

That's a matter of practice (me thinks). She was never designed around ranges beyond 100 meters. But then, the M4 is considered to be effective to 150 due mostly to its short barrel. The tanker must exit the vehicle and commence firing. You can do that with an M2HB (my preference) nor M60.

JC, Yes, the M4 is easy to use and maintain. But if you started out like I did when the M16A1 was a total failure, it was hard to beleive the M4 would far better. Granted, it was rarely slung over one's shoulder for any length of time, so barrel warp would be insignificant.

The H&K is a nice and expensive toy and I doubt we will get these anytime soon.

**jcustis** · 02-21-2007

Across 4 months of carrying an MP5 is Somalia, I ran into the same finicky issues with dust/sand. It needs almost meticulous care and cleaning, and a drive down the "by-pass road" didn't lend itself to any sterile environment.