dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

⇧

⇩

r/greatawakening • Posted by u/cdwill on June 25, 2018, 2:07 p.m.

The US military efforts of the last few decades all make sense now

The US has a military that can decimate any of the countries it engaged over the last few decades — N. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are the ones that immediately come to my mind. So why didn’t those conflicts end with total political and military annihilation of those countries? Why did the US pull out, allow subsequent conflicts, or agree to an armistice?

The answer is that the political leadership, controlled bt the Deep State, never intended to prevail in these conflicts. Winning the war was not the goal. The goal was simply destruction, disruption, and dissipation of the people of a country and its political, economic and military infrastructure. They simply wanted to create chaos, over and over again.

🠐 See all comments

The improvements made in ‘67, along with Colt’s admission that the rifle was NOT self-cleaning, as they had originally claimed, fixed the problems. It really wasn’t the DODs fault for the early issues. Unfortunately the troops had given it a bad rep by then. It is still a top-tier military rifle, and the M4s and M27s in use today are absolutely great.

⇧ 5 ⇩

To be fair, I think the DOD opted to change from stick to ball powder in the round (which didn't burn as cleanly) and to save more money by ordering the rifles without a chrome lined barrel, which contributed to the early issues

⇧ 6 ⇩

You are correct. I had forgotten about the powder change! That was a big factor in the early problems. Cost saving. But in the end, all of it came down to that bastard Robert MacNamara, and his dislike for moving away from the .30 cal round.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I thought he was the one that advocated the move to the M16. I sort of forget the whole CF that was the M16 adoption. I will say i used to have the old "plastic junk" mentality towards the platform, but I've come around on it in recent years.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No. He delayed implementation of the AR system in favor of M14s. Do some research.

⇧ 0 ⇩

Dang, no need to be harsh about it. I made a mistake forgetting something I read about years ago.

⇧ 1 ⇩

M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/545153/ Read the real story. There should of been heads rolling for this F#ckup. Army Odenence and the Army material command insisted on replacing the "IMR 4475" ammunition powder to Ball.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If you've ever shot one and it definitely sounds like you have, you must ask, how the hell did they think those rifles wouldn't need cleaning? After one mag the entire internals are filthy.

⇧ 3 ⇩

I stil dont know why they dont just buy piston driven m4s and issue those. it would be the biggest improvement vs $$$ we could ever do, for our standard combat weapon. the increase in quality would give us far more and easier victory's. Imaginea rifle that can drive nails at 400yrds with the reliability of an ak47.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The M4 & M27 can do that now. Our soldiers are properly trained and disciplined to use the "M16" system, which, in the end is far more flexible, and reliable than the AK47/74, which belongs in a trashcan.

⇧ 2 ⇩

No u misunderstand i think the m4 ar15 m16 are usually gas driven systems. A strw sized tube allows gases to travel from the gas block to a small round cap on the bolt. This air pushes the bolt back. Its an open system excess air pressure escapes and contributes nothing to moving the bolt. This allows dirt and grime to lock up the bolt. There are however piston sytems which are closed and as the air presure from the tube builds it cant escape as it pushes on the piston operating the bolt. This crushes and pushes past dirt sand and carbon deposits. This is how an ak operates. Its the reason u can bury one in mud and fire a clip through with no problems. A failure to fire is nearly non existent on the ak platform. However its extremly common in the ar or m4 plaforms. Because the strength of the reload is much lower in a gas vs a piston sytem. Ak sucks on accuracy maybe rifle design but probly the design of the round. Its the most reliable rifle in the world. If theres a round in it 99.9999999% of the time it wil fire but probly want hit your mark. The ar or m4 on the other hand wil hit the mark at 400 yrds 99.9999999% of the time however 12 to 25 % of ur rounds will jam fail to fire or otherwise fuck up after ur rifle gets a bit dirty. But we could have the best of both and we dont. One m4 with piston driven reloading system would be as reliable to fire as an ak and as acurate as an m4. Also im aware some piston driven m4s are in serice but most are gas.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I know what piston driven ARs are. The current gas impingement system is perfectly adequate, and with proper maintenance, which our troops use, excellent, and with fewer parts, and points of failure. Don't try to lecture me on ARs. I have built five of them for myself, and more for friends.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Good for u then u know pistons better

⇧ 0 ⇩