Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
boo9 commented at 2014-08-18 20:16:22 » #1588297
now i'm no gun expert, but that mag seems loke it would fall out of that magwell. also, why would you not construct the gun to mount scopes/sights directly onto the foregrip. what possible benefit would there be to attaching it to a flimsy part of that....uhm.. handle.
1 Points
Flag
now i'm no gun expert, but that mag seems loke it would fall out of that magwell. also, why would you not construct the gun to mount scopes/sights directly onto the foregrip. what possible benefit would there be to attaching it to a flimsy part of that....uhm.. handle.
1 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2014-08-19 15:37:46 » #1588715
Well, that magazine appears to be for pistol-caliber rounds. By default I'd assume 9x19 Parabellum, but by the size of the casings, I'll lean towards .45ACP.
In either case, the M4 wouldn't be able to chamber either size, much less fire them. The M4 was not designed to fire bullets of that size. While it would theoretically be possible to modify an M4 to fire smaller cartridges, that would be less modifying and more completely rebuilding, since too many parts would have to be changed. In reality, you'd more likely be looking at an M4 that originally built to fire pistol-caliber rounds, which would mean that its mag well would be sized for pistol-caliber bullets as well.
Even if you did that, though, it'd be pretty pointless. On a military level, if what you want is a SMG with pistol-caliber rounds rather than a carbine with rifle rounds, you probably have access to something that does an SMG's job much better. SMGs are designed for use in tight, enclosed spaces. They're designed to be very maneuverable and to have a higher rate of fire, since these are advantageous when storming a room.
The M4, on the other hand, while usually considered to be an SMG, is more accurately a carbine version of the M16. While it was designed to be smaller and more maneuverable than the M16 is, it's far larger and less maneuverable than most SMGs. The point of the M4 is to allow soldiers to be more adaptable, since while the M4 isn't as good at range as an M16, and isn't as good at close range as a SMG, it can do a decent job at both of these without soldiers needing to switch to a different weapon or be forced to use their sidearm.
Using pistol-caliber rounds would detract from this purpose, though, since the pistol-caliber rounds would only be effective at close range.
From a consumer perspective...Yeah, it'd probably be pretty cool to have something as unique as an M4 chambered for pistol-caliber rounds, but you'd have a hell of a time getting the parts to do it.
That "handle" on the top of the M4 and M16 is actually intended to be used as a scope mount, and without a scope it functions as the rear iron sight. She's simply mounted an extended mounting bracket to it so that she can properly scout-mount the scope. While they do sell foregrips with picatinny rails, I would imagine that it would be more expensive and take a lot more effort to replace your foregrip rather than to just attach a mounting bracket. That said, I'd personally prefer to mount a scope conventionally. The main argument I've seen for scout-mounted scopes is that you can use them with both eyes open...Which I can do just fine with conventionally mounted scopes, which gives me a better field of view in both eyes, since the scope being more to the rear puts it closer to the peripheral of my left eye, and the larger aperture will always give a better field of view in my right eye.
3 Points
Flag
Well, that magazine appears to be for pistol-caliber rounds. By default I'd assume 9x19 Parabellum, but by the size of the casings, I'll lean towards .45ACP.
In either case, the M4 wouldn't be able to chamber either size, much less fire them. The M4 was not designed to fire bullets of that size. While it would theoretically be possible to modify an M4 to fire smaller cartridges, that would be less modifying and more completely rebuilding, since too many parts would have to be changed. In reality, you'd more likely be looking at an M4 that originally built to fire pistol-caliber rounds, which would mean that its mag well would be sized for pistol-caliber bullets as well.
Even if you did that, though, it'd be pretty pointless. On a military level, if what you want is a SMG with pistol-caliber rounds rather than a carbine with rifle rounds, you probably have access to something that does an SMG's job much better. SMGs are designed for use in tight, enclosed spaces. They're designed to be very maneuverable and to have a higher rate of fire, since these are advantageous when storming a room.
The M4, on the other hand, while usually considered to be an SMG, is more accurately a carbine version of the M16. While it was designed to be smaller and more maneuverable than the M16 is, it's far larger and less maneuverable than most SMGs. The point of the M4 is to allow soldiers to be more adaptable, since while the M4 isn't as good at range as an M16, and isn't as good at close range as a SMG, it can do a decent job at both of these without soldiers needing to switch to a different weapon or be forced to use their sidearm.
Using pistol-caliber rounds would detract from this purpose, though, since the pistol-caliber rounds would only be effective at close range.
From a consumer perspective...Yeah, it'd probably be pretty cool to have something as unique as an M4 chambered for pistol-caliber rounds, but you'd have a hell of a time getting the parts to do it.
That "handle" on the top of the M4 and M16 is actually intended to be used as a scope mount, and without a scope it functions as the rear iron sight. She's simply mounted an extended mounting bracket to it so that she can properly scout-mount the scope. While they do sell foregrips with picatinny rails, I would imagine that it would be more expensive and take a lot more effort to replace your foregrip rather than to just attach a mounting bracket. That said, I'd personally prefer to mount a scope conventionally. The main argument I've seen for scout-mounted scopes is that you can use them with both eyes open...Which I can do just fine with conventionally mounted scopes, which gives me a better field of view in both eyes, since the scope being more to the rear puts it closer to the peripheral of my left eye, and the larger aperture will always give a better field of view in my right eye.
3 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2014-09-29 06:00:26 » #1609732
Took the words right out of my mouth...
On top of that, conversion kits, or rather an entire new upper, can also be had to allow your AR-15 to handle 5.7x28mm, the P-90's round. Likely a 4.6x30mm conversion in the works, too, unless one already exists.
The modifications to the Colt platform aren't as obvious as those for the AUG 9mm conversion.
4 Points
Flag
Took the words right out of my mouth...
On top of that, conversion kits, or rather an entire new upper, can also be had to allow your AR-15 to handle 5.7x28mm, the P-90's round. Likely a 4.6x30mm conversion in the works, too, unless one already exists.
The modifications to the Colt platform aren't as obvious as those for the AUG 9mm conversion.
4 Points
Flag
1