The gun is a mechanical device, Murphy's law has never been repealed, do a press check when loading, you may be surprised sometime to see your blaster didn't pick up a round. Why do you think Tap, Rack, Bang is the drill for a gun that goes "click" instead of "bang?"KD5NRH wrote:I've never heard anyone recommend a press check immediately after chambering on a pistol, only as a "confidence check" to make sure that a nightstand or carry gun hasn't been unloaded since the last check.MoJo wrote:The instructors also recommend a press check for ALL pistol platforms, does that make the 1911, Glock, H&K, Baretta, SIG, M&P, HiPower, and others unreliable? Making sure the weapon picked up a round is just good sense not a flaw.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “U. S. military weapons fail in battle?”
- Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:40 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
- Replies: 43
- Views: 4054
Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
- Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:22 pm
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
- Replies: 43
- Views: 4054
Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
The instructors also recommend a press check for ALL pistol platforms, does that make the 1911, Glock, H&K, Baretta, SIG, M&P, HiPower, and others unreliable? Making sure the weapon picked up a round is just good sense not a flaw.KD5NRH wrote:Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends you pull the mag back out and make sure a round chambered.bdickens wrote:I just don't get how after 40 years this myth is still going around that the M-16 platform is unreliable.
Name another platform for which very nearly every tactical instructor recommends that you short-load the mags by at least two rounds.
A lot of AR/M16 mags are difficult to seat fully loaded on a closed bolt. I'd rather have 18 or 28 for sure than have the mag fall out on the first shot after a tac reload. Since the H&K carbine uses AR style mags I would think it has a similar problem.
It all boils down to there ain't no perfect weapon system. I've seen Garands, M14s, M16s, M60s, Maw Duces, Glocks, 1911s, 1903 Springfields, revolvers and more "sporting guns" than I can remember choke, puke, and fail. When you use something eventually it's going to break or quit working especially under combat conditions where maintenance is problematic.
- Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:03 am
- Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
- Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
- Replies: 43
- Views: 4054
Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
No individual weapon system can stand up to the volume of fire the articles said they were having to deliver. The problems are heat, powder fouling, loss of lubricant through break down, burning and being slung off. This is like your automobile being run at full throttle without coolant and oil - - - you aren't going to get very far.
When a superior force attacks you have to get reinforcements, artillery and air support or you will wind up in the same situation those guys were in.
I don't know about white hot, but I have seen barrels on M60 machine guns glowing. The barrel is ruined after doing this but you do what you gotta do.![evil :evil2:](./images/smilies/evil-2.gif)
When a superior force attacks you have to get reinforcements, artillery and air support or you will wind up in the same situation those guys were in.
I don't know about white hot, but I have seen barrels on M60 machine guns glowing. The barrel is ruined after doing this but you do what you gotta do.
![evil :evil2:](./images/smilies/evil-2.gif)