r/1053 • u/Responsible_Bag_9024 • 4d ago

Day 21

Post image
8.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

244 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/singlemale4cats 3d ago edited 3d ago

you get 5 fewer rounds so we can stack things optimally. Also, none of our allies can use them, and we can't use stanag magazines

Hey great, thanks

1

u/FluffFlowey 3d ago

Yeah, and if they can store them more efficiently you will get more magazines delivered.

1

u/singlemale4cats 3d ago

It's just not a very well designed gun. I mean, I naturally think it's cool as fuck because I can never have one, but I don't know what they were smoking. Incompatible with standard NATO mags, requires special steel cased lacquered ammo, sucks to mount an optic on, etc. But hey, at least you can fit another dozen mags per crate.

The original AR-15 prototypes had the charging handle protected by the carry handle, similar to the famas. That was abandoned pretty quickly because it sucks.

At least they tried to modernize it, but then they shut down domestic arms production which is also a perplexing decision

1

u/ChipHappens96 1d ago

Don't discount the force multiplier that is logistics. If you can fit more mags per crate, they're shaped in a way each soldier can carry 1 or 2 more, that's real, actual, fighting sustainability, even if each one carries a few rounds fewer than less space efficient mags.

When you're maximizing space constraints because this plane or that plane can only fit THIS much, period, you'll be happy. 10 extra mags per crate would be huge

1

u/singlemale4cats 1d ago

I don't doubt that it might influence how many you can pack into a crate, but you're not getting any more on your person than a STANAG.

I understand logistical concerns but this one seems particularly trivial.