Do you seriously intend to demostrate your lack of reading
skills with every new post?
How you can misunderstand my point about exploding barrels is
pretty incredible. I was saying that increased or decreased barrel
length is a highly moot point unless you really thought there was a
good reason to cut length on your weapon... other then that it's
just a rather arbitary design choice in either direction.
I mentioned exploding barrels because it's obviously not a big
issue but you have decided somehow to turn it into one, as if it
would make or break the rifle design like a barrel that somehow
explodes if it exceeds a certain length.
The previous post still does not answer the question why
most new rifle designs nowadays tend to have barrel lengths less
than 20 inches. Most are in the 15 to 18 inch range. I hope I can
get a rational explanation and clear insight to this observation
from informed members of this forum.
You might as well ask why are most of the most recent rifle
designs bulpups... does this mean there is something wrong with the
conventional design (and hence you favoured G36)? You got more then
a rational explanation but it just seems to me that it did not fit
the truth as to what you wished to believe and hence you simply
ignored it.
The basic fact is, reducing barrel length is an arbitary decision
on the part of the maker. Doing so involves trade offs in range,
accuracy and round performance for a reduction in length that
apparently users are aware of and accept. If some people see the
additional performance lost from going to 18' from 20' fine by me
and no beef to them, but the onus of justifying a 20' barrel hardly
rests on the designers who choose to use this length over others.
Some people think anything less then a 23' barrel on 5.56mm is
insufficent for their needs... are we going to fault them?
As I said, barrels don't explode or become 15kg if you add 2' or
'5'. The weight and length is there for something and it's up to
the user to make full use of it. Don't knock the SAF for deciding
that they wanted the maximum optimal performance from their 5.56mm
for their soldiers.
As I said, I don't know why you deem it fit to make it a big issue.
Might as well have an issue with the colour or aesthetic design of
the weapon to which you will never recieve a proper answer because
there are no proper answers to nonsensical questions.
And yes, is this not splitting hairs (which is defined as going
into unnecessary details on rather unimportant matters)? I have a
more justified case to make an issue of reduced bullet performance
on this, which is a far more vital thing then the weight issue you
can't see to get your mind off... but at least I have the common
sense (like most normal people) to realize there are different cuts
of cloth for different needs.
