In December 2006, the Center for Naval Analyses released a report on U.S. small arms in combat.
...
M4 users had the highest levels of satisfaction with weapon performance, including 94 percent (862 troops) with accuracy, 92 percent (844 troops) with range, and 93 percent (853 troops) with rate of fire. Only 19 percent of M4 users (174 troops) reported a stoppage, while 82 percent of those that experienced a stoppage said it had little impact on their ability to clear the stoppage and re-engage their target.
M4 tõrked olid tavaliselt seotud kas puuduliku hoolduse, nõuetele mittevastavate juppide või viletsate salvedega. Valdav enamus sõduritest jäid oma relvaga rahule ja ei kogenud mingeid probleeme.In early 2010, two journalists from the New York Times spent three months with soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan. While there, they questioned around 100 infantrymen about the reliability of their M4 Carbines, as well as the M16 rifle. Troops did not report to be suffering reliability problems with their rifles. While only 100 troops were asked, they fought at least a dozen intense engagements in Helmand Province, where the ground is covered in fine powdered sand (called "moon dust" by troops) that can stick to firearms. Weapons were often dusty, wet, and covered in mud. Intense firefights lasted hours with several magazines being expended. Only one soldier reported a jam when his M16 was covered in mud after climbing out of a canal. The weapon was cleared and resumed firing with the next chambered round. Furthermore, a Marine Chief Warrant Officer reported that with his battalion's 700 M4s and 350 M16s, there were no issues.[55]
Muuseas, ka meie mehed teipisid liiva tõttu oma Galilidel igasugused avad kinni. Ilmselt oli siis põhjust.
EDIT: Esimeses tsitaadis toodud statistikas võeti arvesse ainult neid, kes olid ka tegelikult lahingutes osalenud.
Selles ma ei kahtle, et mingil relval võivad puudused olla. On küllalt asju, mis mulle AR-15 puhul ei meeldi, kuid ma ei näe mingit vajadust seda platvormi hakata ebatõeste arvamuste või legendide põhjal maha tegema hakata. Täpselt samamoodi on igal relval omad puudused. Inimesed suhtuvad jubeda kirega mingisse brändi või tootesse. Milleks seda vaja? Ainuke oluline küsimus on see, et kas see tööriist teeb seda, mida vaja. Ma arvan, et tänapäeva relvade puhul pole mingit kahtlust, et nad kõik saavad erinevatel viisidel vajalike ülesannetega hakkama. Sellepärast on tobe ühte või teist relva põhjani maha tegema hakata.
Sama hästi võiksime vaielda haamrite erinevate käepidemete üle...
