XM-8 Is Gun of the Future

[Semper Fi]

Just pointing out again where you are wrong. You are agreeing with Duane that an M203 IS a grenade launcher attached to an M16. When in fact, it is NOT - it's an M203 regardless of the weapon it's attached too. Having an M203 ON an m16 does NOT magically make the M16 now an M203, but an M26 WITH an M203.

There's a difference.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thats what I was trying to say. If an M203 was mounted on an M4, it would be an 'M203'. If it were mounted on an M16, it would be an 'M203'. If it were sitting in an armory, ina box, it would be an 'M203'. See anything wrong here?

 

[freeandfun1]

Just pointing out again where you are wrong. You are agreeing with Duane that an M203 IS a grenade launcher attached to an M16. When in fact, it is NOT - it's an M203 regardless of the weapon it's attached too. Having an M203 ON an m16 does NOT magically make the M16 now an M203, but an M26 WITH an M203.

There's a difference.

But the M203 is made to be used with the M16 and that was my point. The 203 is not a stand alone weapon. It is not designed to be used as a stand alone weapon as you cannot fire a 203 when it is unattached (well, you could technically, I guess, but it ain't made to be used that way and it would be a bitch to do).

And the M4 is a shortened version of the M16.

US ARMY WEBSITE
Description and Specifications
A compact version of the M16A2 rifle, with a collapsible stock, a flat-top upper receiver accessory rail and a detachable handle/rear aperture site assembly. The M4 enables a soldier operating in close quarters to engage targets at extended range with accurate, lethal fire. It achieves more than 85 percent commonality with the M16A2 rifle and will replace all .45 caliber M3 submachine guns, selected M9 pistols, and M16 series rifles.

 

[freeandfun1]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thats what I was trying to say. If an M203 was mounted on an M4, it would be an 'M203'. If it were mounted on an M16, it would be an 'M203'. If it were sitting in an armory, ina box, it would be an 'M203'. See anything wrong here?

If you read my post, that is what I said. The M203 is the weapon. Not the M16.

Originally Posted by freeandfun1
whether it is an M16 it is attached to or an M4 (which is NOTHING BUT A SHORTENED version of the M16), it is refered to as an M203.

 

[dmp]

And the M4 is a shortened version of the M16.

(Army Website stuff)

That is a bit more than:

...attached to or an M4 (which is NOTHING BUT A SHORTENED version of the M16),

Accuracy.

 

[Semper Fi]

And the M4 is a shortened version of the M16.

But it is still called an M4, not an M16, therefore they are two differant guns. And what would an 'M203' be called if it were not attached to an M16?

 

[dmp]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thats what I was trying to say. If an M203 was mounted on an M4, it would be an 'M203'. If it were mounted on an M16, it would be an 'M203'. If it were sitting in an armory, ina box, it would be an 'M203'. See anything wrong here?

It goes back to 'What Joe's CALL something' and what the "name" of something is.

Most Joes call a UH1 a 'Huey'. Doesn't mean they are right. The Army Flew 'Iroquois'

 

[freeandfun1]

That is a bit more than:



Accuracy.

You're being an ass. The statements are the same. Grow up would ya.

 

[Semper Fi]

If you read my post, that is what I said. The M203 is the weapon. Not the M16.

So the M16 is just there for a foundation for the M203? :huh:

 

[freeandfun1]

But it is still called an M4, not an M16, therefore they are two differant guns. And what would an 'M203' be called if it were not attached to an M16?

You two are now playing with semantics. Just get over it.

 

[dmp]

But it is still called an M4, not an M16, therefore they are two differant guns. And what would an 'M203' be called if it were not attached to an M16?

...an M203. I think what Free is trying to say is that when asking for a weapon, they'd ask the amoror for an "m203" and expect to get one attached to an m16; whether or not it's the correct name.

 

[dmp]

You're being an ass. The statements are the same. Grow up would ya.

lol!!

 

[Semper Fi]

...an M203. I think what Free is trying to say is that when asking for a weapon, they'd ask the amoror for an "m203" and expect to get one attached to an m16; whether or not it's the correct name.

So, as mentioned above, it all comes down to what people call it, and what the technical term is. For an M203 40mm grenade launcher attached to an M16A2 5.56mm rifle, its is technically an M16/M203.

But it can be called an M203.

 

[dmp]

So the M16 is just there for a foundation for the M203? :huh:

May wanna let it go - this guy doesn't admit he's wrong, or even MISTAKEN...he just starts throwing insults....

 

[freeandfun1]

...an M203. I think what Free is trying to say is that when asking for a weapon, they'd ask the armorer for an "m203" and expect to get one attached to an m16; whether or not it's the correct name.

exactly. the M203 is not a stand alone weapon in the sense of being usable. You don't/cannot carry just the "launcher" as a weapon. It MUST be attached to an M16 family weapon.

So yes, the M16 is the foundation for the M203. A grenadier carrying the M203 is first a grenadier and secondarily a rifleman.

 

[Semper Fi]

May wanna let it go - this guy doesn't admit he's wrong, or even MISTAKEN...he just starts throwing insults....

Hahahahaha.

 

[freeandfun1]

May wanna let it go - this guy doesn't admit he's wrong, or even MISTAKEN...he just starts throwing insults....

ah... you are talking about yourself again.

 

[dmp]

ah... you are talking about yourself again.

You're being an ass. The statements are the same. Grow up would ya.

(shrug). Shoe Fits snuggly.

 

[freeandfun1]

(shrug). Shoe Fits snuggly.

It does fit you. You were being an ass and you do need to grow up.

You condescending attitude gets tiresome.

 

[dmp]

It does fit you. You were being an ass and you do need to grow up.

You condescending attitude gets tiresome.

Translation:

What Freeandfun1 MEANS to say

I wasn't accurate in my statements...even though you did not single me out, or name my name, I took offense because I'm insecure. I realize you were simply trying to provide the most accurate information possible. My small penis issues took offense because I CANNOT be proven wrong. When faced with facts, I throw insults and offer phrases like "Semantics" because I cannot back up what I claim. In my world 'EVERYONE' is 'right', regardless of accuracy. In combat I'd be a GREAT grenade soldier because I'd never have to hit the target closer than by about 25 feet.

See here? Fuck off. Really. You started this shit with your sarcastic comment "Thanks for saying what has already been said" - when the things I posted HAD NOT been said/typed. You had BLATANT flaws in your descriptions of weapons - without GETTING PERSONAL, I corrected some. But no - that wasn't good enough for you! You had to make other fake statements and conclude with 'Well...grow up, you ass!'.

Real big of you, Nancy. If you can't play nice with others - even others who didn't mention YOU or anything YOU wrote; but provided VERY accurate info supporting a discussion; you may want to consider giving up the game.

Regards -

-=d=-

Edit - if you'd like to email and apologize, feel free - blk93pgt(at)hotmail.com Until then, you're safe and secure on my ignore list.