Tweet
Look, I'm not getting all this obsessive defense of this gun. For what? As I said, show me $1,700.00+ in value and workmanship? You can't. Not when anyone can go out and purchase a Remington 1100 configured the exact same way for a bit over one third of what an M-4 runs, and have a gun that will cycle low brass loads, as well as hot Magnum stuff without a hitch. Right out of the box. Period.
No break in. No special $20.00 a tube grease. No having to shoot umpteen boxes of hot loads, before it does what it's supposed to do out of the box. No disassembly and pre lubing. No nothing. It will simply run with anything you feed it. Just like it has since it was first introduced in 1963, over half a century ago. And has held an incredible reliability record of over 24,000 rounds without a hiccup for another 36 years. In spite of several attempts from guns of newer designs that couldn't compete with it before failing.
Why would you pay almost 3 times as much for a gun that has proven it can't perform as well? I'm not saying the M-4 is "bad". It just isn't worth what they're asking for it, because it doesn't do anything better, or even as good. Hell, if it did I'd buy one.
No break in. No special $20.00 a tube grease. No having to shoot umpteen boxes of hot loads, before it does what it's supposed to do out of the box. No disassembly and pre lubing. No nothing. It will simply run with anything you feed it. Just like it has since it was first introduced in 1963, over half a century ago. And has held an incredible reliability record of over 24,000 rounds without a hiccup for another 36 years. In spite of several attempts from guns of newer designs that couldn't compete with it before failing.
Why would you pay almost 3 times as much for a gun that has proven it can't perform as well? I'm not saying the M-4 is "bad". It just isn't worth what they're asking for it, because it doesn't do anything better, or even as good. Hell, if it did I'd buy one.
Comment