I'm not a fan of it myself, a few of our lads get better scores on APWT with carbine than they did with the rifle though. I just don't like the forward pistol grip, doesn't attach far enough forward for my liking. Apart from that it seems ok for what it is designed for.
I'm not sure of the rationale behind that. I've never compared carbine and rifle to see if the gas ports are the same distance along the barrel (assuming that if a carbine were to be fitted with iron sights, the foresight would be attached here) I suspect there would be a shorter distance between rear and foresights on a carbine, would this have much of an effect on shooting? Alternatively, it might be SUSAT so the weapon is ready to go into theatre, when we had rifles, I could never understand the point in training with iron sights and then changeing to SUSAT for tour.
How many L22's have been produced and Is it realy needed? The IW concept was to get rid of long and short weapons (aka SLR and SMG) with one to make training and log's simpler. Would it be useful to make them even more widespread to "rear" area troops whos first job isnt fighting?
Plus i have seen pics of FAA lynx crews carrying them as well.
What are the costs involved in replacing a rifle wit ha carbine? Is it just a case of modding a rifle or a complete rebuild?
And would it just be cheaper to purchase a slack handful of HK UCPs and MP7s to arm non-fighting troops. Using GPMGs as the long reach?