Author Topic: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan  (Read 3827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline victorcharlie

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3591
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #30 on: May 26, 2010, 02:53:56 PM »
Time to bring back the M-14
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater

Offline srussell

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (14)
  • A Real Regular
  • *****
  • Posts: 838
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2010, 03:12:27 PM »
the garand and m14 are very nice rifles.  i wouldnt feel undergunned with one on certain missions.  but, again i say that soldiers should be able to choose their weapon according to the mission on hand. 
even with the m1 or m14 most people cant hit much over 300yards if that. i will say that each squad should have a long range shooter. the m16 was and id great for what it was made for close range and lots of fire power in a close house to house fight the m16 and 12gauge shot gun are the thing to have. as for as each troop picking he/her own  firearm for each mission that would not be good you would eather have all wanting the lightest thing made to pack are my personal pick any thing long range

Offline born-to-hunt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
  • Gender: Male
  • .:Hunter:.
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2010, 03:54:11 PM »
I think they should have a choice everybodies different and everyone has an opinion I think if they shot a couple different guns and got a feel for each one and which they were best with it would be pretty good.
Look a distraction!!!

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24325
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2010, 04:49:20 PM »
I cannot wrap my mind around the cost of trying to supply the "weapon of choice" to every soldier in the field. Not to mention the ammo for each weapon. Imagine if a squad size unit say of 6 to 8 men, went out with 4 different weapons types, and 4 different calibers. ::) Each soldier toten his own ammo, with very limited interchangeability, should a lengthy fire fight ensue. It would be a disaster to say the least, and resupply in the field would be very difficult if any glitch in communications of what each soldier was carrying.
Standardization was the smartest thing the military every did, and it is the only practical means of insuring everyone is up and running. If one goes into all the wars fought since WWI, you will hear stories of failures of everything from bolt action rifles to machine guns. War is hard on men and equipment, and there will be failures if the weapon either CAN'T be maintained and kept reasonably clean, or the soldier does not make the effort with time permits, and with mass production assembly, and ammo manufacture.
This thing with the M4 not being reliable, is a typical criticism from soldiers, and and there are far more soldiers whom will vouch for it BEING reliable. I quizzed my son each time he got back from his three deployments, as to his opinion of the M4 and it's reliability. He said that he maintained his weapon ANY TIME they had down time, and made sure that his squad members did like wise. He never had the problems discussed here. Very few soldiers in the field can hit a man under stress at 500 or 600 years with a rifle. It is not a realistic expectation in my opinion. That is what snipers are for.
In WWI there were men that bitched about the bolt action, and men that swore by them. In WWII, there were men that whined about the M14, and men that swore by them. The M1 carbine was pathetic, but there were men that loved'em.  When the M16 was introduced the wonderful government had the ammunition plants load 5.56 ammo with ball powder that was meant for the 7.62, and it burned dirty in that caliber causing premature, and extreme fouling. Because of that, the complaints never stopped, even after the problem was corrected.
I hear folks touting the AK47 as being more reliable. No doubt they are reliable. I have owned them, and shot many a round. But a guy shootin at me at 350 or 400 yards with one will damn lucky to hit me with it given it's legendary inaccuracy, and 500 to 600 yards it won't take luck, it will take a miracle. It shoots every time because the action is sloppy. I'll take the accuracy of the M4 and a cleaning kit, over the AK anytime.
I have carried the M4, and it's fore runners in the field for over 37 years and have never had it fail if maintained. I've carried it in sandy swampy North East Texas river bottoms in the hottest of summers in rain, and in below zero weather in the Texas Panhandle with blowing sand and or snow. It shot every time it needed to. It's not a bear rifle, but then again, a man is not a bear.TMTCW
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.

Offline born-to-hunt

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
  • Gender: Male
  • .:Hunter:.
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #34 on: May 26, 2010, 05:02:15 PM »
well that is a big hole in my theory... gotta point though
Look a distraction!!!

Offline jlwilliams

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1321
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #35 on: May 26, 2010, 05:31:16 PM »
  The Army (and knowledgable 'gun guys') have been talking about replacing the M16/AR15 rifle for years.  So far, not much more than talk.

  My opinion (worth every penny of free) is that it boils down to a question of money and prestige and that a new rifle isn't as sexy as a new aircraft system, so no one with the wherewithall to make things happen is doing anything.  Our 'leadership' is willing to throw tons of money down holes that make them look good, but spending money on a rifle (people kill people with rifles, you know) just doesn't make the cut.  Say what you will about the AR, it's in inventory and so is the ammo.  Our fearless leaders can be counted on to do nothing, and do it right away.

  I'm going to step wide around the whole AR vs AK vs Garand debate. I will say that if and when America adopts a replacement battle rifle it won't likely be an AK or any of the older American platforms. As great as the M14 is, it's even older than the AR.  A new rifle is called for.  It seems like everybody and his brother is making a six point something cartridge and some of them are impressive performers.  There are some great new guns (like Robinson's and Knight's stuff) built around the new cartridges.  There is technology available to put the world's most advanced rifle in the hands of the American fighting man, what there is not is will.

  As for the deteriorating quality of the 'wetware' that's coming into service age today, that is a huge issue and it's not just the service who is getting short changed.  Those same kids who can't fight aren't much for fabrication or calculation.  We have a weak, unhealthy segment of our population and it's getting bigger not smaller.

Offline Hooker

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1581
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #36 on: May 26, 2010, 06:04:10 PM »
My old man served in the Pacific in WWII after the war he served as an Armorer.
He hated the M16 he said it required to much maintenance in the field and it's small parts were a liability for loss and breakage.
The gas system was an abomination and the cartridge was a no show as a fight stopper.
In his opinion when one runs out of ammo a battle rifle should still be a weapon , capable of with standing terrible abuse and still function when the solider procures more ammo. He allowed that a battle rifle should be built for all around worse case scenarios but that the M16 was the worse case scenario.
Actually this a clean version of how he felt about the rifle I left out all of his colorful metaphors  ;D

Pat
" In the beginning of change, the patriot is a brave and scarce man,hated and scorned. when the cause succeeds however,the timid join him...for then it cost nothing to be a patriot. "
-Mark Twain
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

Offline myronman3

  • Moderator
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #37 on: May 26, 2010, 06:31:49 PM »
dont get me wrong dee, i LOVE the m16 familty (except the a1's).   and there are advantages to the 5.56 over the larger calibers.  anyone who has had to carry a combat load knows all about that.  given the ranges these guys can engage at, something that carries a little more wack at that range wouldnt be a bad thing.  there has to be a balance though.  
  
   i should clarify on the choosing for each mission...  i am mean expressly the infantry/special forces.   if you have a mission to clear an building, what good does lugging a saw around do you or the guys around you?  they are heavy and unwieldy.   i say, allow the guy to swap it out for a 12 gauge for the mission.
   if i had been given a choice, i would have gladly packed along a second weapon and ammo for it even if i had to purchase said weapon myself.  

   the reality is that it isnt going to happen.  this has come up time and again, and they arent about to start swapping out m16's for a new weapons system.   especially in  the middle of all that is going on currently.  

Offline Victor3

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4241
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #38 on: May 26, 2010, 10:35:46 PM »
 General MacArthur favored the then current .30 cal and squashed the Ordnance Department's recommendation to produce the Garand in a cal close to 7mm. He said something like...

 "I'm no ballistics expert, but from experience I know that a battle rifle's bullet needs to be able to shoot through things."

 I've always wondered what difference it may have made if the US had adopted the smaller caliber prior to WWII.

 I can imagine what his reaction to the adoption of the 5.56mm would have been.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Sherlock Holmes

Offline williamlayton

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15415
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #39 on: May 27, 2010, 03:20:12 AM »
We are talking about two different things as though they are the same thing.
Bullets/Calibers have nothing too do with platform, and, vice-versa.
Reliability is a platform concern--too most degrees--with powder being an exception.
The .223 has proven to be woefully underpowered in all but some minor exceptions.
The M14--while basically an M1 with a full auto lever--is a heavy weapon too use in the mountains.
The .308 is not privy to just snipers and M14---it can be made to work in platforms like the AR---recoil makes it less desirable on full auto.
The M14 had the same effect in VN--after the second or third round on full auto it was an AA weapon.
The AK IS the most effectice platform and round in a close firefight--ask those that discarded their AR's in favor of the AK in Nam.
Range and accuracy at distance plagues the AK platform.
The .243 can be made to work in either platform.
NOW---
Logistics is the most important thing, in reality, for any army. The Germans and Japanese found this out the hard way in WWII. Too may calibers is a logistics nightmare and proves a deadly position for troops.
IMO---a new platform is the complete answer and there are some out there that have already been developed. Some with interchangable barrels that allow a rifle and a spray and keep their heads dow, lead down range, close quarters--0ld Thompson mind set--keeping logistics simple.
Blessings   
TEXAS, by GOD

Offline beerbelly

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1625
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2010, 03:24:42 AM »
RB1235 , I enlisted on June the 22nd 1956. A life time ago.
                       Beerbelly

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2010, 03:31:15 AM »
The other big question is should we change in a war ?
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24325
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2010, 03:59:52 AM »
I like the M14. Always have. Put that GARAND "OPEN ACTION" in the hands of "every soldier", in the "BLOWING" SAND BOX, and watch the failure reports start coming in.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2010, 06:58:06 AM »
All these years I always heard that function of the platform was and is a big problem. If the colt type arm got dirty, even in a combat enguagement, it would jam. The jam bar was added but was little good. The light weight of the operateing system parts and the close tollerances repuired to operate causes problems.
Getting on the ground crawling with this arm is asking for a jam.

Now that the round is in question , seems a whole new design and function guideline is needed.

A 243/6mm in an M14 with synthetic stock sounds like a good (deer hunting) assault weapon. I haven't heard  of function problems in the mud and ice oof Korea but I haven't heard much at all about that war. eddie
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline RB1235

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2010, 08:35:05 AM »
 A lot of us try to assimilate the civilian version of whatever to the military version. Our rifles shoot very slow and will generally run a little more dependably than a machine gun. I have seen countless threads on the M16 platform being fixed. People will argue tooth and nail how perfect the m14 or m4 or whatever are as a battle rifle because they own one. The truth is a M1a and an AR 15 are not the same animal as their cousins. I own both and would not want to carry either to fight where our guys are. Much less full autos.

 The US has not had the best battle rifle in the world since the Garand. If you remember the DOD declared in 62 the m14 was completely inferior to the garand. It was subsequently pulled as soon as a replacement could be stocked up and issued out. True service life was 1959-1965. We all know it was still in use later, and still used today in very limited roles. The government had enough sense to figure out they screwed up with a design which was not controllable and was not reliable. A lot of folks try to elevate the M14 as the best of the best. In extreme environments in which we tend to go to war at, the M14/M1A has it's issues. Thankfully we are not in those environments and we have a slow rate of fire so our rifles tend to go boom when we want them to. The sad part is the M16 was a worse design than the M14.
 Had the US not bullied NATO into the 7.62. We would have had a good rifle/caliber. The FN FAL in 280 Brit. No question of the rifle's dependability. One of the most successful platforms in history. It has been battle tested all over the world and proven. The M14 was only battle tested in early vietnam and failed miserably. In trial it also failed desert and arctic environments. Just because we own a civilian version of a military rifle does not mean it is a good battle rifle. It may be good enough for us in our environment. But not necessarily a good one to issue to the troops.

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #45 on: May 27, 2010, 08:45:37 AM »
RB1235, With the FN you get back into $ per unit and I think that is what got us to where we are today. The compromise goes toward the budget and not the soilder.
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline RB1235

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #46 on: May 27, 2010, 09:05:36 AM »
Sorry Eddie, didn't mean to imply we need the FN today. In it's day it was cheaper to manufacture than the m14. It has peddled along with upgrades like everything else. It is still a 40's design though.
 Personally I would like to see them get the Remington ACR (Magpul Masada) in 6.8 if it is the best. Research is pointing that way. Most likely they will retrofit a gas impingement system to the current M4 if they do anything at all. May see a switch to 6.8 but highly doubtful.

Offline blind ear

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4156
  • Gender: Male
    • eddiegjr
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #47 on: May 27, 2010, 09:11:51 AM »
I didn't know there was such a thing. Neet website.

http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/acr.htm#/intro
Oath Keepers: start local
-
“It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking.” – Ron Paul, End the Fed
-
An economic crash like the one of the 1920s is the only thing that will get the US off of the road to Socialism that we are on and give our children a chance at a future with freedom and possibility of economic success.
-
everyone hears but very few see. (I can't see either, I'm not on the corporate board making rules that sound exactly the opposite of what they mean, plus loopholes) ear
"I have seen the enemy and I think it's us." POGO
St Judes Childrens Research Hospital

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24325
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2010, 09:21:51 AM »
RB that rifle makes sense. More so than the M4.
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.

Offline RB1235

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2010, 10:06:00 AM »
Last I heard trials have it whooping the piss out of the xm-8 and fn scar light. The only negative I have heard is the plastic grip. Not that it is uncomfortable. Just that it is not changeable. They are supposed to have a metal lower for it that will come out soon and accept the AR aftermarket grips. Also 6.8 and conversion kits are supposed to be out this fall to civilians. 6.5 is supposed to be out next year. Accuracy is like an AR. Also has 1 moa or less shift point of aim with barrel switch. That is unheard of. New civilian version will have a folding stock option along with current collapsible. For the bad part civilian version Bushmaster acr is around $2500.

Offline teamnelson

  • Trade Count: (30)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4495
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #50 on: May 27, 2010, 10:18:04 AM »
My previous boss came from the Marine Corps office in charge of identifying requirements for their next battle rifle. They looked at some of the predecessors to the ACR and we're pleased with the platform. Problem at the time was the Army had just contracted for more AR and 5.56 - and they have to agree or they don't get $. Now that the Army is interested, my understaning is the USMC will push for an ACR type weapon in a 6mm caliber. Bushmaster is also competing.

held fast

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #51 on: May 27, 2010, 10:19:54 AM »
Nice looking weapon , 6.8 would be nice also . I want to try that on deer  ;D
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline joeinwv

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Avid Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #52 on: May 27, 2010, 10:24:29 AM »
ACR in 6.8 SPC 

The 6.8 looks to be a decent whitetail cartridge as well.
<funny>

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #53 on: May 27, 2010, 10:35:19 AM »
Thats what i hear , I think when funds get right a 6.8 flat top upper will find its way on a lower I have. 20 inch bbl plain end with target crown , standard stock .............
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline myronman3

  • Moderator
  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4837
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #54 on: May 27, 2010, 11:56:06 AM »
holy smokes!  could it be that we actually argued our way to a point where we have reached a consensus?   quick!  someone call someone a name or blame the jews.  

Offline billy_56081

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8575
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2010, 01:20:40 PM »
Looks like it has a chance, if it its only givin a chance. I would like to see real trial by combat veterans in combat conditions of these rifles. Do any of you think BO will give the new rifle a test like old Teddy Roosevelt did with the needle bayonet? Ahh the olden days, they don't make em like him anymore.
99% of all Lawyers give the other 1% a bad name. What I find hilarious about this is they are such an arrogant bunch, that they all think they are in the 1%.

Offline SHOOTALL

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23836
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2010, 04:12:07 AM »
Billy he will call a press conf. and proclaim - JUST FIX THE DA__ RIFLE and all will be well in the rifle world !
If ya can see it ya can hit it !

Offline hunt-m-up

  • GBO Supporter
  • Trade Count: (27)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1122
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2010, 04:15:55 PM »
6.8 SPC...is there an echo in here?
Would at least make it cheaper to feed my Ruger Mini  ;)
Crosman Slingshot, Daisy Red Ryder, dull butter knife

Offline Dee

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24325
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2010, 04:46:26 PM »
why not just put a 6.8 upper on the lowers they have?
Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. Weak men create hard times.

Offline nomosendero

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5760
  • Gender: Male
Re: U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan
« Reply #59 on: May 28, 2010, 04:52:43 PM »
6.8 looks good, but the 6.5 is superior at longer ranges big time.
You will not make peace with the Bluecoats, you are free to go.