PDA

View Full Version : Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4



Steve Savicki
04-06-2007, 04:39 PM
So now the troops are in even more danger because they may not be able to protect themselves as much.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html

The compact M4 carbine - a shortened version of the M16 - that is now standard issue for most Army troops, some Marines and other specialized units is facing increased criticism because of its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements.

Some ground communities, including special operations forces, have begun to sideline the M4 in favor of newer, gas-piston operated variants such as the Heckler & Koch-manufactured 416 and the FNH-built Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR

In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.

Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."

The 416 is used by the Army's elite Delta Force, and a recent Army Times investigation showed the service's top equipment buyers ignored data from the spec ops community showing the M4 had fundamental flaws. Enamored by the development of futuristic weapons such as the XM29 and, later, XM8 - neither of which were ever fielded - the M4 stayed in the hands of Soldiers deploying to hot, dusty, austere environments like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army would prefer to wait for the development of a new rifle firing an airburst, round - essentially leaping ahead of today's technology. But that innovation has been hard to find in the right weight class.

An Army spokeswoman for Program Executive Office Soldier, based at Fort Belvoir, Va., said in a statement the Army isn't buying into SOF's argument.

"At this time PEO Soldier is not procuring and does not have plans to procure the 416," said Army spokeswoman, Erin Thomas, in an email statement.

But special operations forces sometimes work outside the "Big Army" procurement system, so they can grab the best gear quickly.

"The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained," the justification for the 416 assembly buy states. "There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

Army weapons experts have been tinkering with new weapons designs, such as the HK-built XM8. Its modular design, rugged construction and accuracy intrigued many in the Army - and other services. But in 2005, the Army abandoned the XM8 after spending $33 million - though the Natick Soldier Systems Center has been looking at a shortened version of the XM8 as a personal defense weapon for officers and armored vehicle crews.

So far, however, the Army is unwilling to buy what the special operations community believes is a clearly superior system and is still spending money looking for another technology while Soldiers use what many say is an inferior weapon in harsh combat conditions.

"The Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia is currently conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment to determine future Army needs," Thomas said in the statement, declining to elaborate.

So if they malfunction, the soldiers are basically holding toy weapons?
<center>http://images.military.com/pics/FL_m4_040607.jpg</center>

Nickdfresh
04-06-2007, 07:18 PM
They should adopt the SCAR as the "carbine," and get rid of that fucking three-round burst shit on the M-16A2s while they're at it. Buy the Canadian fully-auto version of the M-16A2, because I keep seeing Iraq footage of soldiers or marines shooting captured or bought AK-47s on full auto, because they have more firepower in close quarters combat...

It's just strange that things have come full circle and the Army has fucked with the M-16(A2) so much that it is now inferior to the enemy's 1940s vintage tech...:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
04-06-2007, 08:13 PM
And no Savicki, they're not "toys." My brother owns one in fact. It's not a bad rifle/carbine. It is just not suited for the hot, dusty climates of Iraq because it can overheat on extended fire I've read...

Hardrock69
04-07-2007, 09:24 PM
Is it any wonder AK-47s are used world-wide?

If anything, the US ought to be using those.

That way, they can use all of the ammo they capture from whatever enemy they are fighting, and they will have much fewer maintenance problems.

M-16s are not bad, but they are inferior to AKs in many respect.

Nickdfresh
04-07-2007, 10:55 PM
Well, the AK fires an underpowered short-round. So, it ain't the gratest either...

Soldier saved by an iPod
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/218/445618364_92afb0adeb.jpg?v=0
Tuesday we wrote about the Army's new body armor. The same day, we've just learned, a different kind of armor saved a soldier in Iraq:

An iPod.

The music player stopped a 7.62 mm round from an insurgent's AK-47.

Flickr has photos of the 20GB pod.

Here's the accompanying text:

My wife’s uncle works in a military hospital and told me about this. Its pretty amazing. Kevin Garrad (3rd Infantry Division) was on a street patrol in Iraq (Tikrit I believe) and as he rounded the corner of a building an armed (AK-47) insurgent came from the other side.

The two of them were within just a few feet of each other when they opened fire. The insurgent was killed and Kevin was hit in the left chest where his IPod was in his jacket pocket. It slowed the bullet down enough that it did not completely penetrate his body armor. Fortunately, Kevin suffered no wound.

Yesterday, the poster said that an Apple engineer had passed the photos around and that Apple folks want to help Garrad get a new iPod.

Meanwhile, the folks over at DefenseTech picked up the story and have started "a little Good Friday contest": How many more tactical uses are out there for the ever-popular iPod?

Join in. Here are some of the entries so far:

• Use the chrome side as a tac mirror for looking around corners.
• Use it to listen to Arabic/Farsi language tapes. English track listings for Arabic phrases, choose an appropriate phrase and share the earbud with person.
• Don't have an interpreter? Plug your ipod into a bullhorn and you're all set!
• Hook up a speaker for that Ride of the Valkrie effect before hitting a zone.
• Turn it on and use it as a tactical light when entering a room
• Turning the ipod on and off so the light can be used for signalling
• Something to keep the POWs entertained....
• Take the old ipods, as an all out last resort, and just throw it at 'em
Posted by Michael Winter at 04:49 PM/ET, April 06, 2007 in Human interest, Iraq | Permalink (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/04/soldier_saved_b.html)

Hardrock69
04-09-2007, 09:34 AM
True the AK is not designed for long-range firepower.

There was a lengthy documentary on History Channel last night about the AK, the M-16, and the UZI. One of the reasons the AK is so tough is that Kalishnakov designed it with looser tolerances, so even if it got sand, dirt, mud, etc. in it, it would still work well.

Oh well.

Nickdfresh
04-09-2007, 11:20 AM
Yes yes. Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages...

The AK is more reliable and has more stopping power in SOME situations (med. range?). And it has more firepower in a close quarters fight due to some unfortunate decisions my the "one shot, one kill" obsessed US military.

The M-16 is more accurate, and now, relatively reliable. And is brutally effective at closer ranges.

The parallel development by Canada has produced a superior version without the three-round burst junk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diemaco_C7

Steve Savicki
04-09-2007, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And no Savicki, they're not "toys."
I implied if they are broken... freaky iPod pic though.

hideyoursheep
04-11-2007, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yes yes. Both weapons have their advantages and disadvantages...

The AK is more reliable and has more stopping power in SOME situations (med. range?). And it has more firepower in a close quarters fight due to some unfortunate decisions my the "one shot, one kill" obsessed US military.

The M-16 is more accurate, and now, relatively reliable. And is brutally effective at closer ranges.

The parallel development by Canada has produced a superior version without the three-round burst junk...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diemaco_C7 I don't know what the fuck the brass were thinking when they went with the A2's and the 3 round burst...Gimme a 203 with full auto..having that ability to pump out rounds with your personal weapon set at full auto gives you more of an ability to lay down suppressive fire whenever you need it-how can that not be a good thing? I don't know what the rate of fire is with the M4...that's a new one to me...I also don't understand how a shorter barrel could keep the max. effective range the same with the same round (5.56mm) as the A1 @ 460 meters. Anybody know what the stats are for the M4?

VanHalener
04-11-2007, 10:10 AM
Here's a little info

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as17-e.htm

VanHalener
04-11-2007, 10:12 AM
"...The 416 is now considered in many circles to be the best carbine in the world — a weapon that combines the solid handling, accuracy and familiarity of the M4 with the famed dependability of the rugged AK47."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html

oops, sorry Steve. Duplicated your info...

VanHalener
04-13-2007, 02:38 PM
Too bad they are not available to civilians. (yet)

Got a badge?

I gotta get me one of these...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jDUtnD_u0Us"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jDUtnD_u0Us" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

hideyoursheep
04-15-2007, 12:14 PM
360 m Max effective range for M4....460 m and full auto for the m16A1....

Just gimme the goddam A1.......w/ a 203....not bragging, but I used to be able to put those bad boys through a window @ 200m...

Then I moved to the M3 turret...Oh, the 25mm, the TOW2 ..the M240c....
"Driver, hit smoke and move out!!"

Good times......

Nitro Express
04-17-2007, 12:42 AM
I've been building and working on firearms since I was 10 years old. I have built sevral AR-15 weapons (non automatic version of M-16). I never liked the gas system on the M-16. It allows dirty gunpowder residue into the bolt carrier. In Vietnam they found out the wrong gun powder could cake up and gum up the works. Special propellants are needed for the M-16 to work reliably.

Going to a shorter barrel makes the M-16 less reliable because there is less pressure to make the gas system work.

The Kaloshnikov styled weapons use a piston like the M1 Garand and M14. In fact, I read Mr. Kaloshnikov's book and he was very honest in saying he got many ideas from the M1 Garand rifle including: The trigger group, the rotary bolt, and using a big gas piston to drive the action.

If you ever looked at a Kaloshnikov the gas piston is screwed into and pinned into the bolt carrier making it one simple unit. The piston is massive as is the gas hole in the barrel. It's a leaky system by design but always works reliably with variouse propellants and gas pressure variables.

One company had a fix for the unreliable M4 carbine. It's an upper that uses a larg gas piston and has a short barrel. The soldier can use their existing M-16 lower and put the new upper on it. This would save a lot of money because a whole new rifle would not have to be purchased.

As far as the three round burst goes, that's easy to fix. Pull out the 2nd secondary seer and leave in the first primary seer and auto seer and the gun will fire semi-automatic or full automatic. It's a simple matter of pulling out one piece of metal and a spring.

Nitro Express
04-17-2007, 12:51 AM
Special forces have been using the M-14 in Iraq to good effect. For urban and vehicle opperations it's too long. If you think about it, a Kaloshnikov is a short M-14 shooting a intermediate cartrige with a large magazine.

I have a cut up Russian AK-47 that was confiscated in Israel. It's one of the early ones made in the Izvesk arsenal with the milled reciever. The workmanship is excellent and the gun has seen a lot of action. The blueing is almost completely worn away and the shellack on the wood is gone. The gun parts were full of sand. I pulled the front sight and the original blueing was under it on the barrel. The chrome lined bore is still in great shape eventhough it's oviouse the gun has seen hard use and has been heated up with full auto firing.

One of these days I'm going to put it together on a new reciever making a (legal of course) version of the original. If just been too busy and I may just keep the parts. They are a collectors item and who knows what story they could tell if they could talk.

You would be hard pressed to find a weapon that can take the shit like an AK47 can. Truely amazing.

Nitro Express
04-17-2007, 01:19 AM
The only difference between between the three round burst and full-auto is thee are two instead of one secondary seers. The three round burst works on a rachet on the hammer where the third shot resets the angle of the special secondary seer and grabs the hammer.

The original full auto M-16 parts are still in the M-16A2 with extra crap added. Of course you have the auto-seer to keep the gun from firing out of battery and that stays in there.

Remove the seer that runs on the rachet and leave the other secondary seer in and your M-16 A2 will go full rock and roll without that damn burst option. What's great is when you switch to BURST mode, you really are full auto and nobody will know.

So those of you using an M-16A2 it's just a matter of having a small punch and a hammer to fix the Govt. issued cluster fuck.

Nitro Express
04-17-2007, 01:31 AM
The M-16 has a neat feature. The upper and lower reciever configuration allows you to make the gun whatever you want it to be.

The civilian market has all sorts of neat upper reciever/barrel options for the M-16.

Why not just change the upper reciever to use a piston? Problem solved. Duh! It would cost me about $400 to do it to my AR-15. Half the cost of a new rifle.

Nitro Express
04-17-2007, 01:33 AM
Not to mention you can use all the existing magazines and lower reciever parts still in inventory. A fucking third world country with no resources runs better than our waste it military. Of course the industrial military complex loves waste.

Nitro Express
04-17-2007, 02:08 AM
Here's an entreprenure who has a sollution to the problem:

www.POF-USA.com

Steve Savicki
04-17-2007, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by vanhalener
oops, sorry Steve. Duplicated your info...
No problem; we're all friendly libs here.:D