Any Comments on the "inferior" M-4 article

[azmg]

I am curious what the SOF/SF folks have to say in regard to this article found on
Military.com written by Chritian Lowe.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133962,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

The debate over the Army's choice to purchase hundreds of thousands of M4 carbines for its new brigade combat teams is facing stiff opposition from a small group of senators who say the rifle may be inferior to others already in the field.

In an April 12 letter to acting Army Secretary Pete Geren, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said purchase of the M4 - a shortened version of the Vietnam-era M16 - was based on requirements from the early 1990s and that better, more reliable weapons exist that could give Army troops a more effective weapon.

Coburn asked the Army to hold a "free and open competition" before inking sole-source contracts worth about $375 million to M4 manufacturer, West Hartford, Conn.-based Colt Defense - which just received a $50 million Army contract for M4s on April 20.

"I am concerned with the Army's plans to procure nearly half a million new rifles outside of any competitive process," Coburn wrote in the mid-April letter obtained by Military.com.

A Geren spokesman said the secretary's office is putting together a reply to Coburn's letter, but provided no further details.

Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue.

Coburn has banded together with a small group of like-minded senators to push the Army into a competition to determine whether the M4 is the best choice to equip newly-forming brigade combat teams, a top Coburn aide said.

The senator's concerns grew out of media coverage that showed the M4's design fails in critical situations and that special operations forces prefer other designs.

"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote. "A number of manufacturers have researched, tested and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability."

Related Article: Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4

Special operations forces, including "tier one" units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Development Group - or SEAL Team Six - have used their own funds to purchase the Heckler & Koch-built 416, which uses a gas-piston operating system less susceptible to failure than Colt's gas-operated design.

"That's significant, because these guys don't screw around," the aide said.

In fact, Colt included four different weapons in the competition to build the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, none of which used the M4s gas system, the aide said.

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."

Yet the Army has still declined to buy anything other than the M4 for its regular troops, requesting about $100 million in the 2007 wartime supplemental to buy M4s for its Soldiers.

The office in charge of equipping Soldiers said in a March 30 statement the service has no plans to purchase the HK416.

"I am certain we can all agree that America's Soldiers should have the best technology in their hands," Coburn wrote. "And there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon - not just a weapon that is 'good enough.' "

The Army has not yet responded to Coburn's letter, but his aide said if the senator doesn't receive a response to the letter by Monday, Coburn plans to call Geren personally to address the issue.

"Our feeling is once people see the facts on the face of it they're going to say that this is ridiculous and demand that the Army does it right and competes the contract," the aide said.

[Pete]

A weapon is a tool.

My wife uses a butter knife and my good chisel as screw drivers.

A tool is no better than the person using it and it works best when used as it was intended for.

Pete

[Team Sergeant]

Things to remember about military.com, it’s owned by civilians with an agenda.

While I don’t know who Chritian Lowe is I do know who david crane is and that moron also writes for military.com.

david crane's (of defensereview.com) articles are nothing more than tabloid crap. crane lacks any military experience yet quite often pens ludicrous articles concerning military equipment as if he has real experience. And military.com prints them.

I’d like to know who told Chritian Lowe that certain units (we don’t discuss) are purchasing HK 416’s? Can Chritian Lowe substantiate his "claims"?

Sure sounds a lot like some of the pinnacle armor "claims" that they make their dragon skin "for American Special Forces" (a direct quote from their website)
When in FACT no American Special Forces personnel actually wear dragon skin body armor.

SOV™ flexible armor is completely fabricated in the USA for American Special Forces, Police Tactical Teams and approved foreign militaries.
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin.php
Chritian Lowe would you please tell us who in fact told you that these units are in fact using the H&K 416’s?

Now step back from the article and ask yourself why we’re spending hundreds of millions on AMERICAN made weapons vice GERMAN made weapons.

Do you see an issue or agenda outside of the rifle issue?

If we were going to spend the money on H&K’s gas piston weapons, Patriot Ordnance Factory already makes piston action rifle and is AMERICAN owned and operated.

http://www.pof-usa.com/P-415/p-415gaspistonrifles.htm

Those units the article refers to have a much different mission than the rest of the Army, different mission different equipment.

Do you think all the military units should also have silencers, IR lasers, etc etc etc?

Maybe we should outfit every soldier with his or her own tank!

There’s a bit of a difference experiencing a very infrequent weapons jam with thirty heavily armed combat infantry soldiers at your side then experiencing the same infrequent weapon jam after storming into a room of thirty armed terrorists with three Special Operations soldiers at your side. Compare and contrast.

Do you think if we simply trained soldiers to take better care of their weapons that this inferior weapon (M-4) might actually work better?

It’s an article with an agenda, a profit motive and lots of politics, nothing more and nothing less.

Team Sergeant
Owner of a couple gas operated M-4’s

[Aoresteen]

..... I do know who david crane is and that moron also writes for military.com......

It’s an article with an agenda, a profit motive and lots of politics, nothing more and nothing less.

Team Sergeant
Owner of a couple gas operated M-4’s

Well said TS :D :D :D

[The Reaper]

"I am certain we can all agree that America's Soldiers should have the best technology in their hands," Coburn wrote. "And there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon - not just a weapon that is 'good enough.' "

"Our feeling is once people see the facts on the face of it they're going to say that this is ridiculous and demand that the Army does it right and competes the contract," the aide said.

You know, I think the Army already tried this, and wound up with the OICW/XM28 fiasco.

The longest serving rifle in US Army history is now the M-16, going over 40 years.

The HK416 is a good weapon, from the Germans. Some SOF units have them. The SCAR, built by FN (Belgian rehash of the FNC), is also a good weapon, and is being adopted by SOF. The Swiss SIG 552 is a nice rifle as well. Maybe we need a nationally owned and subsidized weapons company of our own, and to stop frivolous lawsuits against legitimate firearms manufacturers, or to somehow protect them from misguided individuals and municipalities. The government arsenals are mostly closed, and civilian firearms companies lose money at a prodigious rate, in the last major country I am aware of that allows significant private firearms ownership. Maybe if there was a potential market for a couple of million privately owned assault rifles, we would have some development and manufacturing capability right here at home.

The US was once at the forefront of small arms development, and John M. Browning was probably the finest designer of all times. Garand, Stoner, Thompson, et al were all great designers. Sad to see how far we have fallen.

As I have repeatedly stated, many of the M-16/M-4 series' problems are based upon the failure of the Army to maintain round counts, to rebuild weapons when required, and to trash them after their service life is exhausted. I was issued a full-auto AR-15 upon my arrival on my first team in 1985. That must have been a 20 year old rifle, at least.

Furthermore, we use 20 year old mags, without training the soldiers to clean or maintain the weapons properly, and then we blame the design of the weapon. Again, a good M-4, with the right mags and ammo, should be able to fire 5,000 rounds reliably without cleaning, IF NECESSARY. I have seen troops focus way too hard on cleaning parts of the weapon that are not prone to dirt induced failure, and fail to clean or lube the parts that needed it. How many rifles have you seen with loose retaining pins from excessive removal and installation of the steel pins in an aluminum receiver, in order to chase a speck of lint or dirt? I would wager that more military weapons are damaged by improper cleaning and blank fire than by live fire.

I have shot the M-4 a lot, and the HK416 a bit, and given a choice, would take the 416, but would not complain if issued a good M-4. I have not shot the POF extensively, but do not believe that they are capable of building the million or so weapons that would be required in a complete conversion. I have attempted to contact them before a couple of times, but they never replied. I have not shot the Colt or DSA piston systems at all.

IMHO, we should be looking for the next generation of weapons right now, and there should be fair and open competition among all makers, without the specs being written to exclude any one design. In the event of a tie, home team gets the advantage. The weapon must be ergonomically friendly, reliable, accurate, durable, reasonably priced, and easy to clean and operate under all conditions. Maybe we should let Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov run it?

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

[kgoerz]

You know, I think the Army already tried this, and wound up with the OICW/XM28 fiasco.

The longest serving rifle in US Army history is now the M-16, going over 40 years.

The HK416 is a good weapon, from the Germans. Some SOF units have them. The SCAR, built by FN (Belgian rehash of the FNC), is also a good weapon, and is being adopted by SOF. The Swiss SIG 552 is a nice rifle as well. Maybe we need a nationally owned and subsidized weapons company of our own, and to stop frivolous lawsuits against legitimate firearms manufacturers, or to somehow protect them from misguided individuals and municipalities. The government arsenals are mostly closed, and civilian firearms companies lose money at a prodigious rate, in the last major country I am aware of that allows significant private firearms ownership. Maybe if there was a potential market for a couple of million privately owned assault rifles, we would have some development and manufacturing capability right here at home.

The US was once at the forefront of small arms development, and John M. Browning was probably the finest designer of all times. Garand, Stoner, Thompson, et al were all great designers. Sad to see how far we have fallen.

As I have repeatedly stated, many of the M-16/M-4 series' problems are based upon the failure of the Army to maintain round counts, to rebuild weapons when required, and to trash them after their service life is exhausted. I was issued a full-auto AR-15 upon my arrival on my first team in 1985. That must have been a 20 year old rifle, at least.

Furthermore, we use 20 year old mags, without training the soldiers to clean or maintain the weapons properly, and then we blame the design of the weapon. Again, a good M-4, with the right mags and ammo, should be able to fire 5,000 rounds reliably without cleaning, IF NECESSARY. I have seen troops focus way too hard on cleaning parts of the weapon that are not prone to dirt induced failure, and fail to clean or lube the parts that needed it. How many rifles have you seen with loose retaining pins from excessive removal and installation of the steel pins in an aluminum receiver, in order to chase a speck of lint or dirt? I would wager that more military weapons are damaged by improper cleaning and blank fire than by live fire.

I have shot the M-4 a lot, and the HK416 a bit, and given a choice, would take the 416, but would not complain if issued a good M-4. I have not shot the POF extensively, but do not believe that they are capable of building the million or so weapons that would be required in a complete conversion. I have attempted to contact them before a couple of times, but they never replied. I have not shot the Colt or DSA piston systems at all.

IMHO, we should be looking for the next generation of weapons right now, and there should be fair and open competition among all makers, without the specs being written to exclude any one design. In the event of a tie, home team gets the advantage. The weapon must be ergonomically friendly, reliable, accurate, durable, reasonably priced, and easy to clean and operate under all conditions. Maybe we should let Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov run it?

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

I always thought that these companies have to be loosing a lot of money if they don't get the contract and have to make up the cost thru civilian sales. Just not good enough to put it on paper, can I use this by the way? This HK thing is everywhere. The amount of people buying into the notion that soldiers are running around while parts are falling off their M4's is incredible. I got into an argument on the same subject TS stated. How and who told these Units have this weapon. Did they buy one or did they replace their entire stock?? No direct answer was given.

[longrange1947]

Maybe we should let Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov run it?

Naw, his weapons are too loose and never jam. :munchin

[The Reaper]

I always thought that these companies have to be loosing a lot of money if they don't get the contract and have to make up the cost thru civilian sales. Just not good enough to put it on paper, can I use this by the way? This HK thing is everywhere. The amount of people buying into the notion that soldiers are running around while parts are falling off their M4's is incredible. I got into an argument on the same subject TS stated. How and who told these Units have this weapon. Did they buy one or did they replace their entire stock?? No direct answer was given.

Help yourself.

The units do have the HK weapons, just like a lot of other non-standard equipment. It really shouldn't matter, as noted, it is all about what the guy behind the trigger can do with it. I would rather have a couple of good, solid team guys with AKs than a platoon full of idiots with OICWs.

The question I am asking is why Rep. Coburn from OK is involved when none of the weapons are made in his district. In fact, as a minimum, he would put German made parts on a US weapon, and at worst, dump the US weapons for foreign ones entirely. Is he also some kind of weapons expert? Odd position.

Note that the military designs have not all been winners. We got the worst of the MG-42 in the M-60 design before eventually coming back to the M-240/MAG-58, which we could/should have adopted in the first place (or the MG-42/MG-3), and the M-14 over the FAL, which the drawings for the prototypes were mysteriously not converted from the metric dimensions properly.

It would be nice if we developed, produced, maintained, and then replaced worn out gear on time, and did not sink money into beltway bandit pet projects like the OICW. A shootout between a dozen each brand new M-4s, 416s, SCARs and SIGs over 100,000 round cycle each would not cost that much, and would suit me just fine.

And I would love to be able to buy a 416 upper (or complete rifle, with a full auto lower), if the price was right.;)

Naw, his weapons are too loose and never jam. :munchin

You know, I have seen some US modified AKs that shot pretty well. Might be worth a look. I would rather hump a PKM than an M-60 or an M-240.

TR

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

As long as I can remember, which is longer than some, we have been looking for a better weapon, good boots, and a whole lot of light weight gear. You can argue calibers, magazine content, weight, ballistics, and everything else ad nauseum but a rock from a sling placed above your snot locker and between your eyes will kill you seriously dead just as quick as the latest and greatest ballistic miracle round on the market. So will some stupid requirement issued by a moron. I guess my point is this, you are going to have to use to the best of your ability and operate within the constraints of what you can get your hands on and it matters not whether is was made by the krauts or the martians, it will always be about shot placement. Some folks will always have something better, bigger, newer, sexier but the finest tool in the hands of the untrained is just additional weight. I will now withdraw under my poncho liner, sleep, and remenisce about the days of the M-1, the bayonet, and a simple lensatic compass. Wake me when this has been resolved.:D

[incommin]

"I will now withdraw under my poncho liner, sleep, and reminisce about the days of the M-1, the bayonet, and a simple lensatic compass. Wake me when this has been resolved."

COL Jack, looks like you'll get to take a long nap on this one....... soldiers are always going to argue over equipment....... and it all boils down to personal preferences. Some people hate 1911's and I love them. Doesn't make either one of us wrong as long as the equipment isn't junk and you are trained will enough to use it.

Jim

[The Reaper]

As long as I can remember, which is longer than some, we have been looking for a better weapon, good boots, and a whole lot of light weight gear. You can argue calibers, magazine content, weight, ballistics, and everything else ad nauseum but a rock from a sling placed above your snot locker and between your eyes will kill you seriously dead just as quick as the latest and greatest ballistic miracle round on the market. So will some stupid requirement issued by a moron. I guess my point is this, you are going to have to use to the best of your ability and operate within the constraints of what you can get your hands on and it matters not whether is was made by the krauts or the martians, it will always be about shot placement. Some folks will always have something better, bigger, newer, sexier but the finest tool in the hands of the untrained is just additional weight. I will now withdraw under my poncho liner, sleep, and remenisce about the days of the M-1, the bayonet, and a simple lensatic compass. Wake me when this has been resolved.:D

What, no wooden handled entrenching tool, with the folding pick? What about the mess kit and steel canteen? And a P-38?

I am surprised that you took the woobie over the wool blanket.

TR

[Tuukka]

With the amount of factual comments posted above, I might be beating a dead horse, but correct me if im mistaken, but many who argue on the Errornet, on the merits of the HK416, do seem to put too much focus on the operating system allowing for less fouling in use and also proclaiming some other issues that might not be the most relevant ones, than the fact that the operating system allows the weapon to run much cooler, therefore allowing more rounds to be put through the weapon before parts replacement / overhaul.

In addition to use in the U.S, the HK416 was recently adopted to use in Norway, where they had previously already had long trials over a new 5.56mm calibre weapon.

Shoud have one with two uppers here in about a week, it´ll go into use immediately and will see a lot of rounds fired.

PS. We also have some AKs over here that shoot good, usually called Sakos and Valmets :) The three I were issued did not fail me once, nor did I see many other issues with them either.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Didn't we do this already?

I wonder, has the Senator thought about will happen to our primary weapons supplier the next time we have to conduct a punitive expedition into a country that the EU is fond of?

And before I get pshawed on here, it is already happening to others. Glock will not deal with a particular S. American country because of it.

[jatx]

Is excessive wear to the bolt/BCG due to heat really an issue? I like the added convenience of the gas piston and own one myself, but IIRC other discussions around here seem to have ended with the point that you will shoot out a barrel before damaging the parts which are now supposed to run cooler. And I haven't seen any claims about the gas piston designs extending barrel life.

It seems to me that the one group which might really benefit from gas piston rifles is shooting SBR's, which do foul more quickly. An HK 417 though? Seems kind of suspect, when the direct impingement alternatives run well and typically have much longer barrels.

[Ret10Echo]

Despite all the "Global group hug" that flies around, the US should be able to arm and equip our armed forces without working beyond our borders.
These same representatives that will cast the first stone should be pressuring the manufacturers to build a better system. If it's broke, fix it...if you don't we'll go someplace else to shop. It's called a market economy.

Do you ever start a conversation with...." I went back to the store that ripped my off last time and..." ?

[The Reaper]

This is old history, brother.

We had problems getting Swedish Ks in the 60s due to Sweden considering us a belligerent, leading to Smith and Wesson coming out with the S&W 76.

IIRC, they also would not sell us some 40mm weapons during the same period, like Bofors.

I am surprised that we have not had problems getting ammo recently for the Karl Gustav and AT-4s.

It can happen, and it does. I suspect that we get domestic production rights for anything that will be over a certain number, like the M-9 from Beretta.

TR

[Ret10Echo]

This is old history, brother.

TR


Agreed....we keep digging this body up though.

Doomed to repeat it....

Sorry, must be the CNN.... I've been trapped in an airport all day and I can't get away from it....the horror...the horror

[kgoerz]

Naw, his weapons are too loose and never jam.

Never have to clean them also:munchin


What, no wooden handled entrenching tool, with the folding pick? What about the mess kit and steel canteen? And a P-38?

I am surprised that you took the woobie over the wool blanket.


I wan't to hear more about the Sling Shot Sir:cool: I have moved to the corner and assumed the fetal position concerning this subject, weeks ago. Until I saw it mentioned here.

I knew it would be discussed here, not argued. This has been argued to death elsewhere, agendas being the driving force. This is the only place where facts and common sense are countered or backed up with more of the same.

[Ambush Master]

This is old history, brother.

We had problems getting Swedish Ks in the 60s due to Sweden considering us a belligerent, leading to Smith and Wesson coming out with the S&W 76.

IIRC, they also would not sell us some 40mm weapons during the same period, like Bofors.

I am surprised that we have not had problems getting ammo recently for the Karl Gustav and AT-4s.
TR

Old Ben Baker got the Dutch all up in a tizzy, in the early '70s, when they found out that the Mini-grenades that they had sold him were not being used for evaluation, but were being used in combat!!!:D

[Peregrino]

Old Ben Baker got the Dutch all up in a tizzy, in the early '70s, when they found out that the Mini-grenades that they had sold him were not being used for evaluation, but were being used in combat!!!:D


What's the problem? Sounds like a pretty objective test environment to me. Definitly get a pass/fail evaluation out of it. :munchin Peregrino

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

What, no wooden handled entrenching tool, with the folding pick? What about the mess kit and steel canteen? And a P-38?

I am surprised that you took the woobie over the wool blanket.

TR

Yep, all that too. Took the woobie over the blanket as my bow to technology and the fact that the bad guys can smell a wet wool blanket almost as well as a cigarette. Still have my P-38 configured to anger most conventional Cdr's taped securely with friction tape to my dog tags. My wooded handled entrenching tool was the non-improved type without the folding pick.:D

[Aoresteen]

......What about the mess kit and steel canteen? ....


TR

TR,

I have two steel canteens and two artic canteens in my winter warfare duffelbag. Ever try to thaw a plastic canteen over a fire? :D

[longtab]

Naw, his weapons are too loose and never jam. :munchin
Hmmm... still stiring the pot I see. :cool: Dare we bring up the 1911 vs M9 controversy or save it for later?:D

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Hmmm... still stiring the pot I see. :cool: Dare we bring up the 1911 vs M9 controversy or save it for later?:D

Not unless you want to talk landing rights in Italy and having to replace the damn slides every 1500 rounds or so to keep folks from eating pizza oven hardened steel to appease the politicos at the expense of the troop!! But then what else is new, the troops always have been expendable when it comes to the will of the politician:mad:

[incommin]

"But then what else is new, the troops always have been expendable when it comes to the will of the politician."

Nothing comes before filling the slush / reelection funds coffers first! God forbid doing something that is best for the country or the military first!


Jim

[Razor]

I have two steel canteens...

The wide-mouth German variety?

[jbour13]

I've owned and have carried an M-4 and M-16 for the short 9 years that I've been in. Granted, I don't shoot near as much as those that need to or have to (I'm intel, don't hold it against me).

I own an upper from LWRC and my oldest brother works as the Demo Team leader and sales rep for LWRC. They make fine rifles in multiple configurations and calibers. Upon my return to Bragg, I am planning on getting LWRC to come down and do a demo for my BN at least, if not the Group or beyond. Does my family benefit from the potential purchase of these systems, you bet. But call my oldest brother and he will give you the real reason. He wants to get the best possible weapon in the hands of who matter most, the soldier. I can talk at length of the benefits, but research it if need be.

Direct inpingement, or The Legacy System, causes problems. So does dirt and crappy ammo. Biggest thing I see is failure to do right on the weapons operator. Clean your crap and move out. I mentioned priorities of work at BNCOC and got the deer in the headlights look. It isn't just the young joes that are lacking. NCO's are failing to do the right things. I had only 2 soldiers in my class that had any idea of what priorities of work meant. They were former 11B's. I only know because I had it beat into my brain by my NCOIC who was Infantry for the 4 years I was assigned to 2nd BDE and 1-27 Inf in Hawaii.

HK makes fine guns, at a cost. Gas piston guns are nice, at a cost. How cost effective is a life, well that is for those in power and bean counters to decide. Until I'm given something different, I'll train with and maintain my rifle like it was my own.

Pete made the best point, "A weapon is a tool."

[JGarcia]

I've had one problem, with a brand new M4. The barrel was loose. I turned it back into the Armorer, got a new one. No problems. I'd shoot it, pull the bolt carrier out, wipe it off with a rag, take the bolt out wipe it down, take that same rag, swab around the inside of the upper receiver. Apply a good coat of CLP on the aforementioned parts, keep her wet, and she'll shoot all day. Repeat every 3000 rounds. Fancy cleaning is for turning it in, or if you have nothing else to do.

Aside from the loose barrel, the only problems I've ever had with the 16 series were a result of not having enough CLP on the moving parts.

I think there are just too many Soldiers that don't get to shoot realistically often enough. Not enough familiarity, and a whole lot of timidity with regard to the weapon.

[x SF med]

I wan't to hear more about the Sling Shot Sir:cool: I have moved to the corner and assumed the fetal position concerning this subject, weeks ago. Until I saw it mentioned here.

I knew it would be discussed here, not argued. This has been argued to death elsewhere, agendas being the driving force. This is the only place where facts and common sense are countered or backed up with more of the same.


A good wrist rocket and #6 Ball Bearings, yup that'll do em in, no muzzle signature either... I'm going to agree with COL Jack and KG here.

I prefer the aluminum handled e-tool, with the edges sharpened slightly. Although (then) SFC Howard did a good job with the wooden handled one when the SHTF...

And we can't forget NDDs sharp pointy stick with the nail in it either.

To second COL Jack and TR's point - the weapon at hand is the weapon you need to use, if you happen to run out of bullets and the barrel isn't too hot, use the friggin rifle as a baseball bat/club.

[7624U]

TR,

I have two steel canteens and two artic canteens in my winter warfare duffelbag. Ever try to thaw a plastic canteen over a fire? :D


Is the pee bottle clearly marked
or did you give that one to your Jr when he came to the team :D

[longtab]

Is the pee bottle clearly marked
or did you give that one to your Jr when he came to the team :D

I sure as heck couldn't "use" an arctic canteen for a piss bottle. I "need" a wide mouth... Nalgene bottle that is.:cool:

[Razor]

I sure as heck couldn't "use" an arctic canteen for a piss bottle. I "need" a wide mouth... Nalgene bottle that is.:cool:

Maybe your aim would improve if you had been "issued" a longer sight radius. :D

[x SF med]

Maybe your aim would improve if you had been "issued" a longer sight radius. :D


Yup, that's gonna leave a mark.

[82ndtrooper]

from www.defensetech.com

I especially enjoyd some of the comments that I included in the last sections.

"Soldiers Want a Bigger Bang"



Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

The study was commissioned by the Army's Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address concerns raised by Soldiers returning from combat about the dependability and effectiveness of their small arms.

Download the entire CNA report here (2MB pdf).

"This study assessed Soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapons systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army," said the study, which was obtained by Military.com.

CNA surveyors conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty, asking them a variety of questions about accessories, weapons training, maintenance and recommended changes to their small arms.

"The U.S. Army Infantry Center is conducting a study to refine the Army's Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employment of rifles, carbines, ammunition caliber, and future technologies," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a statement. "All Services are participating in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe."

The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.

In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.

The study found the most stoppage problems with the M249 machine gun and M9 pistol, with an average of about 30 percent of respondents saying they experienced stoppages with each weapon in firefights. About four in ten Soldiers who said they experienced jams during combat with their pistols or machine guns claimed it took them out of the fight.

Though vocal critics of the M4 say it's prone to jamming in the talcum-like sand environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.

But of those with malfunctioning M4s, nearly 20 percent said they were "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage," the report said.

Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."

"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."

The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.

"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.

A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.

Hollow point rounds have been deemed illegal for military use.

Additionally, M16 users were "consistent and adamant" in asking to be re-issued the more compact M4.

-- Christian

May 25, 2007 01:30 PM | Guns
Latest Comments
bring back the Colt .45. I was not able to use a pistol because the REMF's in my BN wanted them not the guys who went on missions. I used an M4 and never had any serious problems. the ones I did have were on the range and corrected prior to any mission(s). the dust was not that bad in my AO but I know there are others whose were just dusty as hell. The Army needs a new weapons system and soon. I remember the 6.8 being suggested but no heard anything about it being procured for use.

Posted by: chris at May 31, 2007 03:22 PM



I am an antique but, I am interested in our people haveing the gear they need. It is a hard enough job to be tied to "RULES OF ENGAGEMENT" with weapons that are at least equal to the insurgents. Body armor and helmets need to be tested using AK47's not 5.56 M16's. If we are going to have politicians dictating rules, they need to be required to spend some time embebed with the troops. The alternative is let the field commander dictate the rules. Side arms need to be at least 40cal, least cost would be reissue the M1911. Rifles need to be minimum 7.62 original NATO. Some people seem to object to the weight of the M14 however, they are like their kin, the old M1 that you knew was going to work. Rain, mud, sand, snow and ice, both of those work have such a low failure rate it isn't even measured. In a fight you can count on it until you run out of amunition and can't find anymore. With the track record of what we have out now, I would say open to everyone or, if you like doing modifications, modify the M14 for weight. I don't recall the M14 as being so heavy, I'd sure prefer it in close quarters. It doesn't break, and the butt or bayonet along with that weight makes it leathal.

Posted by: JMMCRet at May 31, 2007 03:16 PM



From 2004 thru 2005 I was in Ramadi, Iraq with 1MEF. I used the M16A2, M4, M1014, M249SAW, M240G, and M9. Here are my opinions. Our weapon platforms are good and accurate and will function properly when maintained. The problem is when you expose the weapon to dust kicked up by convoys and vehicle traffic. Are you really going to clean your weapon during the middle of a patrol that can last all day? Are you going to keep your weapon inside a plastic bag to maintain it's pristine condition? How do you balance keeping it clean with keeping it available for immediate use? The answer is you can't. The best we could do was to use part of the carry bag for the M240G as a cover when mounted on a vehicle. That way you could shoot through the bag if needed and helped to keep the sand kicked up by the front vehicles from entering the barrel. The receiver was still exposed. You cannot imagine how much dust a small 4 vehicle convoy will kick up even with proper dispersion.

Now compare this with an ak. These weapons can be buried in the dirt floor of an Iraqi home, dug up, and put to immediate use. They are not as accurate because they are machined to looser tolerances. But it is precisely this aspect that allows them to function under all conditions. The 7.62x39 round is accurate enough and lethal enough for the distances in most of our firefights. You can carry more 5.56 rounds but you're going to need every round in your magazine pouches. The weakened spring under compression thing is an urban myth. Springs do not weaken when put under load, it is repeated compression and expansion cycles that weaken them. Go ahead and top off with 30 because you will need every round you have. Mag changes may be a little more difficult so practice often.

I'm out now and I've recently reworked my personal armory. It consists of a 12 gauge shotgun (3" shells), an imported semi-auto ak variant chambered in .308 Win (7.62x51) and a .45.

If I had a choice these would be my primary calibers for combat, but not in an M16 or AR platform. I've heard the Army and Marines are fielding an AR chambered in .308 for designated marksmen. The ak or H&KG3 would be my first choice because of the reliability factor.

Oh and I'd also be wearing dragonskin.

Posted by: GunnyR at May 31, 2007 03:00 PM



I apologize to all the old timers in advance. The dumbest thing I have heard so far is bring back the M14. The M14 was a good weapon in its time, however it lacks the adaptability for modern combat. Whatever weapon is used it has to be able to mount infra-red aiming lights and improved optics. I know the study said accesories made the weapons jam more frequently, but they increase the lethality even more. Modernizing the M14 would be a good idea, but it wouldn't be the M14 anymore.

Posted by: Michael at May 31, 2007 02:49 PM



I love my M4 but I want more power. I would suggest moving to the SOCOM M-1A1 or a .30cal conversion for existing lowers. Also want a change in the M9 from 9mm to .40S&W. The DoD guys at the Pentigon already carry 96F instead of teh 92F/M9 and their MP-5 is .40 too.

Posted by: Anthony at May 31, 2007 02:48 PM



» View All 108 Comments
» Post a Comment

[Air.177]

The comments are great. :rolleyes:

[Pete]

GunnyR gets around in his Dragon Skin.

Duct Tape can cause a malfuction? Who'da thunk it.

Pete

I forgot - Edited to add - We need to test our helmuts and vests against the 7.62x39 instead of just the 5.56? "The truth? You can't handle the truth"

[jbour13]

Maybe your aim would improve if you had been "issued" a longer sight radius. :D

I've found benefit in a shorter sight radius allowing me to point shoot and get out of the AO to reduce second order effect. :D

[x SF med]

I've found benefit in a shorter sight radius allowing me to point shoot and get out of the AO to reduce second order effect. :D

Low caliber and quick on the draw, a double whammy, and he told on himself...:eek:

[kgoerz]

Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.

These blanket surveys tell me little. One, who are they asking. I know it says Soldiers returning from a combat zone. Thats a lot of people. If they were to ask drivers what type of car stereo system is best. They usually ask drivers who listen to music a lot, not every driver. Two, the majority of Soldiers in our Army are not Ballistics or weapons experts. Three, Combat doesn't make you a Ballistics or weapons expert. I hope the survey was more detailed and the article just reflects an overview. It's interesting.

A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo

For example, what constitutes an M9 user? With all the .45 caliber pistols available today with, high cap Mags, user friendly and more likely to function when dirty. Then asking for the return of the 1911 tells us that our Soldiers are not Weapons experts. Not saying their input shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Have there been a lot of gun fights involving soldiers using just their M9? To document and compile good data. In a 2003 conference a speaker told us. The number of cases they knew about then was in the teens. I'm sure it's higher today. That would be interesting to see.

"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."

I haven't seen a Weapon without an accessory since the beginning of OIF. Also accessories make weapons heavier. Making them more likely to being dropped, banged against objects or placed on the ground instead of held.
IMO these factors might also contribute to malfunctions. More accessories equal more Weapon to clean, more cleaning time needed. Certain parts are not being cleaned as frequently compared to a stripped Weapon. Weapons with accessories see combat and are used more then a stripped Weapon.

Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analysis, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.

"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.

I can't speak for everyone, but I always want a better tool.

[mugwump]

These blanket surveys tell me little. One, who are they asking...

...I can't speak for everyone, but I always want a better tool.

KG- That was one of the best descriptions I've seen of how inadequate sample size, selection bias, and correlation vs. causation errors can screw up a study. If you made it so confusing no one could understand it (and if you were in love with Barack Obama) you could be one of the brainiac scientists I work with.

[jbour13]

Low caliber and quick on the draw, a double whammy, and he told on himself...:eek:

:p I guess :D

[BryanK]

At it again.

http://www.military.com/news/article/hill-aides-to-test-m4-alternatives.html?ESRC=eb.nl

[Tacticalinterve]

Surveys are as good as the hoensty used to create them. Lets see how it could go
"Hey do you want that POS, that has blown up in otehr units, you are using or this brand new never jam, able to hit dime at 1000 yards and give you a BJ when you get to your RON rifle?" Funny most go for the later in that survey.

Writters almost always have an agenda these days and the fact you dont know s..t about anything does not stop you from being a big time writter. You see none of the guys doing or who have done this seem to write. Too bad because I would like to have something worth reading once in awhile.

Now I dont have same hard use of a M16 as most of you. Used them in LE for 20 plus years and short stints OCONUS for other work non military. I had all the time in world to keep them clean and I did keep them very clean. Never went more than week in field without good cleaning so my use will not test them same way yours will. Never had a problem and still cant believe how accurate they are. I ahve one M4 with over 40,000 rds down same tube and finally changed gas rings about 8,000 rds ago.

[Kyobanim]

I can't speak for everyone, but I always want a better tool.

My wife says that to me all the time.