Still More Bad Press For The M-4

[Nullifidian]

I agree, but there in lies the problem. The M-4 is not killing the enemy, period. It appears yet again, and this is and old story, the AK-47 is doing a better job. Bill T.

No it isn't.

Because the Taliban shooting at us from those ranges are absolutely NOT doing so with AKs. They are doing it with PSL's, RPK's, etc. but NOT AKMs or AK47s or AK74s, etc.

They are NOT using 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 to shoot at us from those distances. They are using 7.62x54R. 7.62x39 has trouble hitting the broad side of a barn past 300 meters no matter what platform you shoot it from. Heck, at 250 meters you're pushing the limits of its accuracy. It's a powerful round that does a lot of damage with great penetration but it isn't meant for long range engagements. It's not even meant for mid range.

You saying this is "proof" that the AK is better is like pulling out a Barrett, nailing a guy with an AK from a mile away, and then saying that proves the M4 is better at killing at a distance than the AK is.


The M4's counterpart is an AK carbine in either 7.62x39 or 5.45x39. When comparing either of those, the M4 has superior accuracy and longer range. At the ranges where the M4 lacks in ability to penetrate and kill, the AK can't hit anything anyway.

If you want to compare Taliban weapons firing 7.62x54R, then you compare them to the US counterparts, which are firing 7.62x51 NATO ... NOT the M4.


I love my AK. I've gotten pretty accurate with it. I can shoot pretty nice groups at 25 and 50 yards. Small groups. At 25 yards I can punch out a single hole. But you know what? It's not too hard for a guy to shoot an M4 offhand more accurately than my AK shoots from a bench once you get past 100 yards or so.

[QuackXP]

Mind you I'm armchair quarterbacking this with no military experience. But it seems to be the solution is to change the standard issue rifle back to the M16 and increase the Designated Marksman role with more deployments or cross training.

This seems to be the most logical solution that could be implemented in a relatively short period of time.

[Nullifidian]

Mind you I'm armchair quarterbacking this with no military experience. But it seems to be the solution is to change the standard issue rifle back to the M16 and increase the Designated Marksman role with more deployments or cross training.

This seems to be the most logical solution that could be implemented in a relatively short period of time.

From the article:

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. The sharpshooters are equipped with the new M110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet

The article is flawed on so many levels it isn't funny. For example:

Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, said the M4 has the advantage of more-rapid firepower.

“The 5.56 caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target,” he told The Associated Press. But he acknowledged the weapon is much less effective at 2,000 feet out

It is clear that the reporter is misquoting. The question the Col. is answering is along the lines of:

"Which is better the 7.62x39 or 5.56?"

To which he says that 5.56 is more lethal because regardless of any stopping power or ability to penetrate, the accuracy and reduced recoil of the 5.56 means you cna put more rounds on target. He's talking about AT THE SAME RANGES.

Then they ask him "is the M4 accurate at 2000 feet" to which the Col. is of course going to say "no." But this is phrased as if to imply the AK IS accurate at that range, which is totally nonsensical.

Then when they say:

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56 mm and 7.62 cartridges, Tamilio said.

The "7.62" he is referring to us the US forces' own 7.62x51 NATO and NOT 7.62x39. perhaps he is referring to something like 6.8 SPC or something as the proposed intermediate round, IDK.


This whole article is bunk anyway because the AR platform is scheduled to be gradually phased out and replaced with the SCAR anyway as far as I know. The AR has had a VERY long service life. Service life of cartridge primary service rifles going backwards in time...

M16: 49 years
M1 Garand: 27 years
1903 Springfield: 54 years
Krag: 9 years
Spencer Rifle: 13 years
Springfield 1873: 13 years
Springfield 1866: 7 years


The only primary weapon with a longer service life was the 1903 Springfield, and truthfully, it was put in a very secondary role after 38 years of service or so at which point the Garand was the primary rifle.

No other rifle has served as the primary weapon platform for as long as the AR has.

[afrattner]

No it isn't.
Because the Taliban shooting at us from those ranges are absolutely NOT doing so with AKs. They are doing it with PSL's, RPK's, etc. but NOT AKMs or AK47s or AK74s, etc.

Sorry to be a negative nancy but the RPK is the LMG version in 7.62x39, i think you meant to say PK.

However i will say that we started to find Khyber ak's with a strange homemade sights on the side, which they aimed at us but yet again tali came up short and gave away there pos......then we'd pump there pos with 4xMAG-58's 7.62N belt fed hell and they'd run leaving a bloody trail behind them

[Nullifidian]

Sorry to be a negative nancy but the RPK is the LMG version in 7.62x39, i think you meant to say PK.

You are correct. I meant the PKM, not the RPK.


EDIT: Btw, the "intermediate round" mentioned is probably not the 6.8mm Remmington SPC but rather tha 6.5mm Grendel. Ballistic performance of the Grendel is VERY nice. It has a trajectory similar to 7.62NATO with great terminal ballistics, lighter cartridge weight than 7.62NATO and lighter recoil as well. The more I read about 6.5 Grendel the more I like it. 6.8 SPC however appears to be rather awful in comparison to be perfectly honest. 5.56 has a flatter trajectory and more range than 6.8SPC does but 6.8SPC has more recoil. 6.5 Grendel however is on par with 7.62 NATO in performance with less weight and much less recoil.


EDIT EDIT: Oh, and I recently looked at a ballistic chart that looked simply at retained energy. While a 7.62x39 round has higher initial energy than 5.56, by the time it hits 250 meters, both rounds have identical energy. After 250 meters, the 7.62x39 falls more sharply than 5.56; so past 250 meters 5.56 is actually more powerful. So nevermind accuracy, 7.62x39 is WEAKER past 250 meters than 5.56.

[billt]

It's not too hard for a guy to shoot an M4 offhand more accurately than my AK shoots from a bench once you get past 100 yards or so.

Assuming it doesn't jam. Bill T.

[billt]

While a 7.62x39 round has higher initial energy than 5.56, by the time it hits 250 meters, both rounds have identical energy. After 250 meters, the 7.62x39 falls more sharply than 5.56; so past 250 meters 5.56 is actually more powerful. So nevermind accuracy, 7.62x39 is WEAKER past 250 meters than 5.56.

Then why is there a non stop, continuing flow of problems with the M-4 that earns it negative press every few weeks now? They're not making this stuff up. Bill T.

[forceinPA]

6.5 or 6.8 will solve this problem, and you can keep the AR platform.

[kbcobra26]

6.5 or 6.8 will solve this problem, and you can keep the AR platform.

They would be better suited for the job but we dont have 6.5 or 6.8 stockpiled like we do 5.56..

[Nullifidian]

6.5 or 6.8 will solve this problem, and you can keep the AR platform.

I don't think 6.8 would really solve anything. 6.8 has the same range as 5.56 but has more recoil, less mag capcity, and higher weight. It's better at short range than 5.56 is but has similar performance at ranges past 400 meters or so.

6.5 Grendel however could actually replace 7.62 NATO. A 123 gr 6.5 actually surpasses the M80 ball past 400 yards in terms of drift, and past 600 in terms of drop and velocity. It's a more accurate round. In terms of terminal performance, it retains velocity better as well and actually exceeds the 147 grain M80 ball past 1000 yards in terms of energy.

At the same time, 6.5 Grendel is small enough to fit in standard 5.56 AR mags. You can fit the same number of 6.5 rounds in a mag as you can 6.8: 26 (in a mag that fits 30 5.56 rounds).

Then there is the issue of barrel length. 6.5 grendel has a much much lower ballistic coefficient which means it isn't as sensitive to barrel length as the shorter 5.56 or 6.8SPC are.


It's actually a pretty amazing round. The only question I have about 6.5 Grendel is reliability of feeding. Not that I have concerns about it; it's just that I haven't read any data whatsoever about how it feeds. It's superior to both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO in many ways, so I think whether or not it feeds well should be the only question left. It would be a significant cost saver to be able to replace both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO with 1 standard round that is able to perform both roles.