Still More Bad Press For The M-4

[billt]

Well in this case it does matter.

Why? It's a gun that is failing to do it's intended job. What else do you need to know? bill T.

[orionz06]

Why? It's a gun that is failing to do it's intended job. What else do you need to know? bill T.

Actually its intended job differs from the current use you describe. Lets ignore platform and talk caliber, since that will remove the hatred you have for the stoner guns. 5.56 is more than adequate for 0-200m, even 300m with some loads and it does not overload the user with ammo. Capacity wins at this range. Beyond that, you need more mass to do anything, no one is contesting that.

Using 5.56 for 600m shots does not mean it was intended to do so, it means you are probably doing something incorrectly.

[billt]

What is your suggested alternative, or expert opinion?

There is none. As I said, you've got a President who hates the military in this country, and will do everything in his power to avoid spending a single dime on it unless he absolutely has to in order to keep his ass out of the political wringer. Hopefully in 2012 this country will have enough common sense to get rid of him, along with his Congress and Senate this November.

Then I doubt there is any question that a new service rifle is in order. What will it be, and be able to do? Your guess is as good as mine. I'd like to think we've learned enough in the last 40 years to not make the same mistake twice. Bill T.

[chefryan]

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.

LARUE SEMI AUTO .308 sounds like a great choice.

[orionz06]

There is none. As I said, you've got a President who hates the military in this country, and will do everything in his power to avoid spending a single dime on it unless he absolutely has to in order to keep his ass out of the political wringer. Hopefully in 2012 this country will have enough common sense to get rid of him, along with his Congress and Senate this November.

Then I doubt there is any question that a new service rifle is in order. What will it be, and be able to do? Your guess is as good as mine. I'd like to think we've learned enough in the last 40 years to not make the same mistake twice. Bill T.

Someone else answered for you below. The point of discussion like this is to present an article, as you have done, and discuss it. In this case, all you have done was repeat that you think AR's are garbage and then said you have 10 of them. When asked to suggest a solution, you failed to even blurt out a stupid suggestion.

LARUE SEMI AUTO .308 sounds like a great choice.

the manual of arms is the same, it can be employed damn near the same and has a proven round for the ranges in excess of the M4's intended use.

[billt]

Lets ignore platform and talk caliber, since that will remove the hatred you have for the stoner guns. 5.56 is more than adequate for 0-200m, even 300m with some loads and it does not overload the user with ammo. Capacity wins at this range. Beyond that, you need more mass to do anything, no one is contesting that.

Using 5.56 for 600m shots does not mean it was intended to do so, it means you are probably doing something incorrectly.

First off, I don't "hate" the platform. I'm just realistic about it. There is a big difference. The .223 is a good caliber, just not for a combat rifle. That isn't Stoners fault. Remember, he originally designed the rifle in 7.62, not .223. I think both the AR and the AK were from different ends of the design spectrum to achieve the same result.

Stoner designed the M-16 with close tolerances, and high accuracy in mind. He achieved his goal. Kalashnikov went the opposite with the AK-47. He designed loose tolerances to achieve unparalleled reliability. He achieved his goal. The 7.62 X 39 MM is without question a better man stopper than the varmint round the M-16 was chambered for, in the ranges it has been employed in. The reliability of the AK speaks for itself, just as the unreliability of the M-16 speaks volumes, and still does 40 years later for that matter.

In the last 40+ years every time we've gone up against the AK-47 it has proven to be far more reliable. Newer versions of the M-4 have been somewhat more reliable than past versions, but that isn't saying much because the unreliability still persists. It didn't do well in Viet Nam, and the sand in the Middle East isn't helping it perform any better. Perhaps we should pick more sterile battlegrounds for it to perform in.

Until then it will keep floundering along, as it has for much of the last 40+ years. A new caliber, a piston design, an entire new weapon, or even all of the above. That will take years and cost millions. I'll keep enjoying my guns at the range, and pray our guys don't get hurt because of them. Bill T.

[billt]

For what it's worth, I think it was a big mistake going away from the M-14, and it's .308 round. It seems as though others in the military think the same. They're hauling them out of mothballs left and right, and they are in great demand wherever they appear. Newer isn't always better. We sure learned that the hard way. Bill T.

[orionz06]

First off, I don't "hate" the platform. I'm just realistic about it. There is a big difference. The .223 is a good caliber, just not for a combat rifle. That isn't Stoners fault. Remember, he originally designed the rifle in 7.62, not .223. I think both the AR and the AK were from different ends of the design spectrum to achieve the same result.

Stoner designed the M-16 with close tolerances, and high accuracy in mind. He achieved his goal. Kalashnikov went the opposite with the AK-47. He designed loose tolerances to achieve unparalleled reliability. He achieved his goal. The 7.62 X 39 MM is without question a better man stopper than the varmint round the M-16 was chambered for, in the ranges it has been employed in. The reliability of the AK speaks for itself, just as the unreliability of the M-16 speaks volumes, and still does 40 years later for that matter.

In the last 40+ years every time we've gone up against the AK-47 it has proven to be far more reliable. Newer versions of the M-4 have been somewhat more reliable than past versions, but that isn't saying much because the unreliability still persists. It didn't do well in Viet Nam, and the sand in the Middle East isn't helping it perform any better. Perhaps we should pick more sterile battlegrounds for it to perform in.

Until then it will keep floundering along, as it has for much of the last 40+ years. A new caliber, a piston design, an entire new weapon, or even all of the above. That will take years and cost millions. I'll keep enjoying my guns at the range, and pray our guys don't get hurt because of them. Bill T.

You are still incorrect. How is the AR, in its current form, unreliable? The first ones were, but the problems were identified and solved. Even Glocks were unreliable at times. Your environmental concerns speaks volumes about how little you really know.

As far as caliber goes, again, see intended use vs how it is applied. And why go to a piston system that has its own inherent problems? Marksmanship is a concern now, lets add more violent recoil to the equation?

[orionz06]

For what it's worth, I think it was a big mistake going away from the M-14, and it's .308 round. It seems as though others in the military think the same. They're hauling them out of mothballs left and right, and they are in great demand wherever they appear. Newer isn't always better. We sure learned that the hard way. Bill T.

Had we been issuing a new M14, you would be arguing about the guys not having enough ammo and carrying too heavy of a gun. It seems as if you completely fail to understand trade offs and intended purpose.

[arrrrgh15]

Had we been issuing a new M14, you would be arguing about the guys not having enough ammo and carrying too heavy of a gun. It seems as if you completely fail to understand trade offs and intended purpose.

Bingo. Most of the people spewing hatred for 5.56 in lieu of "bigger" would never have to actually carry it in combat. Armchair commandoing at best.

If there is an issue with hitting and killing people beyond 300 yards, perhaps it's not the rifle, but the tactics.

I find the article hillarious in that it references other solutions....still in 5.56. The XM8 was an HK disaster in the making and was dropped like the steaming hot turd that it was in the punch bowl of failure.