M-4

[S.E.Ak]

Finally after 40+ years

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/military-reconsiders-armys-use-m-rifles-afghanistan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Text+-+Politics%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

[RB1235]

 This has come up many times in the last 40 years, and still nothing. The 82nd has been issued an fn scar. Supposed to not jam. But still it is the light model in 5.56 so no added range. If we ever have a war on pigmies that varmint caliber may just come into it's own. All joking asside I hope tht the rifle swapped to a better one for the sake of our brave soldiers who depend on what is issued. Would love for them to give the 6.8 a go and see if the energy would help out our troops. And of coa a better platform for it.

[S.E.Ak]

Why not just issue all the AK we take to our troops,I'm sure they know how to use them

[jmayton]

Ok, I am not, nor have I been in the military.  That being said, I have had the opportunity to shoot both the M4 and the AK47 side by side at ranges out to 600yds and shot at 530yds with my friend who is a former Marine.  At the ranges that the article was talking about the 6.8spc has a distinct advantage out to 300yds, but at the 833yds that the article refers to, neither the 5.56, 7.62x39, nor the 6.8spc will be very effective.  I know that out at 600, it's a lot easier to get rounds on target with an M4 than an AK.  But that is with controlled fire, not suppressive fire, so I understand the argument for more lead downrange and the AK will get it there. 

If the military really wants something for the average soldier to be able to engage targets out past 500yds, then they need to look at something like a 6.5 Grendel in the AR15/M16/M4 platform, or go to something that will handle the .308.  I'd personally go with the Grendel because of it's versatility, low weight, low recoil, and the ablility to be fired in the current M4 platform.

[SHOOTALL]

The 6.8 may be nice . But look at what people want and history. Lets start in 1911 . We got a great service pistol. It went into many battles and served well. Then folks started shooting targets so the gun was made to shoot tighter groups . Then some folks wanted a reliable gun that shot tight groups also . Now many think "combat" gruops are ok again. Fast forward to the M-1 it worked well enough but the powers that be made it into a full auto M-14 . Now after using a BAR since the closing years of WW1 did anyone consider how weight figured in when fireing in full auto ? Now after years on the battlefield we expect a short bbl carbine to compete with a sniper rifle ( I for one can't wait as it would make a fine hunting rifle ) . Do we still use volly fire from musket days ? How well do 22's supress others at 600 yards ? The bullpup looks interesting but the millions of M-16/A-4 guns cost alot can we afford to resupply ? or rebuild existing ? Maybe the used uppers can be sold thru. CMP ?

[jmayton]

Shootall, see, we could issue new 6.5 Grendel upppers (5rds less capacity than 5.56 in the same size magazine) and sell the old M4 and M16 uppers through CMP.  That sounds like a plan.  Then they'd be shooting a highly effective round (killing power to 1000yds) out of a platform they already know with only a small weight penalty and we're not breaking the bank resupplying.

[RB1235]

Shootall, China has plenty of money to fund us a new military rifle. 

CMP would be a good deal for us all with a 1.5" longer permanent mount flash hider. Pilosi, Reid and Obama would want to stick them in the oil pipe to stop the leak though.

[RB1235]

What the article is calling for is only obtainable by a select few individuals in the adverse conditions he is speaking of. 440 yards is a 1/4 mile. Pretty easy for someone who shoots. 833 is little shy of 1/2 mile. Things are quite a bit different out that far. I have a long range at the house. At 800 very little wind makes it very hard to hit. That is on a bench, with a ballistics chart and a known range. No pressure and trees around to shelter the wind. A soldier getting popped at with the wind splitting 3 different ways on a rocky barren mountainside, shooting over a gorge where the wind is blowing another direction,up another hillside, where it shifts again, sand blowing, trying to cover behind a rock is something all together different.

I am not knocking anything you guys are saying, just that the person being interviewed is asking for a little more than the average fellow can handle even with training. Most any of us here do not have the nerves of one of our military snipers while firing. At that range in those conditions they will have to plan that shot very wisely to be successful. No doubt most all of them could likely make those shots with relative certainty. I would imagine very few regular soldiers could though, as most of us could not.
 I own the 6.5 G and 6.8. I favor the 6.5,  I don't believe the 6.5 will be in the running for the standard round because AA will not have the lobbying money that Rem will. It is very sorry because the 6.5 is a better long range round, but that is the nature of our government. I would like to be wrong on this, but it is looking like if there is any switch at all it will be to 6.8, which no doubt is better than 5.56.

[jmayton]

RB1235, I agree about the lobby what the result would be.  But look at the ballistics of the 6.8 and it's only marginally better than the 5.56 whereas the 6.5G will beat the .308 and it's lighter and functions in the AR15/M16 platform.  That being said, I agree that the article deals with scenarios that few of our servicemen are equipped to handle.  I also believe that there is no single weapon system that will work in all situations and that is difficulty that the military faces right now.  While the M4 is a great urban to medium range weapon it's weakness is in longer range engagements and punching through cover.  It seems to me the military is beginning to outfit units with a variety of firearms with each individual soldier performing a specific function within the unity with all able to provide suppressive fire when necessary.  My brother-in-law is entering special forces training right now and I plan on talking with him about what weapons they are trained with and why and what he thinks about it. 

[RB1235]

Mr. Mayton, there is a whole lot of data out there that has the 6.5 beating the 308. I am not arguing with you. Because I have read what is out there on the 6.5 and I know where you are coming from. If you pay attention to what they are doing it is a little shady though. Most of the time they will compare a 175 otm mil surp round to get the results they want. The 6.5 fails in trajectory and wind drift but wins everywhere else against that round. The 6.5 essentially launches a 123 at a velocity comparable to a 7.62x39mm. True with the 6.5's higher ballistic coefficient, it does drag the heals of the 308. But without manipulating bullet weights and comparing ball ammo to premium match ammo, it is not in the same league as the 308. Also without using the old 6.8 data (200 fps slower), which is popular of the 6.5 pushers, the 6.8 beats the 6.5 balistically out to 500 in a 16". Over 500 belongs to the grendel. Neither will outdo a factory loaded 150 or 165 308 with same length barrel in the way of trajectory, drift and muzzle energy. You will also see a lot of 28" grendel data to 24" 308 data.

I don't mean to be contrary at all and respect what you are saying because I have read it as well. The bottom line is I believed all the things they were saying and bought one. After playing around I figure out it is BS. What the grendel will do is sub 308 performance with less recoil and less powder burned. Nothing spectacular to a 6mm bench guy, it will do what a lot of calibers do in 6mm. The neat thing is it does it in a semi auto. There are countless cartridges out there better than the 6.5, ballistically including the 25 wssm, the 6.5 is just a good compromise for power vs. capacity in the AR platform. But is not everything the hype is making it out to be. I do like the 6.5 it is super accurate, competent for big game hunting and fun to shoot. But is not the be all end all to rifle calibers. Just the lesser of evils in a restrictive AR platform. Most deer calibers comparable to the 234 and up are better than a 6.5 when the data is not twisted to show an unfair advantage.


Meant .243 when I typed 234.

[jmayton]

RB1235, I was wondering what the new .234 wildcat was

But seriously, I will defer to you on real-world experience with the Grendel.  I can certainly see how the data can be skewed.  And I do not disagree that the 6.8 is a great round.  And I love the .308.  I have a friend who is really into long range shooting.  He gets real bored if the targets are closer than 500yds.  He has shot a sub 5" 3 shot group at 1000yds with his pretty-much-stock Remington VSF .308.  His friends have all gone up to .50's and .338's but he still shoots he .308 and can usually outshoot them out to 1000.  So I understand that the .308 is hard to beat.  I just think the Grendel is the best combination of light weight, range, and power that can be had in an AR15 platform.  Change platforms and there are much better offerings. 

If I remember right the change to the 5.56 was not about terminal ballistics but about ammo weight and the ability to get more rounds on target.  The 5.56 achieves this, but the quesiton is, was this the proper criteria?

[Lloyd Smale]

I too am on the side of the 308 but the problem with the military going back to it is weight. The ar10, m1a and m14 are all near 10 lb guns. For the way the military fights these days thats just to bulky and heavy. Now if someone would step up to the plate with a 7 lb gun and bring out a reduced load of say a 130 at 2500 for the masses and a heavier load for those who need it I think the 308 would be a hands down better way to go. You 6.5 and 6.8 shooters are just cheering for your gun so you can finally find some brass and ammo for them.

[jmayton]

For the record, I don't have a 6.8 nor a 6.5.  But would gladly take one of those "inferior" caliber rifles off someone's hands.  My 5.56 is still doing the job I want it to do. . . that is kill deer, pigs, and coyotes and punch holes in paper.

[Dweezil]

Different folks in an Infantry squad have different specialties.  No need for everyone to have a long range, heavier weapon.  Just the Designated Marksman and perhaps an Assistant Designated Marksman. Of course, the M240 in 7.62x51 may be an even better choice...with a greater maximum effective range AND long range suppressive fire.   Sooo... your infantry squad could have a Designated Marksman  with ADM, a Machine gunner, with assistant gunner...and an RTO to call in indirect fire if that were deemed necessary.  Everyone else could have M4's or their equivalent. Actually, the ADM and the AG could still carry M4's and just take over the "big gun"  as needed.   
Doesn't have to be rocket science or require billions in R&D/"pork barrel" spending for another weapons platform....when current systems already cover most situations reasonably well.   Just sayin.'

[mcwoodduck]

Gentlemen,
Not to over simplify this but why add this upper or that one, change mags, different ammo, what have you.  Not saying the 6.5 grendel or the 6.8 Spec are not good, but.
There are AR 10's on the civilain market.  They shoot the 308 round.  The military already has the 308 round for the machine guns and sniper rifles.
Magizines are available, the uppers can be configured to the design the army already has in the M4, M16 A2 or what ever other model you want.  All the stuff sights, scope, night vision, flash lights will hang in the same spots.
The rifles are already made to the same mill spec as the M4's. So adopting them is easy.
Manual of arms is the same. Loading, un loading, cleaning, firing, and all.  The M10 is an M4 on steroids.
Simply take the M4's, SAW, mags and mag pouches from the troops in Afganistan and send them to the troops in Iraq and issue M10's, the new belt fed 308 (M240), mags, belts and mag pouches.  And the already issued NATO 7.62X51 ammo.  Would make logistics easier.  Ammo 9X19 and 308 for small arms for Afganistan.
Having a commitee try to design a gun will add YEARS and complications to the process.
The SAW (M249) can be replaced with the M240 that has replaced the M60 as the medium machine gun.  Whole lot lighter than the M60 and with a lot more whoop butt.

[Dee]

Who's gonna pay for these new rifles?

[RB1235]

Who's gonna pay for these new rifles?

Why the Chinese of coarse. Are you daft? 

[S.S.]

Our soldiers should be so lucky to get a different weapon during
this administration. No matter what kind of a POS it really is,
they are stuck with it. It is going to take someone really "important"
like a senators son or daughter getting killed when it jams up.
Then maybe someone will listen and get our soldiers a reliable
weapon.

[mcwoodduck]

Who's gonna pay for these new rifles?

See, this is what I do not mind my tax money going for.
I have a problem with all the social welfare and social engineering that is going on.
Like any budget we need to look at what are nessesities, what are comitments, and what are luxury items.
and cut back on the luxury items till we can pay for it.
Instead of buying M4's to replace inventories just switch them to M10's.  i know easier said than done but it still could be done easier than bringing back out a next generation replacement weapon to the test board.  Or getting one group over the other to agree that the 6.5 is better than than the 6.8 or the other way around.
i think a rifle that will allow us to take the enemy out of combat during a war is a nessesity. Call me crazy.  But being able to end the enemy offensive is key to winning a war.  Especally this war where any defeat of us is used to recruit new members to the enemy rank.  If they loose 1/2 of the force everytime they attack few will take a flip of the coin chance of attacking.  While it may have to be more for this lot that wants to die it may effect the younger ones watching.
if for some reason we found the Garand lacking during WWII and someting better was around it would have been adopted ASAP to win the war.
What would winning the War Save in lives, $ and time.
I saw a headline the other day on my boss's computer "Do killing Terrorists stop terrorism?"  My thought is it can't hurt.  and if we need a new rifle in Afganistan cause the tactics the enemy is useing requires it then we need to do it and take that tactic out of their play book.
The Afgans did the same thing to the soviets in the 80's only they were using No 1 enfields and were sitting just outside the effective range of the AK 47 and AKM- 74 and picking off the soviets and running to ground once heavy weapons could be brought to bear on them.

[Dee]

The only problem is duck, your tax money is ALREADY SPENT. So is you kids, and their kids, and their kids. The cheapest, and most sensible thing to do is, pull ALL of our troops out of Iraq immediately, and let all Arabs continue to kill each other just like they have been doing for the last 7 or 8 thousand years. Then pull our troops completely out of Afghanistan, and bomb Afghanistan into powder, and tell them: We ain't gonna rebuild you, BUT! Any more crap outta you, and we will come back again, and bomb you out of the 15th Century, back into the 5th Century.
Then we can find a better rifle without any pressure.

[RB1235]

The only problem is duck, your tax money is ALREADY SPENT. So is you kids, and their kids, and their kids. The cheapest, and most sensible thing to do is, pull ALL of our troops out of Iraq immediately, and let all Arabs continue to kill each other just like they have been doing for the last 7 or 8 thousand years. Then pull our troops completely out of Afghanistan, and bomb Afghanistan into powder, and tell them: We ain't gonna rebuild you, BUT! Any more crap outta you, and we will come back again, and bomb you out of the 15th Century, back into the 5th Century.
Then we can find a better rifle without any pressure.

Common sense prevails. Wish they had it in Washington.

[mcwoodduck]

Agreed.
As I said before we are either in the fight to win or not in it at all.
You do not have a heavy weight champion fighting to tie or not loose bad.
If we are not going to equip the men fighting the war with what is needed to win then there is no sense in staying.
The Democratic ellected president is now a dictator, stealing the last ellection, and we should get out and not prop him up.
Now as for taxes already spent and ear marked I understand that but there is not a budget soultion that can not be over come.
We are giving $ to the Afgan army and police force to arm them.  Why not give them the M4's our troops have and use the $ spent in traing, arming and equiping the Afgan forces to outfit our guys with the right equipment whaile we leave.
Also cutting an running during the Clintoon administration is what emboldend Osama into attacking us directly.
Allowing these dolts to die for thier cause and moving our cause ahead will stop future attacks.
Much like Cinco De Mayo at the battle of Pueblo where the mighty French army was beaten by a bunch of Mexican villagers rallied more to the cause in wanting to be part of the victory.  Any precieved defeat by the Taliban and Al Kieda over the US will bring more to attack us and swell the ranks of the people we neeed to end.  Even bombing them into the 5th century would not stop them.
Iraq is another story.  I think if we changed tactics there and became less American and said you are either with us or against us and show it and changed the ROE to allow for freely shooting at the insurgents and taking out whole blocks and the blocks around the block where morter or sniper fire is coming from reguardless of who is there the population will start handing in any rebels, insurgents, or al keida, and fast.  like in WWII when we were going to bomb a city or factory we showed the city block on a map and put a large X on it then we would put a large X on the next block/ section of the city and the people would leave.  We did not always need to bomb the next section to deny the factorys labor.  Same here.  Expalin that we will not tollerate snipers, morters, or other attacks and we will just wipe that section off the map and mothers, grandmothers, fathers and so on will start handing in people to protect themselves and thier property.

[Dee]

Why not just admit that our government has turned our military into mercenaries to do other countries fighting for them, and start charging these countries for protection, plus expenses?

[mcwoodduck]

OK.
But at what point does it no longer become mercanery protection but extortion like a War lord and we are not seen as the defenders of freedom but at the ones preventing it?
I think once there were democratic ellections and the government was inplace we should not have occupying and agressive troops on the ground we should have set up advisors and training officers in both the military and the government.  We should have sent in advisors to help rebuild the infrastructure with local help not paid for our companies to rebuild their country we had to destroy. or allow other countries like the French and Russians in to rebuild it.
As we occupy and govern we are the scape goat and target.
If we are going to occupy then we need to provide the means to do so and not put up wiht any attacks at all.  Even if it means leveling whole villages or city blocks.  With either artillary or bull dozers.  The locals will then have a dog in the fight and care who wins.
We need to make it very clear we will destroy mosques.  we did not spare churches in WWII and we will not spare mosques here.  the people attacking the US and hiding in the mosque are the ones that destroy it not the US goverment or military.
As of right now if someone attacks us the military will go out of the way and put many more american in harms way so as not to hurt civilians, that do not care if we are attacked.  If we lash out and kill the attackers no matter who is in the way then the people in the way will tell us what is happening, before it happens.

[Dee]

Well duck the only difference now, is that we're not gettin compensation + expenses. They don't want us in Iraq, and they don't want us in Afghanistan. We are OCCUPIERS. We had every right to bomb hell out of Afghanistan's training camps, and well we should have, but we had no right in going in and involving ourselves in an oil dispute between Kuwait, and Iraq, and to make matters worse we supported and defended the thief that was stealin the oil. 20+ years later, we're still there, and the thief has become even more wealthy, and contributes nothing to the cause.
This debate is like saying: Ok, go rob banks and bring the money back here. And someone saying: Look. If we're gonna have him rob banks we need to at least get him a faster car. We shouldn't be sendin them to rob banks in the first place.
You know, and we all know, that the government has no intention of letting the troops win the wars, whether the wars are just or unjust. What's the point in debating equipment? They shouldn't be there in the first place, and the government does not want them to become efficient with better weaponry. It ain't gonna happen. It doesn't matter what happened 60 years ago in WWII. This is a different government from that one. We have not won a war SINCE WWII, and it's gettin worse not better.
We all know what the Muslim terrorists are doing, and it isn't gonna change. Everything you say is true, but a better rifle is not going to change any of that. The only thing that's gonna change it, is for everyone to get together and quit puttin the same politicians back in over and over.
The politicians subjected millions of our soldiers to a war much like these two in Vietnam. 53,000+ dead soldiers, and an untold amount of wounded soldiers later, the politicians said: Well, this one ain't workin either, we're outta here. 53,000+ dead, and not even an apology from the government to those families. These two wars will end the same. Even the commanding General himself in Afghanistan says we're losin. He didn't say it was because of a rife, it's because of the Afghan fighter, and his will to take back his country. He has never quit, since Alexander the Great tried this. We won't be any different. Our government, and sadly many voters, believe their own BS.
You corner him, and even a mouse will fight. The Afghans cut his teeth on fighting. It's a way of life for him, not a political whim some politician thought up.

[243dave]

I'm not gonna get started in the political stuff but I'll comment on the m-4 and where we need to start its improvements.  First is the ammo that is standard issue.  The 62gr fmj leaves alot to be desired in the killing department----a proper bullet for the job is the cheapest and quickest way to give the troops a better killing weapon.  The mk-262 rounds for the 5.56 has been around for a long time and have been proven to be far more effective at longer ranges than the standard 5.56 ball.  The mk-262 rounds are basically a 77gr sierra hpbt loaded pretty hot.  Heres a article about them.   http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/black-hills-mk-262-mod-1   I agree that a more powerful round is needed (and perhaps a entirely new weapon system) but a change in caliber and weapon even if testing started today won't be in the troops hands for years, so why not give them the best available ammo to use until then ??   Dave

[SHOOTALL]

I read where it is the way we use the M4 , we hang stuff on it from the hand guard . This puts alot of torque on the bbl nut. The nut and area around it gets very hot . Hang a vertical grip on and use it to pull the weapon in tight to the shoulder and when hot you can sometimes flex the reciever causing problems . There are systems evolving that reduce most of the heat in this area.

[RB1235]

Makes sense Shootall. Also a problem with the recoil buffer. They made it heavier and shorter for the M4 to reduce cyclic rate. Was jamming a whole lot more before they did that. It is not just one thing most likely, but many issues. Each platform has been progressively better, but there are still a lot of things they haven't figured out I imagine. If we compare a first design A1 to a current design m4 there are a whole lot of improvements. Would bet they could use it another 40 years and keep on improving on the design. The sad thing is they should have never made the mistake 40 years ago. We have been a lot of places since vietnam, officially and unofficially. The folks will say well it's the humid jungle environment, or the sandy environment. Nope, poor design plain and simple. The AK, FN FAL and HK have been to those same environments and were dependable. Instead of fixing the problem and going with a new design, they keep on making excuses for it. Our troops don't deserve that. The poor design is the problem, not the environment. If it will not function in every possible environment, one that would have should have replaced it, instead of excuses.

[SHOOTALL]

YEP !
I love my socom 

[shvlhead.45]

Interesting read, enjoyed seeing all the opinions, thoughts, and comments.   Now mine even though they are worthless in the end.

1.  6.5 on the AR/M4/M16 platform has the best BC, SD, and the 6.5 seems to kill all out of perportion to caliber.

2.  The AKs do provide greater suppressive fire over the M16/M4 on the battle field but run out of steam in the 300m range and will not penatrate as well as a M855/SS109 62 gr. 5.56 round nor are they anyway near as accurate. Don't forget we're talking as issued mass produced whatever is floating around on the battlefield not hand selected milled receiver Czech made good stuff.

3.  If the 6mmX45mm (243 bullet in a 223 case) with about a 75-80 grain bullet were to replace the 5.56X45 round the only change really really required would be a rebarrel for M16/M4s and M249 SAWs.  The Saw wouldn't even require a change to the belt feed mechanism.  Down range effect would not be optimal but it would be noticeabley improved with little loss of distance or weight gain for the already overloaded GI.

4.  I sure hope they got to a piston operating mechanism as opposed to direct inpingment.

5.  I started to put in a disparaging remark about the decision makers but think that wouldn't be  smartest thing I've ever done so I will refrain.


Respectfully,
Shvlhead.45