Thanks for sharing. Very insightful.
Found on another forum:
The USA?s M4 Carbine Controversy
Thanks for sharing. Very insightful.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper
An adjustable gas piston set up would sure help in the reliability department. And would cost way less then replacing the entire system.
So the H&K is the most sought after weapon by SOCOM, their steering way clear of the M-3, M-4.
Why is the U.S. Army not listening to front line Troops and their own field testing? Well having grown up in Connecticut, where most of these contracts come out of. Here is the way it works. Someone could have the best damn weapon in the world, does not fail good weapon. Whoops sorry, their is no check on my desk for agreeing to buy your product, no tickets for my families vacation in Hawaii. My kid did not get her pony.
No not a joke. I sat in the family home at the cocktail parties and listened to the buyers, the purchase agents for these contractors. To a person they would try to out brag each other on kickbacks. Envelopes stuffed with money, trips on cruise lines for them and their families, pony for the kid. Non stop gifts.
Ever wonder why they put these weapons and other Military purchases out for the Troops? "M4 jams more than the M3." Well hell got with that one, not what the Troops want. Cot gave us a huge frigging kick back. "Replace a defective spring?" 250,000 defective springs, times probably $5 each for a .05 cent spring? Envelopes trading hands at 10% of sale? Nope spring seems fine from my beach home in Stamford Connecticut, no problems their.
"Save taxpayers money with our purchases" I almost fell off the chair laughing. They don't give a flying F4%K about saving no taxpayer money, where is my envelope?
i don't think the administration cares-- and they will probably give all the weapons to ISIS anyway--
the article states the m4 had 3.5X the jams as the third place finisher. since we don't know how many rounds jammed in the positions one two and three it sort of makes it hard to determine if the problems are serious or not. the situation could be like this type "A" fired 260K rounds had 10 fails,
weapon type "B" fired 250K rounds and had 15 fails type "C" fired 250k rounds and had 20 fails--
and type "D" fired 250K rounds and had 70 fails--
70 is a lot more than the first place --yet 70 fails is not many considering it fired 250K rounds. so you got to watch how these things are tested.
the m4s has all ways been a controversial weapon , colt and friends made a huge profit off it by claiming the m4 as something new. all it really is is a updated XM-177 with a 1-7" barrel and a couple of ramps in the upper.
the entire m-16/m4 line has been obsolete in some ways for a couple decades.
the m4 is a "PM and lube" hog and its barrels and bolts wear out quicker than they should.
operationally though we never encountered a situation where they failed to work on any kind of scale that might show they weren't up to the job. and we ran the m4s and m-16s very hard.
the m-16 series don't like that fine dust we were in , nither did the 240s saws or AKs. i just think the m4s liked that fine dust less than the other weapons.
i don't think it is possible to invent a automatic weapon that is 100% reliable in that theater of operations.
one of our problems with the m16 system was that the round didn't really have enough penetration at range.
i think we would have took to a better round over a new weapon. the situation was sort of patched over the the m262 series of ammo.
still thought the 262 seems a bit light weight @ 600-700M--
That's exactly why a Anderson piston upper is in my future,, gas impingement works fine, but has draw backs. No big deal to do a piston system for a AR platform, and way less cost than designing a complete new system.
As many elude to,,, it's all about the kick back bucks, just the way of the modern business world it seems. Don't change a otherwise acceptable platform, just modify the existing M4 to make up for any shortcomings it may have,, that would make more sense to me.
I'm still kinda amazed they don't do a chamber and bolt more like a FAL,, those early ones had issues with sand and dirt too till they ended up with the fluted chambers and relief cuts in the bolt. A simple remedy/modification to a otherwise great platform.
Last edited by twa2471; 07-30-2014 at 11:11 AM.
well it would be easy to add an adjustable gas block, and as for DI vs piston , the DI has one thing as a problem the piston don't.
the gas goes through the carrier and is vented out the side of the carrier.
this is sort of a no-no cause the carrier and bolt gets very hot in FA and it collects smut and grit in the BCG.
had the gas from the DI been vented before it gets through the BCG -- i think that would have solved a lot of issues.
with such a hot carrier it burns off the lube quickly. i have heard of cook off problems with a 'hot" bolt
but i haven't seen um.
all the niggly little things with the m16/m4 could be fixed , should have been fixed decades ago really. now we have pushed the little 5.56 to the limit-- i think a start over is overdue.
a new weapon with a new round and the weapon designed as a system.
and they need to think real hard on the exact requirements for the weapon/round system.
its going to have to do DMR, assault rifle and LMG roles. somebody is going to have to decide on "how much" the gi is going to have to put up with in each. it can't be too big, small or heavy either, but still be able to do its assigned roles. expense could also be a factor.
the DOD is hell bent on making the 5.56 work. i think that is why development of new arms is dragging along--
IMHO, a AR platform with a gas piston system, sand slot cut bolt, and a fluted chamber in 308 would do it all,,
but that's just an opinion on my part.
Which don't probably amount to 2 shits in the grand scheme of things. But would that would be my choices if I was redesigning/upgrading a weapons platform that would do it all.
twa did you have a standard M-16 in Nam or did you have something else? Hell my M-16 worked through thick and thin. We beat the dog piss out of them and were of the age when they did NOT need cleaning. Not. Hell I never saw a cleaning kit the whole time on my wonderful adventure. Pretty sure the whole company did not have one??
Our mags, metal, we beat the piss out of them, dirt, flung them in our carry packs, dropped them out of choppers. Like a real life torture test. Same with the 16s, God we abused them. Not from being stupid, just normal wear and tear.
We were NOT allowed to put a round in riding in choppers, they got kind of pissed if you put a round through their ceilings or windshields. "Damn like chill dudes, why all the aggression. Not like I shot yah or something." Not even in the perimeters, outside the perimeters, fine. Then ride it on safe, finger off the trigger, you hoped the guy behind yah followed the rules.
Full auto, almost exclusively. j4. Yall in the Storm had long range Tangos. Myself and twa and others here from our era it was up close and personal. 90% of the time yah never saw your target. Please sorry to sway toward any type war stories, just weapon related. Full auto? Total total waste of ammo. Slow single fire would have been much much better aiming low.
But when yer scared, he who makes the most noise gets the other guy to split. Run away, run.