And the M-16/M-4 haunts the Grunt again.......After 40 years

[DaSharkie]

Robert McNamara's folly continues to endanger our men and women in combat. Seems the military is finally listening to the men and women on the front lines. Only took 40+ years.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html?ESRC=ma rine.nl


Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | April 06, 2007
It's a debate that's gone on for years - and now it's finally coming to a head.
The compact M4 carbine - a shortened version of the M16 - that is now standard issue for most Army troops, some Marines and other specialized units is facing increased criticism because of its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements.

Some ground communities, including special operations forces, have begun to sideline the M4 in favor of newer, gas-piston operated variants such as the Heckler & Koch-manufactured 416 and the FNH-built Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR

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."

The 416 is used by the Army's elite Delta Force, and a recent Army Times investigation showed the service's top equipment buyers ignored data from the spec ops community showing the M4 had fundamental flaws. Enamored by the development of futuristic weapons such as the XM29 and, later, XM8 - neither of which were ever fielded - the M4 stayed in the hands of Soldiers deploying to hot, dusty, austere environments like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army would prefer to wait for the development of a new rifle firing an airburst, round - essentially leaping ahead of today's technology. But that innovation has been hard to find in the right weight class.

An Army spokeswoman for Program Executive Office Soldier, based at Fort Belvoir, Va., said in a statement the Army isn't buying into SOF's argument.

"At this time PEO Soldier is not procuring and does not have plans to procure the 416," said Army spokeswoman, Erin Thomas, in an email statement.

But special operations forces sometimes work outside the "Big Army" procurement system, so they can grab the best gear quickly.

"The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained," the justification for the 416 assembly buy states. "There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

Army weapons experts have been tinkering with new weapons designs, such as the HK-built XM8. Its modular design, rugged construction and accuracy intrigued many in the Army - and other services. But in 2005, the Army abandoned the XM8 after spending $33 million - though the Natick Soldier Systems Center has been looking at a shortened version of the XM8 as a personal defense weapon for officers and armored vehicle crews.

So far, however, the Army is unwilling to buy what the special operations community believes is a clearly superior system and is still spending money looking for another technology while Soldiers use what many say is an inferior weapon in harsh combat conditions.

"The Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia is currently conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment to determine future Army needs," Thomas said in the statement, declining to elaborate.

[GodSendRain]

7.62mm. Nothing else to say.

[scfire86]

In his novel "About Face" Col. David Hackworth (R.I.P.) stated the M-16 was the greatest hoax ever put upon the US soldier.

McNamara's folly is right just like the original F-111 was supposed to replace both AF and Navy fighters. Of course the fact that it was being built in LBJ's home state had nothing to do with it being forced upon the AF. The Navy and USMC had the sense to reject the design immediately.

To its credit the F-111 did go on to be an effective medium bomber and EW platform.

[DaSharkie]

In his novel "About Face" Col. David Hackworth (R.I.P.) stated the M-16 was the greatest hoax ever put upon the US soldier.

Not even a hoax SC, since it was/is a garbage weapon and with its continued malfunctions it has cost many men and women their lives by crapping out in combat - precisely when it is supposed to work and is most needed.

[GodSendRain]

Okay, I do have something else to say.

The modifications of weapons (such as the m-16A1, A2) occurred because of soldier feedback from experiences with the weapons in the field of combat.

Does anyone besides me feel that fighting active combat is not the ideal time or place to be discovering these drawbacks? I know it is nice to have combat feedback, but much more can be done before a prototype weapon even leaves the drawing board.

It seems simple to me (but not to the Government, of course): Manufacturers should put the design through a serious torture test (drop it in the mud, run over it with a truck, throw it in a flashover simulator) before they hand it to some grunt and have it jam when a grain of sand gets in the chamber.

Every piece of equipment to be used by the combat soldier needs to go through a thorough trial before it ever gets shipped.

Anyone ever see the test track for the M1 tanks? Why not have an equivalent for rifles?

[scfire86]

Not even a hoax SC, since it was/is a garbage weapon and with its continued malfunctions it has cost many men and women their lives by crapping out in combat - precisely when it is supposed to work and is most needed.
I've never fired one outside of a KD range. But that was the term Hackworth used describing the same situations. He hated the thing. He said the only worse than an M-16 was its CAR-15 derivative. Soldiers wanted them cuz they looked cool. But weren't worth a damn when needed.

And the VC/NVA had an AK-47. One munitions guy told me the M-16 was like a swiss watch. Drop it, it breaks and you need a new one. The AK-47 was like a Mickey Mouse clock. Drop it, it breaks, shake it around and it works again.

Which one would you want?

[VinnieB]

Anyone ever see the test track for the M1 tanks? Why not have an equivalent for rifles?

1 tank costs millions, 1 grunt costs pennies...which is nothing to the Gov't. Grunts can be replaced by the thousands....tanks....not so fast.

I wish the fat azzhats in DC would pull thier heads out of the sand, forget about how much their cousins will make from the contracts, and give a Friggin Combat rifle that works when I need it too. The IDF has a new weapon they designed...called the Tibour (I think)....5.56 cal, accuracy of the M-1A match rifle, and reliability of the Ak-47 varients. Its PERFECT for urban warfare, but can still be used in the field well.

[Dalmatian190]

I've never field stripped an M-16, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I can't evaluate these guys statements...

But they seemed to be impressed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObXZMepn3SI

[mcaldwell]

While I certainly don't give the bean counters in R&D any credit, something has to be said for a grunts ability to F up the best tested scenario or weapon. I have the experience. :D


But I am glad to see there is some work being done. The platform is 40 years old, with many of the original flaws, and there is a hell of a lot of battlefield experience now. Any grunt who had to clean the damn things can tell you that gas recirculation is a less than ideal idea. ;)


And as for the 7.62 comment, I started back with the FN C1 (FN FAL), and while I still have a soft spot for that weapon, it was not at all nice to lug around, use in CQC, and/or tight spaces.

[ALSfirefighter]

I never had a major malfunction with my M-16A2 but I also cleaned it like a person with OCD. Most of the major problems myself and many of my unit members experienced were from worn magazines that would double feed rounds and they weren't always easy to clear. I often kept an extra cleaning rod in my flak jacket to clear them.

I got to fire the HK416. It is a kick ass weapon. I've always loved the MP-5 for close quarters and would have loved to carry the 416.

[JHR1985]

"I dont need no beauty queen.... I just need my M-14"


Compare the M-16 which is now entering its era of being close to 50 years old... Eugene Stoner and the AR-10 Program dated the Actual M-16 by like ten years and the first Ar-15 was completed in 1958.


Now... how many other armies out there issue weapons that are based off a 50 year old design?

The Ak-74, while being based off the AK-47... is a little bit updated but... England has the Enfield... Germany and Spain have the G-36. Canada still uses a modified M-16 Design... but who counts them anyway:eek:

The HK-416 design is in itself a very good design and most likely should be used... but who knows.

[mcaldwell]

Canada still uses a modified M-16 Design... but who counts them anyway:eek:



Hey, we took the M-16, fixed most of your inherant problems, and made it good. ;) :p


And I don't suspect I will get a chance to play with the new HK anytime soon, but I have seen a lot of coverage on it, and I agree it is a slick looking unit.

[redneckemt]

Just remember your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. :D








Ak's run circles around the M-16's. Besides is .223 enough gun?

[JHR1985]

the current AK round uses a 5.54 x 39 if remember off the top of my head. Not much bigger than the .223 BUT it has like 150grain bullet... compare that to the, whats the standard now, 62g for the 223. but I have heard of Special forces using the 72g bullet with a positive outcome.


But, you shoot them in the head and that isnt a problem...

but, its just hard to beat the 7.62

now... there is the .224 round out there.... which is nothing but a .223 shell with a 80 or 100g .243 bullet. It would require the changing of like 1/2 parts of the current m-16 buts it has been said that the reciever couldnt handle the pressure.

Just go back to Garands

[DaSharkie]

Funny you should mention the M-14s.

The Marine Corps has started pulling several of them from the old armory warehouses to distribute to selected marksmen.

The 7.62 is a proven and effective round. The M-14 is a proven and effective weapon.

The M-16 is old, has WAY too many parts for a good effective field strip and cleaning in combat zones, under fire.

As for the AK-47, the manufacturing tolerances in them is what made them so effective. But many were not the most accurate weapons (probably why they had fully automativ - "Accuracy By Volume.")

[FireLt1951]

I was trained on the M-14 and never even saw an M-16 until I arrived in country (RVN). I had heard so much about the problems that existed with the weapon in the previous couple of years. When I was assigned my weapon, it was the newer design and to tell you the truth, I spent 16 months with that weapon and I didn't have any problems with it. I never suffered a jam and it never failed to fire when needed. Although when guys decided to used the 30 round banana clip it did tend to jam as it did with a full clip of 20 rounds so we would only put 18 rounds in the clip. They liked the idea of 30 rounds rather than 18. The correction I was taught by short timers was to tape 2 regular clips (18 rounds in each) together, then just drop the clip, flip it and reinsert and it saved time trying to get that damn clip out of the belt. It also solved the jamming problem from the larger clips and putting 20 in the regular clips. I know the horror stories from guys in country who had used the earlier version and almost all I talked to didn't have the same complaints with the redesign. All in all for it's time, it really wasn't a bad weapon. The M-14 was far superior to me but it was a heavy little sucker and would have been a pain while humping in the bush. This is just my take.

[DaSharkie]

I was trained on the M-14 and never even saw an M-16 until I arrived in country (RVN). I had heard so much about the problems that existed with the weapon in the previous couple of years. When I was assigned my weapon, it was the newer design and to tell you the truth, I spent 16 months with that weapon and I didn't have any problems with it. I never suffered a jam and it never failed to fire when needed. Although when used with a 30 round banana clip it did tend to jam. The correction we made was to tape 2 regular clips together, then just drop the clip, flip it and reinsert and it saved time trying to get that damn clip out of the belt. It also solved the jamming problem from the larger clips. I know the horror stories from guys in country who had used the earlier version and almost all I talked to didn't have the same complaints with the redesign. All in all for it's time, it really wasn't a bad weapon. The M-14 was far superior to me but it was a heavy little sucker and would have been a pain while humping in the bush. This is just my take.

And if anyone's opinion means anything, it is truly the combat veteran's from being under fire.

But it is also the fact that 5.56mm round does not have the knockdown power. From many assessments I have read in Iraq, the hyped-up-on-khat-and-amphetamines scumbag terrorists just are not phased all that much by the 5.56, but with a round or two of 7.62 from designated marksmen this has changed. As has the same situation with folks using a .45 instead of the garbage 9mm Beretta.

[FireLt1951]

And if anyone's opinion means anything, it is truly the combat veteran's from being under fire.

But it is also the fact that 5.56mm round does not have the knockdown power. From many assessments I have read in Iraq, the hyped-up-on-khat-and-amphetamines scumbag terrorists just are not phased all that much by the 5.56, but with a round or two of 7.62 from designated marksmen this has changed. As has the same situation with folks using a .45 instead of the garbage 9mm Beretta.

Sharkie,

Your assessment of the knockdown power of the M-14 vs the M-16 is right on and I knew more than a few snipers whose preference lay with that weapon over many others. The problem was in the fact of close quarter combat in a jungle environment (we were never far apart from the enemy in the bush). The M-16 was a better weapon for that. In close quarters it was a devastating round because it had a tendency to bounce all around the body before exiting. It could do a lot of damage. Your also right about the AK-47, which was a good weapon but not the most accurate. It also was a good jungle weapon. Weapons must be designed for use in the environment the combat ops are operating in. The M-14, although a superior weapon to the M-16 wasn't jungle friendly because of it's bulkiness in size and the weight of the clips and rounds. In Iraq I think I would want a more powerful weapon with all the open areas there. In that type of situation the knockdown power is essential. Like I said, adjustments need to conform to the type of terrain and openness of where your combat ops are taking place.
You mentioned hopped up fighters. This is nothing new, the VC and NVA used drugs on a consistent basis just for the purpose you mentioned.

[MalahatTwo7]

Just a general comment regarding "labratory testing" and "field testing" vs "combat testing". We all know and likely have the same disposition towards lab testing, so I wont dwell on that. :)

Field testing is commonly done by using real field troops doing what field troops do, under controlled (mostly) field conditions. While not perfect, it gives the evaluator a fairly good feel for the types of conditions that a piece of equipment is likely to be worked in.

However, combat testing is a whole new kettle of fish. This is very much (and you "Old Guys" can speak better on this than me :) ) unlike any field testing or lab testing that any person can create. Personnel and equipment are "asked" to do things bigger better and faster and for far longer than at any other time in the field.

What looked good on paper, sounded good in the Board Room, and seemed to check out well in the lab and exercise field is now CRAP under full operational situations.

Yes, Canada uses a heavily modified version of the M16 or M4 or whatever its called down here. I've used it for nearly my entire career. I've had weapons that worked truly awesomely, and I've had others that I wouldn't use to blow darts through the barrel. Although I always wondered why the Armed Forces bought a combat weapon that was made by the Mattel Toy Company??? I was never really very accurate with the FNC1A1, but I knew that if ever I actually hit the target, it was going down for the long count. Still prefer the last weapons I had - MP5 and Sig Sauer 229.

"American Spacecraft. Russian Spacecraft. Doesn't matter. ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!"

[DaSharkie]

Sharkie,

Your assessment of the knockdown power of the M-14 vs the M-16 is right on and I knew more than a few snipers whose preference lay with that weapon over many others. The problem was in the fact of close quarter combat in a jungle environment (we were never far apart from the enemy in the bush). The M-16 was a better weapon for that. In close quarters it was a devastating round because it had a tendency to bounce all around the body before exiting. It could do a lot of damage. Your also right about the AK-47, which was a good weapon but not the most accurate. It also was a good jungle weapon. Weapons must be designed for use in the environment the combat ops are operating in. The M-14, although a superior weapon to the M-16 wasn't jungle friendly because of it's bulkiness in size and the weight of the clips and rounds. In Iraq I think I would want a more powerful weapon with all the open areas there. In that type of situation the knockdown power is essential. Like I said, adjustments need to conform to the type of terrain and openness of where your combat ops are taking place.
You mentioned hopped up fighters. This is nothing new, the VC and NVA used drugs on a consistent basis just for the purpose you mentioned.

The extra weight is interesting. When you consider tha toften times you have to release more rounds into your target you have to carry more rounds. Pretty much a bogus argument - to a point. Understandable though.

Never heard (but suspected) that Uncle Ho (may he rot in a maggot infested swamp) doped up his conscripts. When you are juiced up the body will take more damage so you need that heavier round to anihilate your aggressor.

Interesting note though is that many of the folks that work in Spec-Ops like to carry that M-14 as well. Then again, they are more effective with that weapon than the average ground pounder and this is more appropriate. Along with my beloved 1911. :D

[JHR1985]

certain snipers still use the M-14..... You got the M-21 and the M-14 DMR.

They also make Scout Verisons of the M-14... but I dont know how they pan out. Springfield makes them.

The FN-SCAR has grasped my attention due to the different calibers it can be made into.

Now.... going off the wall.... you want to talk about weight and ammo...

A concept that never really got into production but is a damn interesting weapon is the H&K G11.... which used caseless ammo. Rapid fire that was accurate as hell and lightweight.


And.... kind of off topic, anyone read much about the new replacement's coming out for the AK in Russia? From what I've read, there saying like a 15-25% jump in accuracy when in full auto and one is using a two round burst instead of a 3 round burst and they "claim" that it puts it in the same hole as the first bullet

[mcaldwell]

And.... kind of off topic, anyone read much about the new replacement's coming out for the AK in Russia? From what I've read, there saying like a 15-25% jump in accuracy when in full auto and one is using a two round burst instead of a 3 round burst and they "claim" that it puts it in the same hole as the first bullet


At what, 2 feet? :D

Never trust the salseman until you try it for yourself. ;)


And I heard the AN-94 is going to replace the AK series for spec ops, but that it was deemed to complex and maintenance intensive for the general forces and reserves.

The AEK 971 is undergoing evaluation for the next gen replacement right now, and boasts a 20% improvement in full auto accuracy.

[DaSharkie]

From what I've read, there saying like a 15-25% jump in accuracy when in full auto and one is using a two round burst instead of a 3 round burst and they "claim" that it puts it in the same hole as the first bullet

Fully automatic is unnecessary and wasteful of ammunition. If you want a fully automatic weapon, that is what you have weapons platoons for with their SAWs, and other variants.

A burst of 2-3 round is all that is necessary.

However, I am a firm believer in: "Happiness is a belt-fed weapon."

No more than a 6 or 7 round burst. Must allow for the barrel to cool and to re-sight.

[mcaldwell]

I made this for a joke thread a while back.

[FireLt1951]

The extra weight is interesting. When you consider tha toften times you have to release more rounds into your target you have to carry more rounds. Pretty much a bogus argument - to a point. Understandable though.

Never heard (but suspected) that Uncle Ho (may he rot in a maggot infested swamp) doped up his conscripts. When you are juiced up the body will take more damage so you need that heavier round to anihilate your aggressor.

Interesting note though is that many of the folks that work in Spec-Ops like to carry that M-14 as well. Then again, they are more effective with that weapon than the average ground pounder and this is more appropriate. Along with my beloved 1911. :D

Sharkie,

I must disagree with your assessment of the weight issue. I was in areas where the jungle was so thick at times you had little room to maneuver. I carried both types of weapons at one time or another (trained on the M-14 in basic and at a training center that had been set up to simulate the jungle environment) before going over. The lighter weight of the weapon especially was a plus and whether we would have carried M-14 or M-16 ammo, we usually carried the same amount of clips. The belts for the ammo of the M-16 were lighter. When you added your ruck sack it helped to alleviate some of the weight. From everything I saw the M-16 at close range (which the vast majority of our firefights were) could be very devastating in it's effects. At shorter ranges it tended to bounce off a lot of bone and muscle and kind of bounced around the body like a pin ball. For the type of environment it was a good weapon in my opinion. I liked the light weight of the weapon and ammo and it's ability to be used in a sort of confined area the most. I used to feel for those poor ( rock and rollers) machine gunners though (we had 2 in our platoon), even though they had help carrying the ammo. In the areas where the military are now, would I prefer a larger caliber weapon? That's a gimme me for sure. I believe the weapon must be appropriate to the environment your in. I only know what I saw and did in Nam and I don't have much knowledge or use about the weapons today.

P.S.
Old uncle ho did just that.

[MalahatTwo7]

I made this for a joke thread a while back.

Gotta Love yer "Piggy" :D:D:D

[DaSharkie]

I made this for a joke thread a while back.

Two problems with that scenarios Caldwell.......

1) The belt is gone, so the fun is gone too.

2) Now I have to clean the b!tch.

Otherwise, I love the Ma-Deuce. I saw a story on it a year or two ago on the History CHannel. They made not that the Army had gotten aroudn ot opening up crates of .50 ammo for tehse bad boys and it was still good adn operating fine................Made for WWII and Korea. :eek:

[DaSharkie]

1951,

I thought we were talking about carrying ammo pouches and such. Not the belts to carry rounds, in which case you do have a point.

And you are so eloquent about your description fo the bullets bouncing off of bones. Very PC. :p

[FireLt1951]

Sharkie,

What I'm actually referring to are the bandoleer's used to carry the clips. The number of bandoleer's we carried (usually it was around 6 to 10) depended on the number of days we were expected to be out on Recon. With the M-16, 45 cal + rounds, ruck sack, bandoleer's and that damn radio, all I wanted was as little weight as feasibly possible. Overall, I considered the M-16 a good weapon for the environment we were in.

[MalahatTwo7]

Otherwise, I love the Ma-Deuce. I saw a story on it a year or two ago on the History CHannel. They made not that the Army had gotten aroudn ot opening up crates of .50 ammo for tehse bad boys and it was still good adn operating fine................Made for WWII and Korea. :eek:

One of my postings was to 1 Canadian Forces Supply Depot. 1994-96 during which time we disbanded the unit, and sent all our stores either to the other two "Mega-Depots" or museums, depending on what it was.

The Depot had been in service for near 50 years, albeit over the span of two locations in the Toronto area. Anyhow, when they started clearing out the stores, some of the crates got broken by the forklifts. Some of the crate items were:

x2 1930's era HAND CRANK forklifts (museums)
x6 Harley Davidson 1940's era dispatch rider bikes - still in the original crates and packing grease (museums)
x6 Lee Enfield service rifles WW1 era - still in original crates and packing grease (museums - after much arguing with NDHQ Ottawa about destructive disposal)

I was also on the weapons disposal team. We took two 5 ton truck loads of various weapons and parts to the Hamilton metal smelter. Lots of .50 cal barrels and receiver parts amongst other weapons. First and hopefully only time I get to do that. The sound of tempered steel melting is not a very nice one. Although that may also have been because I knew what was in the hopper. :( Kinda sounded like someone strangling a rabbit. However, on a "plus" side, it was the first time I got to carry a loaded personal weapon in public. The service we got at Tim Hortons after we did the drop was.... a true depiction of what customer service SHOULD be. ;) heheheheheehehee

[DaSharkie]

Sharkie,

What I'm actually referring to are the bandoleer's used to carry the clips. The number of bandoleer's we carried (usually it was around 6 to 10) depended on the number of days we were expected to be out on Recon. With the M-16, 45 cal + rounds, ruck sack, bandoleer's and that damn radio, all I wanted was as little weight as feasibly possible. Overall, I considered the M-16 a good weapon for the environment we were in.

I understand totally. Having humped my AN-PRC 77s around I can appreciate that fact. After you mentioned the belts of ammunitiong I knew what you were talking about.

It stinks that these guys have to have a weapon that works in all environments a bit well. Unsderstanding the jungle, humidity, heat, and everything else going on in Sunny RVN.

You forgot the weight of the friggin batteries for that "damn radio." Those were worse than the radio itself - weight wise.

[MalahatTwo7]

Last time I wore one of them dang things, I put my back out on a night navex. We got into a stand of 2 and 3 inch poplars, and a bunch of them had been hacked off at about ---------> height. I caught one just below the crotch, just inside my thigh...... head and shoulders turned one way, hips and feet went the other. :( Spent the rest of my Leadership course chewing on Motrin 400's from our Section Medic - who was also a student.

[JHR1985]

I have a couple hundred rounds of 30.06 made during the Korean war for my Garand.

Now, taking this with a grain of salt because it is a website from russia....

http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as24f-e.htm

it has a lot of up to date info on weapons and such

and a lot of little known weapons too which is interesting to read

Just buy about 10,000 Steyr Aug's....

just because they look cool as hell and will scare the terrorists to commit suicide


and regarding fully automatic as being a waste....

By Golly if Rambo can shoot a M-60 while standing up with one arm and be accurate with it in full auto.....

[FireLt1951]

I understand totally. Having humped my AN-PRC 77s around I can appreciate that fact. After you mentioned the belts of ammunitiong I knew what you were talking about.

It stinks that these guys have to have a weapon that works in all environments a bit well. Unsderstanding the jungle, humidity, heat, and everything else going on in Sunny RVN.

You forgot the weight of the friggin batteries for that "damn radio." Those were worse than the radio itself - weight wise.

The one I carried was the PRC-25. Believe it or not, I actually talked Mr. Butter Bar into carrying a couple of the batteries :D. I use to remind the other grunts that if I got it, I was taking the radio out the with me ;), at least the cherries looked shocked.

[Dalmatian190]

Things I stumble across when insomonia has set in...

For those on the thread who want their cake and eat it to...

http://tinyurl.com/ytw9hs

HK417. HK416...in .308 (Because I can't remember the metric at this hour beyond the 7)

[JHR1985]

Things I stumble across when insomonia has set in...

For those on the thread who want their cake and eat it to...

http://tinyurl.com/ytw9hs

HK417. HK416...in .308 (Because I can't remember the metric at this hour beyond the 7)


I just had to change my shorts

[doughesson]

Which one would you want?

In 2001,I bought a Springfield M1A,the civilian version of the M14 that I was assigned to tote during security alerts on my ship.
I know it was replaced by the M16 because it was a bastard to pack around a jungle but it's .308/7.62X51mm hit harder than a .223/5.56X21mm
and the basic design was the combat proven M1 Garand.Neither one I fired ever jammed or misfired.Just for grins,during training at sea,we were allowed to shoot the ones so equipped on fully automatic.Ouch!
The '16 got guys killed because the ammuniton wasn't designed for humid jungle warfare until later.
I've never had to make a 400 yard shot off a target range,and when I took it deer hunting,I usually got skunked.
Doesn't mean you should not have that range power and accuracy.
I'm surprised that in the first half of the 20th century,they made rifles that anyone could carry but in the last half those rifles got to be too heavy and too powerful.
(I know,someone who didn't have to hump his more than the length of the ship shouldn't be griping but a bitching sailor is a happy sailor)

[DaSharkie]

and regarding fully automatic as being a waste....

By Golly if Rambo can shoot a M-60 while standing up with one arm and be accurate with it in full auto.....


Step away from the Kool-Aid. :cool:


Actually, properly employed, an M-60 can be used effectively as rifle, just like the BAR was in WWI, WWII, Korea, and early Viet Nam.

But no more than a 7 round burst. We were taught to squeeze the trigger adn at teh same time say "Die, mother f@cker, die" and in that time 6 to 8 round would have left the barrel.

Interesting point about early 20th century weapons...........Recall Belleau Wood in June 1918.........Marines with 1903 Enfield bolt-action rifles picking off hundreds of Germans at up to 900 yards without a scope and only the stock sites of the Enfield Rifle. :eek: That is an impressive shot even by today's standards for an infantryman. At 2700 feet, your enemy can't see you and may be lucky if they squint just right and catch the muzzle flash. Using a 30.06 round as well if I recall.

[Dalmatian190]

Just for you, JHR:

http://www.hkpro.com/hk417.jpg

You can go change again ;)

a) Damn that magazine looks out of place on a carbine based on the M16 family...

b) I wonder if they tend to downloaded ammo for the shorter barrels/lighterweight gun -- both muzzle flash and controlability

c) I want to shoot one :D

[mcaldwell]

But no more than a 7 round burst. We were taught to squeeze the trigger adn at teh same time say "Die, mother f@cker, die" and in that time 6 to 8 round would have left the barrel.



The Canadian Forces are Cheap. We were taught to use 3-4 round bursts with "Git-Sum". ;) :D

[mcaldwell]

b) I wonder if they tend to downloaded ammo for the shorter barrels/lighterweight gun -- both muzzle flash and controlability

c) I want to shoot one :D


B= No, Must be NATO standard for a mainstream service weapon.

C=You bet. :D




And I think the larger magazine probably helps with the stability to. More mass located centrally to the receiver.

[JHR1985]

Step away from the Kool-Aid.


Actually, properly employed, an M-60 can be used effectively as rifle, just like the BAR was in WWI, WWII, Korea, and early Viet Nam.

But no more than a 7 round burst. We were taught to squeeze the trigger adn at teh same time say "Die, mother f@cker, die" and in that time 6 to 8 round would have left the barrel.

Interesting point about early 20th century weapons...........Recall Belleau Wood in June 1918.........Marines with 1903 Enfield bolt-action rifles picking off hundreds of Germans at up to 900 yards without a scope and only the stock sites of the Enfield Rifle. That is an impressive shot even by today's standards for an infantryman. At 2700 feet, your enemy can't see you and may be lucky if they squint just right and catch the muzzle flash. Using a 30.06 round as well if I recall.


Regarding rate of fire.... all your weapons pale in comparison to the MG3.... based off the WWII german MG-42, just adapted to 7.62mm...

rate of fire around 1200 rounds per min....
lil bit slower than some of the Mg42 rated at around 1800 rounds a minute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG3

watch the video's at the bottom


and regarding the 308 carbine.... sorry but there are several shortened carbine versions of the M-14 out there.... but that 416 still looks damn good

[doughesson]

Never trust the salseman until you try it for yourself. ;)



Know how to say "F*** you"in Yiddish,don't you?
Put on a smile and say"Trust me..."

[JettoFunk]

M16 a2, a4, m4 are all Garabge. I was lucky enough to be a saw gunner for most of my rotation. The last few months I somehow got stuck with an A2, I coded it out within 3 months. Frail little thing.
Field stripping an M16 isn't the funnest thing to do. You can clean them 6 times a day but if your out in sector and working like you should be than it's gonna get dirty. Too much clp and you're gonna mud it up, not enough and it's too dry. You can't make it 5 minutes out the gate at my old fob without being covered in dirt.
Best weapons we got are the 249 and 240. Got a jam? Toss a handful of sand in the chamber and your ready to go.

[JHR1985]

I'm hijacking this thread to go off on a rampant about newer guns out there that dont get much attention...

so for now

http://www.world.guns.ru/sniper/sn75-e.htm

CQB and a sniper rifle... almost rolled into one.

and it packs a nice punch too

Close and compact, good for Urban combat. Kind of reminds me of the Brit's Enfield
Top is the new Kel-tec RFB rifle and the bottom is the paratrooper version of the famous FN-FAL

[SPFDRum]

I thought a while back, Gun's and Ammo or one of these magazines said the US military is looking at a 6.5 mm round to replace the current 5.56. The article stated it had better knockdown and velocity after being shot out of the shorter barrels needed for close quarter urban settings.