Reliability Revisited…the M4…whadya think?

Kit Up!  A more modern version of an M16 platform...Kit Up! A more modern version of an M16 platform...

So it’s been a year and a half since we first ran this post about the reliability of the M4/M16. Since then we’ve seen new ammunition, new furniture, new lubricants, entirely new rifles.

The ubiquitous M16 in Vietnam


Kit Up! The ubiquitous M16 in Vietnam.

 

What do you think? Are there reliability problems with the M4/M16 platform? Do we need the 6.8 or the 300 AAC Blackout? Or it all just more of the same old/same old we’ve seen since RUMINT first said the M16s were made by a toy company?

Begin your POLITE, academic argument here, please.

As Jim Cirillo, aka Cirillo the Great (may he sit at the right hand of God, to steal the Colonel’s phrase), always said at the beginning of a course of fire: “You may commence.”


Kit Up! A more modern version of an M16 platform…

175 Comments on "Reliability Revisited…the M4…whadya think?"

  1. Otis Hatfield | February 6, 2012 at 4:05 am |

    I believe that the M16/M4 platform is flawed by its gas blowback system, regardless of the crater that is used we need to switch to a piston system. Weapons systems such as the HK 416 or the G36 would be suitable however expensive. Expense is clearly not an issue in the US military when a single ACOG scope is close to $600.

  2. I think the M4 can be a really reliable weapon system. The problem is, it is too maintenance intensive to keep it that way. I hate to say it but the HK416 is probably the best option but not really a good one. And 5.56 is an ok round. We probably should move up to 6.8 sense we teach our guys to shoot straight instead of shooting alot.

  3. David: This is going to be a huge discussion. This should be an interesting topic. We can't move off the 5.56 mm rounds because of NATO. However, we should upgrade to the 7.62 which is another NATO standard. As for gas system, Direct Impingment has no issues if all you do is go to the range and come home. For combat, I think the Piston system is better because it can be prone to less cleaning. Overall, I feel the M4/M16 platform has great ergomics and a lot of capabilties. However, gas system, the round, and charging handle should be upgraded for the current soldier. But all of this cost money which at the end of the day is what our govt looks at.

  4. I'm in the 6.5 Grendel/ train maintenance 'til your hind-end hurts club.
    But I know neither of those is gonna come out of .mil as acceptable.

  5. Go Navy!: Do not forget why 5.56×45 was created > standard rifle rounds were too powerfull, 5.56 is much more efficient in therms of wounding and killing (not to mention less weight and very small recoil). With Afghanistan being an exception, modern conflict will be fought in urban areas, it is there where infantry rifles have much to say (unlike the field, where even infantry platoon will neutralize enemy, once discovered, by mortar fire). With new M855A1 round i belive 5.56 is the best option, as it offers smooth recoil, high killing/wounding efficency and even penetrating power (check 855A1 data out). In therms of weapon systems: are there better rifles than M4? Yes definitely! Are they worth changing the whole system of training, logistics etc.? No. SCAR, ACR and other new rifles offer better ergonomy and reliability. But on the other hand look at new KAC SR-16 or LWRC M6 rifles -> they not only offer great ergonomics but are much more reliable than standard M4s and what's very important – changing of logistics, traninng etc. is reduced to minimum. One word on HK416. A lot of people seem to treat it as a "ground braker" and "deus ex" rifle. It is not. Speaking from my own experience I can say it wastes pros of M4 rifles they are based on -> It is front heavy (with AN/PEQs, lights, grips, not to mention GLs, it's even more), and the recoil imuple is much more stronger. Is it more reliable? I bet it is, but well mantained M4 isn't much of a problem too.

  6. I don't know much about the new rounds or the ultimate combat effectiveness of the 5.56 because I have never shot a person with it thought I can tell you that a 5.56 will barely put a 50lb coyote down right away unless it's a head/neck shot. On the reliability side of this discussion I have run my ar through several tactical courses and torture test like scenarios and as long as I consistently dropped lube in the carrier it was good to go. Frankly the majority of the malfunctions I faced were caused by cheap or faulty magizines NOT the gun itself.

  7. With the new MK318 and other heavier bullets, the 5.56mm is far more effective than it was with the 55gr load. In fact, the barrier blind bonded-core 64gr or 70gr bullets, it does quite well. And the Barnes TSX 70gr bullet is probably the best thing going right now. It shows massive penetration, consistent expansion, and i've had no trouble taking coyotes and larger game with it with a proper chest shot.

    My AR also has been dead reliable through dirt, mud, sand, blowing sand storms, water, whatever.

  8. …also many experts will tell you, that a 9mm with 15 rounds in the mag is way more benefitial in combat than a .45 with 9 rounds in the mag. It´s just that faulty american "bigger is always better"-way of thinking. Its just the wrong way of judging things.

  9. I've never had any serious M4 failures, and none that rendered the weapon inoperable. That being said, I have seen some jam up in sand, but I've never seen some of the other stuff I've read about (internals melting, upper receivers blowing up, etc). Another problem is the internet debates usually are driven by people who have never done anything but take their AR-15 out to the range. The DI vs. piston and 5.56 vs 7.62 arguements are usually very heated and very ridiculous. We can all agree we'll not be going away from the 5.56 NATO round anytime soon, for a host of reasons… a heavier 62 or 75 gr bullet might be nice but I don't see a new round in our future. I think everyone would like to get away from DI, it introduces dirt and heat into the weapon's action, but I've seen a fair share of jammed up AK-47's to know pistons aren't infallible. I personally would trust my life to a properly maintained M4 (which isn't really all that intensive if you keep it lubed and take some simple precautions). In our upcoming age of austerity in the DoD I also don't see a radical shift to an entirely new infantry rifle in the near future.

  10. Somebody is really bored to pop this troll up in a no-win format.

    If any of the respondents really had an argument they'd have posted on any of five different firearms forums where other Fudds could engage them. It's been handled over the last two years, the only ones who don't get the message simply don't understand firearms design.

    DI works, it's been here for 45 years, and if you want to build a better gun, it actually has to do something better. That means its testable, measurable, and capable of being put into numbers.

    You also have to understand exactly what is better: number of hits, mean rounds to failure, and even more importantly, it has to be easy to support in the overall industry of making guns and ammo.

    Number of hits going up? Cartridge design won't provide it, optics did. All thats left is training. Since the actual engagement range is 500m, and you only need 2MOA, most of the cartridge fanboys just don't get it – the 5.56 does the job removing the fight from someone shooting back. You don't need to knock them off their feet and dismember them, and those who don't understand that are starting off with the wrong perspective.

    Mean rounds to failure? Name the acceptable limit, because if you don't, it's impossible to make a gun to that standard. Don't forget, it's the magazines, ammo, and operator error on the top three of "OMG the gun jammed!" Not how the bolt is actuated. They ALL work good enough.

    Exotic materials or new cutting edge design? Not happening. We need something easy to make, that solves problems, not creates new ones. Wonder why the LSAT is still out there, going into the test phase at Battalion level? Because it's a simple, easy to make design, and it delivers something none of the other cartridge fanboys can deliver – MORE AMMO. It does it by throwing out the biggest piece of dead weight, the brass case. Now a soldier can carry 40% MORE AMMO, which means up to 40% MORE HITS, and that means 40% MORE ENEMY DISABLED, which means 40% MORE BATTLES WON.

    It's not about superior downrange accuracy at 600m, or more power at 200, it's about 40% more bullets flying around getting more hits. And those who don't know that soldiers are hit by bullets that were never specifically aimed are clueless. It's NOT what some want to believe, it's what IS happening that counts, and unaimed fire causes 50% of the casualities. If you want more hits, fire more ammo. If you want more ammo, make it lighter.

    As long as cartridge fanboys keep thinking in terms of .1mm, that's how they are going to measure up.

  11. There are incidents of soldiers complaining of the "lack of stopping power" of the .30 '06 round in WW2. The M4/M16 is an excellent weapon, and not hard to keep running reliably. THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of our enemies are dead because of the 5.56mm round.

  12. There is nothing seriously wrong with the M4. It is extremely reliable when maintained properly. The problem is all of the "experts" in the Army who pass along old wives tales (let's call them what they are – lies) about proper maintenance. We still hear that we have to check the alignment of gas rings, and that the Stoner M-16 platform has to be kept spotlessly clean and dry. Folks are still told that you have to get all that carbon off the bolt tail; as if white-glove-inspection cleaning has any place in combat. Pat Rogers' Filthy Fourteen is a perfect antidote for this kind of ignorance, but stupid M16 / M4 tricks are doctrinal in the Army at all levels of the organization.

    The one thing that has been really well adopted is the Magpul Pmag magazine. It eliminates most of the failure-to-feed / double-feed issues that come from out-of-spec feed lips on aluminum magazines.

  13. Yes, piston is much, much cleaner. I have a ton of both DI and Piston AR uppers, in many different calibers, and the pistons are always cleaner. Especially suppressed! I still remember Cleaning and cleaning and cleaning M16A2's in the maintenance and armory bay (not to be confused with the armor bay) at Ft. Knox. We had all the great gear and tools, ultrasonic tubs, compressed air hoses every 5 ft, you name it. Each A2 still took about 30 minutes to fully clean. It was that experience that taught me just how dirty a DI system is when utilized in military applications.
    On the issue of caliber, maybe optimize twist rate in M4s to properly stabilize the longer, usually heavier bullets, as it is length, not weight of the bullet, that matters in twist rate stabilization. In the age of terrorism, wounding is no longer the best option (i.e. causing 4 men to go out of the fight rather than just one), as terrorists do not operate like conventional forces. Shamiyl Basayev sure caused plenty of headaches for the Russians, even after they blew off his leg.
    Keep in mind: US military thought on small arms has come a long long way from thinking that rifle-wielding troops would just be needed to mop up after airpower. I do hope to see an advancement off of a 60+ year old weapons system, but nothing offers a quantum leap as of yet.

  14. Yeah good call Dude I have a lot of friends and family in the law enforcement community and they mostly say this is due to the 5.56 platforms having more versality than sub guns and actually less likelyhood to penetrate walls than 9mm but most of the guys I know actually preffer the HK UMP in .40 for cqb scenarios. But that is SWAT whos mission guidlines tend to be more specific, shorter durations and less dirty overall than our warfighters face.

  15. I have shot close to 100 coyotes over the years and not a single one of them fell over and died instantly. dosent matter what caliber you shoot them with. 30-06, 270, 7mag, 8 mag, 257 roberts, or .223. is what I've used. But at least out of the calibers I listed 223 is the cheapest one!

  16. I'm struggling to formulate a reply as I think the question is too vague. Or maybe my ingrained beliefs are so deep rooted that I can't approach the questions straight. And context is important.

    I would re-frame the questions as separate items:

    1) Are there more reliable rifle/carbine platforms available today that improve combat effectiveness (reduced maintenance + improved reliability).

    2) Is the 5.56 round the right choice for a general purpose round to face future threats in various theaters. (Afghanistan != Iraq != Iran != China != Former Soviet Block states)

    Keeping in mind that these are completely theoretical as no changes will happen in the budget environment we will be living in for the next 5 years.

    My answers are:

    1) **** yes there are a lot of better platforms out there than the M4. Improved reliability, reduced maintenance etc. The 416, SCAR Sig 556 etc. Weapons evolve slowly and Stoner was a genius but materials, manufacturing and engineering have come a LONG way in the .. ~50 years?

    2) Considering what others have already said about Afghanistan being an exceptional environment and our experiences in Iraq are more likely the norm for future conflicts, I'd say the 5.56 is solid. One of the 6.x (spc or grendel) rounds is probably a better choice for a general purpose rifle round. 300 AAC is hard to beat for close in/quite work. 7.62 is hard to beat for Afghanistan and environs where reach is needed.

    So if I were to sum up my opinion it would be something along the lines of SCAR or HK platform (SCAR would be my vote, despite my love of HK) as standard platform in three caliber models, 300 ACC, 6.5 grendel and 7.62 nato. Consistent training on a common platform, 3 different rounds depending on the mission, with the middle child being the default for all.

    We can dream can't we?

  17. The M4 is a good weapons system there are newer and better out there but nothing has a distinct advantage that can not be applied to the M4. The 5.56 can be called anemic but it HAS killed a lot of bad guys and with the new M885A1 and MK 318 issue ammo it is more effective then ever as long as you have good shot placement. In my opinion keep the system look at a upgrade in caliber but the biggest thing is to train Soldiers, Marines, and the other shooters protecting our country how to shoot better in real life high stress conditions.

  18. As an engineer, i can never really love the AR15. I like it, I own a few, but I can't love it. It has few fundamental design flaws that should not have been there or should have been fixed all this years.
    For a civilian rifle it's the best. As a war rifle it's not.
    It has a lot of things going for it, but from the function point of view, it's not a great design.
    Parts have a short life compared to other designs, It runs hotter than most other combat rifles out there, it's more dirty than most other designs.
    Another thing I don't like is that it has no reliable means to regulate the rate of fire, and with all this variations out there, you have a lot of rifle running at higher rate of fire than what the parts were designed for. Specially when suppressed.
    For the kind of wars we fight this days, with short skirmishes that usually last minutes, with supply lines working perfectly, M4 is good enough.
    I'm worried about M4's capability when we'll have to fight prolonged battles against a capable opponents.

  19. Rumor has it is that one of the main reasons the Army is looking into a gas piston upgrade to the M4 is that the M855A1's new short barrel optimized power burns so dirty.

  20. farmboy 7.62 | February 6, 2012 at 7:59 am |

    The G36? Are you serious? And what happens when your polymer gun gets super hot, doesn't shed heat well then reforms around the trunion. Zero Shift issues!? Why do you think that HK is putting all their eggs in the "stoner basket"?

  21. I have couple of AR's that i built from start and lego'ed it up very well.Enogh so that very easy it can shoot 1200+ rounds without any FTF's. Excellent MOA's from the many types of ammo that i choose.Stoners Design is perfect!, i say "look at the shooter before looking at the weapon" for those who don't do well.

  22. M4 reliability is due to bad magazines, weak extractors,worn out gas rings, improper lubrication and weakened buffer tube. All parts that require regular maintenance…replacement. This maintenance for the most part ignored by the US Military. The Hk416 has a buffer tube, and extractor and also feeds from the same STANAG magazine. Lets see how long they run without being "maintained".

  23. Just going to point out here that the M4/M16 platform is Direct Gas Impingement, not Gas blowback. Gas blowback would be something along the lines of a Ruger 10/22.

  24. I have to disagree, "many experts" are perhaps thinking about a LEO or Self Defense role where one can use JHP. The Military must use FMJ/Ball ammunition which no matter what pistol caliber will go right through someone. I'd much rather make a .45 caliber hole in some guys chest or face then a 9mm hole.

  25. Our troops standard rifle needs to be 7.62 NATO/.308. We should have had them since we put first foot on Afghani soil. The 5.56 just doesn't cut it out there. The old argument for "5.56 is lighter/you can carry more" is a moot point in this day and age. This is a modern military with modern resupply methods. Our enemy does not respect the 5.56. For good reason. Hunters have known that 5.56 doesn't cut it in the mountains for decades, and won't/can't use the round to take game because of its ineffectiveness, especially at the ranges you encounter in the wilderness. But we can send our boys out into the mountains with it to hunt men/the deadliest game? Is it really that hard of a concept to grasp? It's just more bureaucratic BS getting our boys killed. How many hunters do you know that take a .223/5.56 out to hunt, even at close distances? It boggles my mind. We might as well have them firing red ryder BB guns up at the surrounding ridges 1200m + away, it would probably be equally as effective.

  26. Everyone should check out the article by Pat Rogers per reliability in AR style rifles.
    http://www.slip2000.com/art-swat2.html

  27. Gas blowback system? If you're going to comment, at least know what it's called. It's called direct gas impingement. An HK 416 isn't the answer as adding a piston op-rod to a weapon that was designed for DGI induces it's own set of problems. If you want a piston gun, get one from the AR-16/18 legacy. The G36 would be in this line, but it's far from the best choice. HK won't talk about it, but high levels of heat cause trunion shift and walking zero issues.

    I don't know what mil contract prices are, but ACOGs list for a lot more than $600.

  28. A 6.5 Grendel-type cartridge was looked at by the ERC program that eventually developed the 6.8 SPC. It simply didn't offer reliability. Extraction in particular is always going to be a problem with a short, fat cartridge like that in the AR-system. It's not a good choice for combat.

    I'm only in favor of replacing 5.56 if you also develop a round that will replace 7.62x51mm as well. It's been known for some time that a projectile traveling at ~2,600fps and weighing around 130gr is the best bet for killing humans the most efficiently.

    That said, I don't really think that 5.56mm needs to be replaced. I think better bullet designs and better zeros (Army) will solve much of the problems with lethality.

  29. This is a none issue in reality outside of a few solders who didn't care for there weapons and complained to some money grabbing senators in 06-07 time frame. The M-4 yes has to be cleaned a bit more than some piston designs like the HK416 but is far more accurate and is more ergonomic than many of the plastic wonder guns some have touted to replace it. Having worked with the M-16A2 style weapons for work I've seen no issues with the Stoner design and talked to solders and Marines who also work with them most have no complaints over the weapon and many prefer it to all European rifle on the military market.Yes you have to clean it when you get back to base but any smart Solder and Marine should do that no matter what weapon he has. Problem is like any large service some people are lazy and do NOT do maintenance on there weapons and so they do get malfunctions and this NOT the fault of the weapon but the shooter. The Biggest malfunctions I've have seen is bad mags old mags from the 70s and 80s which should have been scrapped stay in circulation and being worn out can leave to jams. The other issue is bad powder in military ammo. the new M-855A1 ammo is environmentally sound they claim but most defense workers have stated its very very dirty powder so maybe they should goto extruded powder like Eugene Stoner mad the 5.56mm round to shoot and hang up the dumb environment friendly powder. I also know the whole 5.56mm vs 6.8mm or 6.5mm is a dead issue NO military service is going to drop 5.56mm NATO. Biggest thing needed to be done is for urban combat in places like Iraq or Somalia should be issuing M-193 ammo again. While the USCG and Navy and even the air force has some M-193 ammo in storage the USMC and Army abandoned it decades ago. they might reconsider. Over a hollow point should be adopted and when facing a foe like terrorist the Geneva convention should NOT apply.

    over all I dont think the Stoner rifle system is going away. BIG first the Marines and Navy and USAF have stated last year they will NOT adopt any Army ICC winner and will stay with current rifles. The USMC is going to upgrade the M-16A4 to a new M-16A5. Fact is also the Army is pouring millions into upgrading the M-4 to a M-4A2 weapon and I doubt this money they spent will go away in two years in favor of a whole new weapon. the article the site has on a new sight scope on the M-4 which could make them shoot to past 600 yards now is another prof the Army is not abandoning the M-4.

    The Biggest point for all men in uniform being cops and security here at home or our military men overseas is to take care of your weapon like its your baby and clean or wipe it down most times you have free. Get decent mags for it some nice green follower mags or Pmags would be key for good function and reliability. And for none military get decent ammo TRU or TAP is great ammo for carrying a rifle to work being cop or security, I know this excludes military personnel sorry with we could use HPs. This is my two cents from years of shooting Stoner's design rifles.

  30. The point of this discussion wasn't to have a "win". It was to start an intelligent discussion and allow for the expression of opinions (I enjoy these things because I always learn something and hear points of view I haven't heard before). Myself, I definitely think proper training is a huge issue that should be the first thing we address, but secondarily we have to realistically look at range. Doesn't matter how good (or bad) the M4 or any other platform is, if it doesn't have the legs needed to effectively engage the enemy, the point is moot. Someday something will certainly replace the M4, I just wonder what it will be. Interesting article, if you're interested: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331

  31. Navy – Cost isn't the driving criteria, weight and number of rounds carried is.

  32. I'm a civilian developing a strong interest in modern firearms – so bear with me.

    The M4 is a carbine – so does a carbine NEED to have a 700+ yard effective range? In that case the 5.56 should stay, if only for $$$ issues, unless some other country or entity develops something exponentially better that we might have to compete with (or fight against).

    Think about WWII/Korea. M1 Garand, M1917 Enfield, '03 Springfield & B.A.R. in .30-.06; those were real, knock your *** on the ground 'BA' rifles. The M1 "pea-shooter" was in .30 Carbine (7.62×33mm). It seems to me that most everyone thinks a carbine and a rifle should be the exact same and serve the same purpose.

  33. What's the general gist?

  34. Discussion of rifle/caliber changes are pedantic without addressing training first. I posit fixing training will fix most if not all problems.

    Short an evolutionary change in weapon design or ammunition there is not answer though the conversation is interesting.

    But then we wouldn't be talking "kit and the is KitUp".

    D.R. – Have you read Erhart's paper on Small Arms? His conclusion is totally wrong but its a great read on marksmanship training and the last century weapon's evolution. Well referenced. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331

  35. Mr. Reeder,
    The reasons I would replace a weapons system:
    1. If the weapon is beyond its useful service life, it is no longer produced, and suitable parts for upkeep are unavailable or cost prohibitive – "It's worn out."
    2. The adversary has developed a weapon system or TTPs that negate the tactical advantage of our weapon – "It's obsolete."
    3. Friendly technology has advanced enough to provide a significant and measurable tactical advantage over the adversary – "It's revolutionary."
    4. We can afford it.
    The M-16 family does not seem to fall into categories 1 or 2, and with regards to small arms development, we've likely not seen a cat 3 revolutionary development in a while. Cat 4 speaks for itself. The B-52 has been in the inventory since 1952 (almost a decade before the M-16), and will continue to fly on for at least the next quarter century. It works for the mission intended, there are plenty of parts, and it would cost a ton to replace. Perhaps if the Navy can figure out its shipboard rail gun, and get it miniaturized, you'll see prototype "Eraser" type battle rifle about the time the BUFF is retired.

  36. its a moot point. pentagon procurement offices should have taken this issue seriously almost 20 years ago. thats what they get paid for.

    in the meantime an entire cottage industry of solutions and alternatives have grown up in the aftermath. as far as i know the US is the only country with this kind firearms industry based around openness and innovation.

    the military brass should finally earn their pay grade. keep purchases small and competitive. keeping said purchases local and loosely based on stoners (AR) brainchild is good but, they should not be affraid to neglect companies that fail in favor of "international" accusition.

  37. FormerSFMedic | February 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm |

    A good DI gun WILL run reliably for thousands of rounds without cleaning as long as it's lubricated in the right places and the operator maintains proper dustcover orientation when the weapon is not being fired. The M4 is absolutely reliable and remains so to this day in DI configuration. Surely, a mid-length gas system and a heavy buffer can enhance the reliability even more, but the carbine system with H2 buffer will run great. Not much more to say. The gun runs fine if you know how to run it.

  38. Higher Gr ammo for the 5.56 and piston driven M4's would do trick. Something like a 68gr or 70gr 5.56 with an 1/7 twist rate would work. I have seen haji's hit in the chest with M855 and run off, yeah he probably died later, but he could still fight and run off. In Afghanistan they are sitting on top of a mountain and out of our affective small arms range, .50cals and 240's will hit em, but the m4 doesn't have a chance. If they want to keep the 5.56, they need to give the round some more ***.. 62gr M855's just don't cut it. I know they have the new M855a1 ammo out now, but never the less, it's not the answer. Look at the round used in an SPR, it's 5.56, but it sure as **** isn't 62gr and it sure as **** doesn't have a 1/8 or 1/9 twist.

  39. The XM8 was/is a piece of crap, it's a G36 in a new body designed to look futuristic for the public. And yes it did have HUGE problems with heat dissapation and durability. It was "axed" because it had problems not because of politics.

  40. I garuantee you they would be just as dead if those rounds were 7.62×51's.

  41. defensor fortissimo | February 6, 2012 at 5:16 pm |

    Well that's part of what was so f-ed up the majority of the people with p-mags were issued them from their s4. The captain in my sector was seeing red but the whole thing was out of his hands Security Forces give security forces take away blessed be the name of Security Forces

  42. FormerSFMedic | February 6, 2012 at 5:24 pm |

    Great observation! I've found over the years that most of the "stopping failure" accounts that soldiers speak of are BS!

    We have soldiers that have never fired a round in anger running around saying the 5.56 didn't get the job done because of the "old wives tale" they been made to believe is true. They want to sound like they know what they're talking about so they just repeat what they've been told. Those of us that have actually seen the true performance of the 5.56 know better!

    Another problem is the zero's the Army uses and the fact that most soldiers aren't taught about offset or holdover's. In other words, they miss their intended target and then blame it on the lack of effectiveness of the cartridge being fired. "Surely I hit that guy at 100 yards?…..must be this crappy 5.56 that everyone is speaking of?" An the cycle continues.

    Training is a key issue here. If the Army and Marines weren't decades behind in their shooting methodology you probably wouldn't hear nearly as many "stopping failure" AAR's. The fact is, the 5.56 using any of the modern cartridges (M855, M855A1, 5.56 OPT, etc.) WILL get the job done all day long as long as you hit what your aiming at. Hit a guy with 5 rounds in 1 second in the upper chest and head/neck and he's not getting back up. TRAINING! The "one shot, one kill" and "double tap" is gone people. These ideas shouldn't be taught anymore and they are.

  43. The way of thinking isn't "fualty american 'bigger is always better'"; it's that the bigger the hole – the more hydrostatic shock – overall, it puts people down and keeps them down.

  44. FormerSFMedic | February 6, 2012 at 5:40 pm |

    The move to the MK17 SCAR-H was made because it was decided that the original SCAR objective could be accomplished. Many people believed it was budget (which was a concern), or the MK16 didn't perform well, or didn't have anything to offer, but that's not the driving force behind the decision. SOCOM now believes they can use one "common receiver" for 5.56 and 7.62. They call this weapon system the "Objective SCAR Weapon System".

    In the early stages of the SCAR program, the program developers wanted a common receiver. However, SOCOM operators didn't want to give up weight. The platform has to be designed around the larger cartridge obviously. So, they decided on 2 separate weapon systems.

    Today, operators have changed their minds and SOCOM is continuing toward the objective SCAR. The 5.56 conversion kit has already been tested and approved and currently going through testing in the field. From what I've heard, the conversion is doing well.

    BTW Lance, the barrel change on the SCAR IS NOT COMPLICATED. Compared to the M4 is a piece of cake and is changeable at the end user level in a few minutes.

  45. FormerSFMedic | February 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm |

    Yeah, rate of fire is really a non-issue. There are a myriad of fixes that will negate this "problem". Soldiers don't use (shouldn't use) full auto enough to matter anyway. Besides, the question is "is the M4 reliable?". Not, "is the MK18 reliable with a suppressor when the rate of fire and parts wear become an issue?" There really shouldn't be any discussion toward the MK18, XM177E2 type platforms. The AR was never designed to be optimized for barrels that short. ****, if you cut the barrel down that far on any weapon system designed around a 20in. barrel, your going to see issues. In that regard, the M4 has actually done very well for itself..

  46. I agree.

    I had read on another site, I think maybe Defense Review, where the author suggested a better maintenance schedule for infantry weapons would reduce those rare instances where the weapon truly does break down. I was thinking that one of those new fangled electronic round counters could be embedded somewhere in the rifle, like the pistol grip, and would allow armorers to keep track of the wear on a rifle and know when to perform scheduled maintenance on parts that were known to wear and fail at certain round counts. It makes tons of sense. A good car might not need a lot of maintenance, but scheduled checkups, oil changes, and tuneups will make it run reliably for much much longer and not leave you stranded on the side of the road. A rifle might not be as complex, but it's still a machine.

  47. the issue, in my opinion is the dual optical sight, rather than the construction itself. I Believe a aluminum or magnesium lower receiver would be theoretically more suitable, though I have never experienced a POI shift with the G36 once the dual Hensoldt optics were removed and a aftermarket optic utilized (the commando variant wisely employs a rail to mount a more suitable optic). For whatever reason, HK decided to utilize a proprietary magazine instead of using M4 style magazines (though there is a aftermarket modification for that as well).

    The "issue" with the trunnion is a theory that has not been backed with any solid evidence, just rumors over the internet. I would certainly appreciate a comprehensive study to prove otherwise.

  48. The DI M4 with superior parts is extremely reliable, provided it is adequately lubricated with a premium lubricant. The introduction of Nickel bolt carrier groups, heavier barrels, and heavier extractor springs in a AR15/M4 makes it just as reliable as any other rifle available on the market.

  49. dude and anthony, you are absolutely correct. AR15's that utilize polymer tipped ammunition actually have less of a tendency to over-penetrate than even a 9mm. Law Enforcement sees this as particularly advantageous for just reason.

  50. Now admittedly, I was a POG FOBbit when I was with 10th Mountain. And the only reason I had to fire more rounds than average was because I was not so good at keeping a sight picture so I sometimes had to re-fire. So take my commentary with a grain of salt. But **** if I very often got through two mags without a jam. And that was stateside. In Kuwait and Iraq there was often a jam or two per magazine. On a good day (ie a day when a layer of sand dune didn't gently relocate itself into the firing chambers of our unit's entire firing lane – that was pretty funny to watch.)

  51. YES!!! I am truly excited to see the future of LSAT in military applications. Caseless or even telescopic ammunition offers so many possibilities that cannot be touched with conventional cartridges.

  52. I 100% agree with you. Some stainless or Nickle coated or made parts would also help in both performance and ease of cleaning.

  53. Distantvoice | February 6, 2012 at 6:13 pm |

    There were 12 rifles entered into the SCAR competition by 9 companies. The public knows of 3; The FN SCAR, the HK XM8-R and the Robinson Arms XCR. I've asked why the other companies in the competition aren't recognized or marketing their products and got either a vague answer back or none at all.

    The only list of competitors I found was a partial list from militaryphotos.net that says Colt, Diemaco, Cobb Manufacturing, LMT, and KAC were some of the participants. I heard elsewhere that Colt had 3 entries, which explains the disparity between the number of companies and the number of rifles entered into the competition. There is still one company left that hasn't been revealed and I would prefer official confirmation… but if this is true it explains a lot.

    Colt, Diemaco, Cobb, LMT and KAC are all AR manufacturers. If I recall correctly, there was no requirement that the SCAR be a gas piston design. HK and Robinson Arms never completed directly against the SCAR. HK's XM8-R was disqualified because it overlapped with the then ongoing Army program. The Robinson Arms XCR was disqualified because their blank firing adapters arrived late. The 6 companies left competed directly and according to FN's history, the FN entry was the -only- one to pass all of the GO/NO-GO criteria.

    HK and Robarms could freely discuss and market their entries because they didn't technically "lose". But for everyone else who entered an AR variant and lost, it would have been bad for both the companies and for the industry that have made their living off of rifles and accessories for the platform.

    Does that mean the SCAR is better? Eh, maybe. It's been almost a decade and it's much harder for the standard SCAR to shine when it goes up against yearly updates to the AR platform from various manufacturers.

    A tricked out AR would definitely give the stock SCAR a run for its money and FN winning the new army carbine is far from guaranteed, assuming the entire thing isn't called off before a winner is declared. The biggest advantage the SCAR has is those 2 million rounds and several years of rigorous testing by SOCOM that worked out most of the bugs. Any rifle we do adopt in the future will have some quirk in it that needs to be fixed.

    I personally would like to see the SCAR or maybe even the ACR win just because no matter what happens, the AR will never go away. We have foreign allies, reservists, police and civilians that will continue to support the platform. The SCAR is not perfect, but neither was the AR-15 when it was starting out. I think we have enough room in our gunsafes for both of them and more.

  54. The SCAR was flawed in its stock design and while the H model is in service many 5.56mm models have been ditched in favor of MK-18s and M-4A1s in SOCOM service the Plastic stock on the SCAR has a horrible time breaking when dropped and its barrel set up is complex to change.

    5.56 SCAR ditched for mk 18's and M4's? absolutely not. If this were true, then I suppose the Navy wouldn't buy additional SCAR L's.

    The process to change the barrel on the SCAR is hardly complex, though perhaps if you had a 3rd grade education…

    "A HK 416 is easier and more of a better infantry rifle."

    Actually it is not. The SCAR's reciprocating charging handle allows possible piston seizures to be easily remedied. With a 416, a piston seizure means disassembling the weapon system. This is a key advantage for prolonged firing.

    Excessively worn barrels can be easily replaced and the SCAR family features high parts commonality. The 416 does not.

    The SCAR also features a free floating barrel, which enhances accuracy and heat dissipation.

    If there is any argument to be had, the 416 is not "superior" to the SCAR. In fact, as it stands right now, very few carbines are technically superior.

    "The USMC is already adopted it as a LMG and Army SOCOM has them so there is a push by some units and services to adopt it."

    The M27 is a infantry automatic rifle that has not replaced the M249 squad automatic weapon…which still remains in the inventory of Marine Corps units. The 416 is employed alongside the SCAR in its CQB configuration.

    "However the Army is going to update the M-4 and with BIG defense cuts will be cheapest and in many ways best way to address the M-4 questions in the army.

    Like Ive said previously. There are no "BIG" defense cuts. Only in the growth.

  55. and testing a brand new rifle with a comprehensive test and then comparing to a well-seasoned M4 is inapplicable.

    Here is a pretty compelling case for gas piston rifles http://www.pof-usa.net/articles/P416Torture.pdf

  56. Ok, i'm putting in my two sense on this. First the M4 will operate fine if maintained properly. Would a short stroke piston system imporve relibilty no it just reduces how much carbon fouling ends up in the reciver. But you still have the same matinace but just in a differnt place. As for a larger round I would like to see be a larger round but thats not going to happen any time soon. What is needed is a better load for the 5.56( with a hoter buring powder and a hevier bullet 80+ grains). Now to the rifles intended to replace the M4 they dont offer enough of a improvment to warrant the cost. But you could improve the accuracy with a free float rail. Over all if its not broke dont fix it. The weapon is'nt broke the shooter just needs better tranning on his weapon. He also needs a better matinace cycle.

  57. piston AR myth? man…1st SFOD-D and Devgru must be so gullible…*****

  58. the M27 is a INFANTRY AUTOMATIC RIFLE…not a Light Machine Gun.

  59. From your reference:

    "Every round that has gone down that barrel has been fired at class, with an average of approximately 1,300 rounds every three days. It has been lubed generously with Slip 2000 Enhanced Weapons Lube (EWL).

    "Rack #14 is a 16-inch Bravo Company Mid Length Carbine—mid length meaning that the gas system is two inches longer than the standard carbine gas system."

    "The barrel steel is chrome moly vanadium (CMV) and certified under milspec Mil-B-11595E."

    to me, that sounds like a lot of variables. I would be tickled, if anybody, i mean anybody, provides a reference of such a test with a Colt M4 Carbine. More points if it provides the same comparison with the SCAR 16 and HK 416.

  60. FormerSFMedic | February 6, 2012 at 7:00 pm |

    A carbine is just a shorter variant of a larger and nearly identical rifle. With that in mind, I don't think it matters what barrel length a weapon has or carbine vs rifle. What matters is what kind of ammunition is put in the gun. In other words, a carbine with a 10.5in barrel can get out to 800m with tons of power with the right ammo. In reality, we would like to build the cartridge then the rifle to optimize the combination of the 2. The M16 was designed for the 5.56, which was designed around the 20in barrel.

    All that said, the answer to your question is yes and no. We shouldn't expect a carbine version of a rifle designed around a cartridge optimized for a 20in barrel to do a rifles job. But, the M4 carbine is capable of making effective hits out to 500m easily. Is that enough? Depends. What I can say is that the M4's lighter weight and portability trump any range advantage the M16 might bring to the table. Remember, the M16 is only going to give us about 100m more effective range. The name of the game is "light and fast".

    I suspect that most soldiers can't shoot very well past about 350m or so. So, the M4 will do just fine for what the average soldier is capable of. If we train our soldiers with MODERN shooting techniques, then maybe your question should be brought up. Then its a matter of cartridge effectiveness not weapon system capability.

  61. Can someone tell why is it that the new "green" ammo were shooting now fouls up the works way faster than the old reliable ammo. This stuff cycles like crap and takes twice as long to remove fouling.

  62. have you considered Acme's stock options? or a preferred customer package?

  63. Mr. Reeder, I agree 100%, see my comments above.

  64. Johnny Quest | February 6, 2012 at 7:57 pm |

    Can you read?

  65. Lance; no offense taken, I didn't take it as an argument, just a good academic conversation! MajRod, I sent him a message to ask him, might be a couple of days before I hear back.

    I hope this reply went where it was supposed to go.

  66. Thanks again I like it when someone doesn't claim your lying or making stuff up. Just say your point and calmly debate. I hope you send a email you wanted to know some pointer I had. The biggest thing is most experts agree the M-4 is here for a long while, the question is how can we make one better than a stock model. You can find my email on this page.

  67. The stuff we used at our last 300 meter qual was ****-tastic. I clean my M4 to the point of being able to eat off of it and the new stuff just gums up everything. I hope this crap dosent make it to the civilian market and god-forbid police have to start using it.

  68. just got a text from my old plt sgt. The powder is different as well, apparently to push that alloy based round downrange effectively. I like lead i must say.

  69. Johnny Quest | February 6, 2012 at 8:22 pm |

    Dude, throughout these thread you are constantly referencing which units are using the Teutonic Turd, apparently based on what you read on various internet forums. While some Turds are still being used, many more are also being put down in favor of MK18's and M4A1 types with greater regularty. That I know for a fact.

    So, we all know you love HK and have the "When Only the Best Will Do" posters on your wall, we get it. In the end, the idea that converting a Stoner DI rifle by scabbing an op-rod on top where it does not belong is somehow supremely superior to the original design or a rifle designed from the ground up to have an op-rod, will in fact prove to be a "myth".

  70. Thanks David. BTW it was edification I mistyped.

  71. I'd rather use a rifle or carbine round than any ineffective ball ammo, .45 ACP included.

  72. "apparently based on what you read on various internet forums"

    This statement is so ironic its hilarious. especially since you continue to talk about how terrible the 416 is when credible experts say otherwise. Funny how that works.

    Your antagonistic opinion still doesn't change the fact that those units use the 416 or SCAR! Indeed, if you knew anything about these units, you would know they drop weapons that are ineffective for ones that are better.

  73. KnowALittleBit | February 7, 2012 at 1:28 am |

    Lance, just wanted to throw in a little clarification. In an earler post you mentioned "Fact is also the Army is pouring millions into upgrading the M-4 to a M-4A2 weapon… Close but no cigar. The Army is upgrading ALL M4 and M4A1 carbines with an ambi selector switch, and converting all M4s to the M4A1 configuration. Technically easy, since only five parts distinguish between the two models, but you're right about the millions needed to accomplish it. However, the Army does NOT intend to type classify an M4A2. That would only complicate the logistics/sustainment piece and wreak havoc in the property book/Unique Item Tracking community, not to mention generate additional costs from technical manual updates!

  74. Regardless of reliability, the new rifle looks more like a Leatherman tool, with more gadgets than my smartphone!

  75. I honestly think that if you're really going to replace the M16 FOW, then you're going to have to go big. I believe the SCAR is likely a better rifle in most aspects, but it's not that much better. Not enough to justify the price of adoption.

    Best case (not concerned with NATO adoption, unlikely):

    Cartridge: 7x46mm polymer cased, telescoped ammunition. ~130gr projectile at ~2,600fps. Much more technically feasible than caseless at this point, but substantially lighter than brass. I wouldn't think that this cartridge would be too much heavier than brass cased 5.56x45mm. Lack of a bottleneck would dramatically improve feeding in double stack and especially quad stack magazines. Would, in theory, be short enough to fit inside the M16 FOW magwell.

    Action: I like the roller delayed blow back design, it's probably the most rugged of any semi-automatic rifle action. However, I don't like the felt recoil and I suspect not too many others do either. I don't think it's technically infeasible to do a recoil reducing countermass system like that seen on the AEK-971 on a roller delayed gun. Packaging might be difficult, however. If the countermass system is incompatible with roller delayed blowback, then a short stroke gas piston with the same setup would be the way to go. I think the very rapid (~1800rd/min) "hyper burst" feature of the AN-94 is largely unwarranted. Especially with a rather heavy caliber like this. It also adds a lot of complexity to the action, far more than a recoil balancing countermass. The Stoner-type multi-lug bolt should stay, but with modern machining technology, I don't see any reason for sharp edges on the locking lugs. They should be chamfered to prevent stress build-up (see KAC E3 bolt). The bolt, carrier, and inside of the upper receiver should be coated in Exo. The charging handle should be ambidextrous, folding, and should not reciprocate.

    Receiver: I still think forged aluminum is the way to go. I like polymer in pistols, but I think actual metal is a better bet in a rifle. You're less likely to get the sorts of heat issues that have been seen in the G36 and XM8, but it remains a very light weight weapon.

    Barrel: Really depends upon the performance of the cartridge, but I'd say 14.5" or particularly 16" would be idea. I think we definitely need something better than SAE 4150, 41V45 should fit the bill. As for twist rate, I'd guess 1:10" or 1:11"/1:11.5". This is a guess, someone more astute in this area could offer some better estimates. I'd say just stick with the 5/8-24 thread (usual 7.62x51mm thread) and a really good flash hider. I think comps and brakes definitely have their place, but unless you're going to issue suppressors to everyone then a flash hider is the best way to go for a combat rifle. That said, it should be capable of rapidly mounting and unmounting a sound suppressor. The barrel should be QPQed (nitrided), it offers superior corrosion resistance compared to hard chroming and shouldn't impact accuracy.

    Hand guard/Stock – I think that slick rails (KAC URX 3/3.1, LWRC REPR, SPR, IC) type hand guards are probably the best idea. This assumes that the attachment of the rail sections proves to be as rigid as a machined rail. Zero shift may not matter a whole lot on your flash light or fore grip, but it would on a PEQ-15. The top rail should be continuous and machined into the hand guard. The ability to free float an M203 or M320 from the hand guard like the Daniel Defense RIS II is probably not necessary, but would be nice. The stock should be adjustable for length of pull and preferably comb. I think folding is also a good idea, provided that the hinge is very durable. The integral, folding front sight on the KAC URX II and III is pretty slick. It's probably the best way to go here.

    I really like the idea of multiple upper receivers being available to rapidly change the capabilities of a weapon. I think a quick change barrel has it's place, but probably only on an LMG variant. Maybe, just maybe, they could make a belt-fed upper work.

    This, I think, would be a rifle worthy of buying and buying in large numbers. Even if you didn't adopt the heavier cartridge, even in 5.56 it would offer quite an improvement over the M16 FOW and anything else that is available. It may also be a complete monstrosity that could never be built.

  76. Which doesn't that defeat the original purpose of the 5.56? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard the military was thought to shoot to wound(or the round was made to shoot to wound), so when their friends come back to grab their wounded, we'd shoot them and take more guys out of the fight?

  77. The FNP-45 offers .45 with 15+1 capactity.

  78. Reid , check out the facts about the M855A1 also the MK 262 77grain OTM NATO.

  79. Johnny Quest | February 7, 2012 at 5:36 am |

    Man, you can definitely beat the proverbial dead horse.

    First let's get this out of the way. The SCAR is not part of the discussion.

    Second, the 416 is "terrible" in the sense that it is a CONVERSION of an already successful design, and an unecessary conversion at that. It is approximately 20% heavier that a similarly configured Colt, it is proprietary in and unto itself, it is bulky, and has more moving parts. Oh, and cost.

    There is not a thing wrong with Stoner's rifle. With tech improvements to the CARBINE version and other improvements to include a refined barrel profile, auto capable, and buffer improvements, it is only better.

    Other items that you have brough up i.e., NiB coated BCG is another that should be considered by the DoD.

    I would also throw in the Vltor A5 system.

    This 416 fanboi stuff gets real old. If there is going to be a replacement, the SCAR or other rifle designed from the ground up to have an op-rod is the way to go. Not a not an op-rod coverted M16 series rifle.

  80. I suggest you read "The other side of the mountain". Primarily relating to Pakistani/Afghan tribes, they leave their wounded ,dead, and surrounded/cut off units, and come back for them later. They do not assign men to take them out of the fight while the fight is going on.

    Alex- I was suggesting a temporary fix within our system by optimizing twist rate for longer, more lethal bullets within the caliber, which the powers that be seem intransigent to change. This is because for a change to an entirely new system or caliber, they often very high levels of improvement that intermediary systems have yet to achieve. Consider the sand/dust test wherein the XM8 had 127 FTFs, the SCAR had 226, and the M4 had 882. Still not enough for the Army to replace the M4.

    None of this will remedy the fact that an M4 cannot reach out and touch a 1000m away DHSK position across a valley. For that, a change in caliber or weapons system is needed.

  81. am I the only one who has honestly never had issues with their M4? everytime something like this comes up people praise HK for their "fix to the M4". i wonder if they knew that in the 60's colt even designed a piston M16 but later found out it didnt offer a true improvement to the M16 so they dropped it.

    i always see people say the M4 is so incredibly labor intensive to keep running but this has not been my experiences or those of my friends. cleaning takes us 10-15 minutes if we arent having to pass inspection and with oil in the right places we have never seen a stoppage not caused by magazines.

    once i swapped out my green follower USGI mags for Lancers i never encountered any stoppages. i think 90% of the people who think we need a piston rifle have never served and are only going on gunshop BS and internet rumors, because those who have actually used the weapons seem to really like them.

    by the way, i know someone who is over in poland using the HK416 and apparently he cleans it as often as we clean ours? who woulda thought, i also know a few guys who got issues SCAR16's for a certain mission and when done were incredibly happy to have their standard M4A1 back

    i honestly believe the M4A1 equipped with the SOPMOD Block II is one of the best rifles there is today and as long as you keep it lubed you wont have issues, even moon dust doesnt have an effect on a lubed Rifle, i remember having a moon dusted(?) rifle and then having to fire 4 to 5 magazines of ammo while it was still completely covered in dust, and guess what no issues?

    now on to the stop ability of the 5.56, its fine, while certain rounds like M193 and M855 are very very poor choices things have changed. newer rounds like the MK318(marines) M855A1(Army) 5.56 optimized(Barnes TSX-SEALS) will all reliably incapacitate an insurgent it may have taken us a while to get here but we have finally come to a day and age where 5.56 is an incredible round, but again shot placement is key, you have to remember alot of the insurgents over in iraq/afghanistan are hyped up on drugs, so they have the resistance of drug crazies, so be it 5.56 or 7.62 they can and have taken multiple shots to kill, this is why shot placement is key and why 5.56 does fine as a combat round

  82. I love the coyote discussion I somehow started

  83. There are alot of people in the Industry that DO NOT recommend POF guns. Chris Costa being one of them.

  84. I agree with you. One platform requires a bit more maintenance. I don't think alot of shooters mind the maintenance because when an M4 is working…its a damn fine weapon. I akin it to the 1911 vs glock debate. One requires a little bit more attention. I am an accuracy freak so the AK is a no go.

  85. Joshua , that was a great posting!

  86. You would be surprised how far you can shoot the 5.56…especially with proper optics. You seem to be about 10-15 years behind the curve.

  87. The AK's vaunted reliability is, from what I understand, due largely to its loose tolerances more than any genius inherent in its basic design. Looser tolerances means there's more room for crud to get in and build up before it starts to gum up the works. Of course the trade off for looser tolerances is decreased accuracy but I don't think that Soviet doctrine emphasized marksmanship, not when you a massive conscript army and not much time to train them.

  88. Back when the 5.56 was selected by the US they were looking for a round that could be fired with some degree of controlability so were could field an automatic rifle like the soviets AKM. The Euros wanted a sub 7MM round to get leathality, controlability and range. The AR-15 was selected by a politician and not the army. Once we bought the 5.56 the euros had to start following our lead because they had no ammo (they never had more than 3 days worth) and were depending on us to supply them in the event of a war.

  89. The .223/5.56 is a fine little hunting round, but as others have stated about the adoption of the .45 during the Philippine uprisings, back in the motor sports circles we have a few sayings "There's no replacement for displacement!" "There's no substitute for cubic inches." I once had the pleasure of knowing a leatherneck who did 2 tours in nam who told me of an encounter where he had unloaded a full mag into a vc who kept coming until a crack from the tree line finally dropped him, when the sniper came to get his "confirmation" he stated "what good is it to carry boxcars of ammo if it isn't gonna kill em?" & then returned to the jungle.

  90. I think that your idea about training troops to spot wear and to replace parts isn't a bad idea and up to a certain level could be easily implemented. At the very least if troops are trained to spot wear they can then tell their unit armorer that something is beginning to look worn and might need replacing. On a slightly higher level of training the individual could replace basic parts after requisitioning them with approval from somebody like their squad leader or platoon sgt., something like the buffer tube, buffer spring, and bolt carrier group would be easy enough for anybody to replace since we're all to how to take those parts out for cleaning in basic anyway. All that would be needed is to take the rifle down, remove the worn part and replace it with the new piece, no armorer needed.

  91. Gas blowback= airsoft. Never heard the term used anywhere else.

    According to a few SME's a piston AR is ideal for heavy round count, full auto/ burst fire, short barrel suppressed set ups. Environmental conditions and underwater submersion arent much of an argument against a DI, if certain PM steps are taken.
    Retro fitting a piston kit to a DI AR may just result in a different set of problems.
    DI guns are plenty reliable the way stoner designed them but if the variables mentioned above are introduced then a piston rig is priobably a viable option…but I would only choose a "ground up" type system like the XCR.

  92. I think you on the money Nmate. The situation is like Russia was in the 90s with elite Russian troops having the advanced AN-94 in there kit like the SCAR is in US SOCOM. But like Russia who found the AN-94 not warranting to replace the AK-74M had infantry stay with the AK-74/M. US in its part is likely to stay with the M-4 for infantry in the Army and only SOCOM to use unique weapons.

  93. @JQ Note that xcalbr does not use any caps in his posts, even at the beginning of sentences so what makes you think he'd actually take the time or understand the concept of capitalizing God? You have to remember/understand that the modern Twittter generation aren't too fond of using the Shift key on their keyboards, they tend to find the basics of English that was taught to them in school, stuff like spelling, grammar, and punctuation, a bother or optional at best.

  94. You will be cleaning that piston system too.

  95. "Wow. WOW! Sharper than a tack you are!"

    knock it off. You brought up the original point and I answered it. Plain and simple.

    "Seriously, what is your major malfunction? ANY AR15 type rifle with a gas piston/op-rod scabbed on top is a POS."

    By your logic, I have a "malfunction" because I don't believe that gas piston/op-rods make a AR15 a POS. Pretty childish of you. Next.

    "It is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. Dayum Count Chocula, you keep championing this bastardized rifle. I have no problem with a rifle designed from inception with an op rod, but conversions suck, no matter who makes it, period."

    You may think the problem doesn't exist, though the M4 has had enough issues that its use by US military personnel has been called into question. I don't necessarily believe the M4 is horrible; on the contrary, it is a fine weapon system. Though I believe, for military applications, it has key disadvantages.

    "I am gonna ask you again as I did in another thread and you never answered. Have you ever even held a 416 in your hand much less shot one? Again, think about it before your answer. Don’t want to get caught fibbing."

    And you missed my reply, which was two weeks ago. I carried a 416 with me in afghanistan and iraq. I was a unit armorer. Like I said previously, the 416's i inherited had tens of thousands of rounds shot through them. The only issue I had was with the front flip up sight, which is unnecessarily delicate. Besides that, mechanically speaking, there was no "carrier tilt", no issues with the gas system, and no accelerated wear on the bolt lugs or any other issue that seems to be perpetuated by the internet.

    "No bro, POF rails suck. Period."

    Again, that is a opinion. I prefer free float tubes (VTAC) over anything, though the POF rail is advantageous for the design because it allows for better cooling. This is highly useful because a gas piston retains most of its heat at the gas block.

    And to help clarify this statement for you, “……the loose gas key raises some concern and my guess it was a POS brand.
    "THE LOOSE GAS KEY!!!! Mmmmm, I don’t recall saying anything about the gas tube. Wait, let me look, nope, didn’t say a thing about it. I have never, I repeat, never in 35+ plus years seen a properly stake gas key come loose."

    and it was a human mistake, ill own up to it. You can also be a adult about it.
    But i have to ask, gas key? *** are you talking about!? there was mention of a loose gas key in the article…from a test of a new gun years ago (the theme was "using your ears") which had nothing to do with the torture test. I thought you were addressing the gas tube failure of the tested DI AR15, but apparently you are talking about a digression that had nothing to do with the main test.

    Read the conclusion. Nowhere did they say their rifle was the end all. They said they pushed weapons past their realistic limits, which can happen in a situation on the battlefield albeit rarely. No system is perfect for "everybody". It certainly shows the advantages of a gas piston system and disadvantages of direct impingement.

    but keep taking what i have to say out of context and making up problems that never existed…

  96. "Man, you can definitely beat the proverbial dead horse."

    you seem to love drawing to wrong conclusions about me.

    "Second, the 416 is “terrible” in the sense that it is a CONVERSION of an already successful design, and an unecessary conversion at that."

    Technically, the 416 is reverse engineered. It essentially improves on the M4/M16 because Colt was unwilling to take the step to evolve their 1950's design.

    "It is approximately 20% heavier that a similarly configured Colt, it is proprietary in and unto itself, it is bulky, and has more moving parts. Oh, and cost."

    Actually a 416, according to DOD acquisition costs, is about 1430 give or take. A Colt, with a knights armament rail system, is 1400. Its proprietary parts is a necessary evil when fielding a evolution of a tried weapon system.

    "There is not a thing wrong with Stoner’s rifle. With tech improvements to the CARBINE version and other improvements to include a refined barrel profile, auto capable, and buffer improvements, it is only better."

    I disagree that there is "nothing" wrong with stoner's rifle, though agree that technological improvements make it significantly better. There is not a single rifle out there with "nothing" wrong.

    "This 416 fanboi stuff gets real old. If there is going to be a replacement, the SCAR or other rifle designed from the ground up to have an op-rod is the way to go. Not a not an op-rod coverted M16 series rifle."

    Again, drawing to wrong conclusions. In fact, I believe the DI system is so horrible, I own three DI AR15's. You keep saying the 416 is a horrible weapon system, I am disagreeing with you. Get over it.

  97. and the use of slip 2000, which the military uses CLP. There is a night and day difference between the two.

    What Im saying is that there is a difference between this rifle and a Colt M4 sitting in a Fort Benning armory. If they used a Colt M4 with CLP and GI Spec magazines, I would be more impressed.

  98. Thanks for confirming my point, which YOU missed. Scabbing an op-rod on an M16 “is illogical, paradoxical, and irrelevant….”

    Illogical, paradoxical, and irrelevant if it improves the soldier's ability to kill the enemy on the battlefield? you said it, not me.

    "To be clear, I am unlcear how ‘paradoxical’ enters the equation."

    Your paradox is defined as a "hasty generalization". Is that clear enough for you?

    "It really doesn’t apply, but perhaps you wanted to come across with a little vocab in a feeble attempt to elevate your position, but I will take it for what it is worth. I guess the pertinent question is, do you know what paradoxical means?"

    Do you? don't answer that. I already know. Not that is particularly important. Your commonly used quote is a elaborate way of saying "nuh-huh".

    "More importantly, and no matter what you believe, but if you are too ignorant to know that when referencing God, the first letter is capatilized, perhaps you should rethink your purpose on this planet."

    Here we go with the self righteousness and attempting to derail my argument by criticizing my use of (or lack thereof) capitalization. That is utterly hilarious.

    "I can assure you this, your purpose is not to distrupt good discussion on this site, which by the way you do with great regularity."

    lets be honest. You didn't expect anybody to call you out. The fact that I did and stood up to your snark and generalizations must really irritate you. For that, take this advice for what it is: It is the internet.

    "Oh, ha ha, so there!"

    compelling. utterly compelling.

    "@JQ Note that xcalbr does not use any caps in his posts, even at the beginning of sentences so what makes you think he’d actually take the time or understand the concept of capitalizing God?"

    I honestly didn't know that capitalization was a prerequisite to post on a internet blog. LOL.

    "You have to remember/understand that the modern Twittter generation aren’t too fond of using the Shift key on their keyboards, they tend to find the basics of English that was taught to them in school, stuff like spelling, grammar, and punctuation, a bother or optional at best."

    oh please. modern generation? I was born in the 70's. The fact that you are attacking my lack of capitalization is hilarious, if not outright ridiculous. I didn't know I was on a English 101 blog…

  99. Jake, I am aware of the improved ballistics and overall improvements, but it still just seems like "polishing a turd" to me. IMO we need 7.62 battle rifles. Why not use 7.62NATO as the base and improve from there, rather than start with an inherently weak, flawed design, and try to make it usable. It seems counter productive. It's like the Honda crowd trying to squeeze every last bit of horsepower out of a motor that was never intended to be used that way. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

  100. What if you could just re-introduce the M-16/m4? Most of the Soldiers and Police Officers I know only have the bad news that comes back from places like Afghanistan, where they said they couldn't reach out, or it jammed too much in the dirt. Not enough reports come back saying that said person tapped someone in the chest twice and they just dropped dead. Is the AR a good enough system for the basic bullet catcher at the bottom? If you qualify in the top 10% should you get a bigger/better rifle? If you do well enough with that rifle do you move up the food chain?
    If I get issued a different AR each time I transfer, roatate, etc. why would I care about it, why can't I be issued the same AR for life? Whatever the caliber, size, shape, etc. wouldn't I come to rely on it more if it was mine?

  101. Just go away. Seriously. You waste way too much of people's time here.

  102. Forgot to ask I think it is the FOURTH time here, without an answer mind you.

    Have you ever had a 416 in your hands? Have you ever shot one? I urge you to excerise caution when considering your answer, if you have the testicles to be honest. Don't want to catch you fibbing now would we?

  103. John Stackhouse | February 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm |

    I'm partial to the M-14. It was standard issue when I was in the Marine Corps. I loved it, in fact. The M-16 was issued to us about half way through my term of enlistment. The 16 had some issues early on, but it was quickly corrected…..in terms of what Uncle Sam considers quick! tehe I liked the 16 when it came around to my unit, Battalion 2/5 at Camp Legeune. I enlisted in 1969. I liked the lighter weight of the 16. The smaller rounds seemed a bit sissyfied, to me at least, but I came to appreciate it just the same.

  104. Outstanding…definately incentive to stay in ones lane.

  105. You need to take a look at what a 70gr barnes tsx will do.

    .224 expanding to .50

  106. "It is irrefutable the success of the DI system."

    Regardless of what we have previously disagreed on, I absolutely agree with you on this point. It pretty much blows the myth, that ARs have to be white glove clean in order to function correctly, out of the water. The DI's success is multiplied with heavier calibers, such as 308 or 7.5mm, respectively with the AR10 and MAS-49. The MAS49, even when using military surplus ammunition for many years and less than ideal cleaning conditions, was lauded for its reliability.

    I couldn't imagine what it was like to handle or clean dirty 14…

  107. i honestly don't have to go away…i have just as much of a right to post here as anybody else. don't get bent out of shape…its just electrons on a computer screen.

  108. You nailed it right on the head Joshua

  109. Johnny Quest | February 7, 2012 at 5:22 pm |

    OK, so here we go, I am throwing a flag on this one. You were an armorer, and you are just now saying so? Hmmmm. After spending the last, I don't know month or so stroking the Tuetonic Phallus, and we only now hear this claim? Hmmmmm. It must have been fairly recent being that you "inherited 416's with tens of thousands of round through them". Hmmmmm. "No issues but the front sight"? Hmmmmmm. I hope you can support this with some particulars:

    "And you missed my reply, which was two weeks ago. I carried a 416 with me in afghanistan and iraq. I was a unit armorer. Like I said previously, the 416′s i inherited had tens of thousands of rounds shot through them. The only issue I had was with the front flip up sight, which is unnecessarily delicate. Besides that, mechanically speaking, there was no “carrier tilt”, no issues with the gas system, and no accelerated wear on the bolt lugs or any other issues…….."

    Scince you have been very clear on who carries the Tuetonic Turd, and you were the "unit armoror", you must have been attached to one of these "special" units. So, which was it? DEVGRU or 1st SFOD-D? Be clear now and give us some dates, AO, base assignments. Who was your CO in DEVGRU? 1st SFOD-D?

  110. I am not interested in posting my resume on a military blog and am legally bound not to. It is irrelevant. Yes I am a veteran and yes I have much experience with the 416 just like I have experience with the M4, SCAR, and any other weapon available in the US military inventory. Take it for what it is.

    You can throw flags all you want. I could really care less about "proving" my credentials to some random person over the internet. I would ask you what your experience is with the 416, though I honestly could care less.

    My main point, concluding several weeks of postings, is that the 416 is not as terrible as you think it is. Never have I said it is the end all of all weapon systems. It suits the needs of certain units with a propensity of binning weapons that are unsuitable.

  111. Johnny Quest | February 7, 2012 at 5:57 pm |

    Dude, you definitely have too much time on your hands to copy and past all that text and respond to the minutiae. I'll play this time.

    "Technically, the 416 is reverse engineered. It essentially improves on the M4/M16 because Colt was unwilling to take the step to evolve their 1950′s design."

    Technically. Oh, ok. Now I get it. Because it done "technically", it is good.

    Hmmm. Reverse engineered. Better yet, "Technically reverse engineered". Well then, it is definitely good boy howdy!!

    Then, "essentially" mind you, it improves on the M4/M16!!! Holy snikees!!

    "Colt was unwilling to take the step to evolve their 1950′s design."

    This right here should make it clear to everyone that xcalbr is not who he would like to represent himself as being – essentially. An op-rod on the AR/M series is NOT an "evolution of a tried weapon system", it is a detriment. If Stoner wanted an op-rod on the rifle, he would have designed it with one.

    FYI brainiac, Colt developed an op-rod AR type rifle in the late 60's, aka the 703. You must be the only guy on the planet that doesn't know that. Army saw no need for it so it was shelved. When all the piston rage peaked a few years ago, Colt again had a revised piston rifle ready (LE versions being the 1020 and 1033). Nothing became of it and it was shelved. So now Colt has further developed another hybrid op-rod/DI version and has it at the ready, but as of last report may not enter it in an IC trial so they don't have to give their technology to the two other manufacturers.

    This is where your BS stops. I am suprised the mods here allow you to keep foaming at the mouth with nothing based in fact. Actually, you argue based not on experience, but on what you read and what you WANT to believe. You are the only person that has problems with everyone here. This is getting like ARFCOM.

    I have said it all along you are an HK fanboi, absoulutely no doubt about it. Ok if that is how you want to roll, but don't come in hear with your internet fueled crap and tell us you were an armorer, was the caretaker of who knows how may 416's, yet have no experience with the weapon yourself. I am gonna say you have no experience with the MK18's or M4 either.

    I am looking for my can of troll spray right now.

  112. With adequate education and maintenance, the M4 is an excellent weapon. It is a assault rifle/carbine, which means it is most optimal when used at typical ranges in close combat (within 300 meters).

    The M4 has enormous potential to be improved, with a heavier barrel, different materials of the bolt/bolt carrier group, and more reliable magazines. The issue is justifying the need for replacement, if indeed caseless or telescopic ammunition (LSAT) is progressing like the government says it is. With comparatively inexpensive modifications, on the theoretical M4A2, this weapons platform can suit the military adequately until the next breakthrough in weapons technology is fielded. Whether or not to go with a gas piston design is a factor to decide with objective tests and evidence.

  113. Johnny Quest | February 7, 2012 at 6:06 pm |

    Yeah, I know, it requires clearance to devulge your creds. Who woulda thunk?

    But it is not irrelevant because YOU brought it up to promote yourself as some type of experienced individual. Your claim doesn't mean ****, and my flag is still on the field.

    So now you are an armoror for any weapon in the US inventory. Hmmmm. This just keeps getting better.

    Like I have said on a couple of occasions, you just need to go away. I might have fallen off the turnip truck, but it wasn't last night, so just go away. Go back to ARFCOM and play there.

  114. Jager – I've read it and the sequel. Not the point.

    Jager & SFMedic – I said "Even terrorists evacuate their dead and wounded". We don't do it immediately either if we are being overrun and we know better than to leave our wounded knowing what the enemy will do to them. The enemy has a choice as does historically all our enemies. The point was 5.56 was adopted because it takes a couple of guys to evacuate the wounded that hasn't changed and the enemy does evacuate their wounded when they can. That was pretty much the same in Nam. The enemy would casevac as they could. I don't remember any documentation that the enemy fought to recover their KIA/WIA.

    On a separate point assuming you guys are 100% right you're saying we should change all of the Army's weapons or caliber because of our experience in Afghanistan?

  115. Hey, if you put an EGA on the side of any weapon it will magically increase it's reliability, accuracy and lethality.

  116. just stick with what you know JQ: jack **** at the Hanna-Barbara studio. I'm done responding to somebody so stupid.

  117. Statistically, 45 ball really doesn't have that kind of record if you actually look into it.

  118. I suspect LAV, who worked for HK and helped design the HK45, has a bit more info than you.

  119. i prefer lancers, their polymers can take a true beating and they have a wrap around steel feed lips, you cant get much better than that

  120. The .45 ACP never saw action in the Philippine's during the insurection.

  121. its not an issue though, the standard combat load is 210 round of ammo(7 magazines)

    even with the M855A1 powder being dirtier it takes thousands of rounds before you see any ill effects of it. ive heard that people who fire 5-10k rounds of it usually have to use a sonic cleaner to get it clean the stuff is so dirt but again not an issue.

    a soldier cleans his rifle during down time and he will never ever fire enough rounds to notice the side effects of the dirty powder in the round

    like i said it would take thousands of rounds to notice and issue with the powder, thats something a soldier will never reach without a cleaning

  122. lance going to a 1/9 twist would be a horrible mistake, in order to stabilize larger bullets like the M855A1 and the 77 SMK rounds you need a 1/7 twist, anything less and the bullet will keyhole.

    you should also research the SOPMOD Block II for the M4A1's. they are some of the best rifles IMO you can get.

    i posted alot of info at the bottom if you want to read it and what not

  123. Doubt that's going to happen.

  124. I do get your point, However I said I want going to use 77+ grain bullets but used a 55gr or 62gr Bullet if I could pic. But get your point Joshua. I do ask you your opinion on this I think there more hype than fact. Most people Ive talked to say the Improved M-4 will win and the rest is a show to please politicians other companies pay for this competition. Your opinion?

  125. "Technically. Oh, ok. Now I get it. Because it done “technically”, it is good.
    Hmmm. Reverse engineered. Better yet, “Technically reverse engineered”. Well then, it is definitely good boy howdy!!
    Then, “essentially” mind you, it improves on the M4/M16!!! Holy snikees!!"

    Grow the **** up. You act like the 416's piston was just slabbed on there like a pakistan gun shop…

    "This right here should make it clear to everyone that xcalbr is not who he would like to represent himself as being – essentially. An op-rod on the AR/M series is NOT an “evolution of a tried weapon system”, it is a detriment. If Stoner wanted an op-rod on the rifle, he would have designed it with one."

    You seem to ignore the fact that Stoner designed the AR16, which incorporated a gas piston and stamped steel design, and the gas piston Stoner 63 weapons system after the AR15/M16. Both weapons were not successful, though the AR16 lead to the development of the AR18 and subsequently modern gas pistons.

    "FYI brainiac, Colt developed an op-rod AR type rifle in the late 60′s, aka the 703. You must be the only guy on the planet that doesn’t know that. Army saw no need for it so it was shelved."

    The 703 was not proven to be reliable enough to replace the DI M16. That is the last time Colt attempted to produce a gas piston for the M16 until very recently, after H&K marketed the 416. Firearms technology is vastly farther ahead now than it was in the 60's. The CAR15 development, which was scheduled to undergo testing to augment or replace the M16, was also shelved because the US military withdrew from Vietnam.

    "When all the piston rage peaked a few years ago, Colt again had a revised piston rifle ready (LE versions being the 1020 and 1033). Nothing became of it and it was shelved."

    The Colt gas piston carbine was developed due to fears that arose because of the 416. Colt's design of this weapon was reactive to HK.

    "So now Colt has further developed another hybrid op-rod/DI version and has it at the ready, but as of last report may not enter it in an IC trial so they don’t have to give their technology to the two other manufacturers."

    Colt also has the advanced piston carbine, CM901, and Monolithic Carbine. Apparently if the competitors do show a significant breakthrough, then Colt's "improved" M4 will be adopted. The details of this "improved carbine" remain ambiguous.

    "This is where your BS stops. I am suprised the mods here allow you to keep foaming at the mouth with nothing based in fact. Actually, you argue based not on experience, but on what you read and what you WANT to believe. You are the only person that has problems with everyone here. This is getting like ARFCOM."

    Another classical example of the pot calling the kettle black. You keep bringing up ARFCOM frequently and criticize any possible improvements to Stoner's design…fascinating. You are also excessively lippy with several people here, which makes me laugh that you attempt you highlight me as "having problems with everyone here". This keeps getting better and better, please continue though.

    "I have said it all along you are an HK fanboi, absoulutely no doubt about it."

    And you are a AR15 fanboy who obviously believes everything he has read on the internet. You obviously missed my numerous other comments about other weapons and the objective criticisms of the M27 and 416.

    "Ok if that is how you want to roll, but don’t come in hear with your internet fueled crap and tell us you were an armorer, was the caretaker of who knows how may 416′s, yet have no experience with the weapon yourself. I am gonna say you have no experience with the MK18′s or M4 either."

    Your exact criticism of the aforementioned weapon designs are being continually spread by the internet. Again, you are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.

    and you are still not answering my question: what is your experience with the 416?

    "I am looking for my can of troll spray right now."

    The best way to deal with trolls apparently is to ignore them. which is what im going to do from now on. good bye.

  126. Great post

  127. Lance, i honestly believe the improved M4 has this in the bag.

    having used one i can say its a huge step up from the standard M4 and M4A1's in use now.

    its the M4A1 that alot of the SF guys are using now, Army rangers, MARSOC, alot of SEALS use it.

    the good thing is this will get the guns the SF guys are using in the hands of the normal guys.

  128. Not entirely. Is it entirely up the the operator that an M4 is much more likely to get bolt overrides than the SCAR? No, not really. It's a function of the design of the SCAR. I'm in no way saying the SCAR is perfect, but the Mk 16 is much less likely (or even incapable) of getting bolt override malfunctions.

  129. Try to carry around 600 rounds of 7.62x51mm, then tell me we need .308 battle rifles. I can see 6.8 SPC, it increases performance in the role that the rifle and carbine are designed for. Rifles and carbines are not really designed for shooting long ranges, they're not designed for heavy volumes of suppressive fire. An infantry platoon has enough organic and non-organic long range assets to make the adoption of a 7.62 NATO battle rifle moot.

    Also, you obviously don't know what you're talking about. There are plenty of guys that have kills with 5.56 NATO out to 700m and beyond. The only real issue with 5.56mm was the M855. It was designed for engaging lightly armored, Warsaw Pact infantry out to ranges of 600m with the M249. For that job, it's decent. It just doesn't work particularly well from rifles and carbines, particularly when you start using shorter and shorter barrels. Notice there were few complaints about the lethality of 5.56 back in the M193 days. The Mk 318 and M855A1 cartridges have addressed this on the large scale while more specialized cartridges like the Mk 262
    and "brown tip" Barnes TSX offer even greater performance in certain engagement scenarios.

    Not to mention that Afghanistan is a tactical anomaly. Most fighting today and in the future is likely to take place inside built up areas at ranges of 100m or less. I think the best bet is to adopt better 5.56mm, which we've already done. It wouldn't hurt for the Army to swallow it's pride and use the USMC zero, I think it's more effective. Moving to something like 6.8 SPC would be idea, but it's not going to happen. Taking a big leap backwards to 7.62 NATO isn't going to happen and definitely should not happen. It's always been grossly overpowered as an infantry rifle round.

  130. He missed or is passing on some rumor as his own story. You put multiple rounds of 5.56mm into any critical area of the body and it's going to incapacitate the guy. Especially when you're talking about an enemy wearing no body armor, no heavy clothing, and is of small stature. He missed or is making it up.

  131. 4FingersOfBourbon | February 8, 2012 at 12:54 am |

    Anyone ever read about the Battle of Wanat? Not the ******** but the real report? It shows some interesting takes on the m4/249 when in the ****….

    I think the M4 is very effective. I do like the idea of the 6.8 as long as the upper is interchangeable with 5.56 for mission selection. Or maybe that is too much versatility? Oh, another good point about the m4 platform; read: adaptability.

  132. Majrod-
    Valid points. I am interested to hear what your suggestion would be within the current realities of our military, small arms, and how acquisitions work? This has to be one of the best KU subjects in a long time.

  133. crackedlenses | February 8, 2012 at 7:49 am |

    Some observations:

    1. A lot of the debate seems to be a matter of personal preference. Perhaps adopting an Objective system would fix much of the issues, as soldiers would be able to configure the weapon to their satisfaction.

    2. Some people will never be satisfied with anything less than a one-shot one-kill cartridge that will reach out to 600-700 meters. They should probably go with a Mosin-Nagant or Mauser 98, two weapons that combine range, heavy hitting on the target and extreme reliability.

    3. A rifle or carbine is designed to compete with another rifle or carbine. If you want to take on a LMG or even an HMG or sniping weapon, get something bigger…..

  134. If window lickers like myself would take more time to listen and understand the SME's(civvy or .mil) when they take a few moments to grace the errornet with thier technical hands on prowess, we would have less bull**** tossed around like golden nuggets.
    There are a couple of people amongst this mess that are actually offering objective first hand knowledge and its being blocked by the usual habituated errornet debate syndrome.
    My take is this…. If some of the most premier
    "trigger pullers" are saying that even they have seen no necessity in swithing to a piston driven AR on thier own rifles…then why in the **** would a LSHD civvy like me think I am entitled to feel the need to have one.???

    Here is a little something that DocGKR had to say about pistons:
    "While initially excited by the piston concept, over the last 5 years, I have come to the conclusion that 90% of users will be better off with a quality 16" mid-length DI AR15. In addition to Colt, DI rifles by BCM, Centurion, DD, KAC, LaRue, as well as LMT and Noveske (those w/a true 5.56 mm chamber) all run well. The highly esteemed, extremely experienced Pat McNamara recently mentioned that he prefers a 5.56 mm DI 16” barrel AR15 with a long FF rail and a RDS (w/flip up 3x magnifier as a useful addition) for the majority of his carbine use, including indoors for CQB; he specifically mentioned LaRue and DD AR15’s as working very well for him. Kyle Defoor mentioned nearly the same thing in a recent class. I fully agree with them and run almost all my carbines the same way:"

    I am fine with my DI gun and I feel confident in my utilization of all the SME advice that I manage to sponge since the plunge.
    I chose the 6.8X43 over all the aaplicable caliber choices for the AR15 platform not because of the "5.56 aint good enough and the 7.62 is too heavy" kewlaide but becuase of its intended purpose as a combative/hunting tool and the fact that the round speaks volumes for itself when you actually shoot it. Do I ever think the military will adopt it…it has been my brief experience in nthe past that the military does what is cost effective…not what is smart….so the answer is no and I dont care. There is plenty of vetted manufacturers and civilians behind the caliber so I have all the support I need and then some.
    As far as the 5.56 round is concerned….there are thousands of dead enemies that cant complain but that does not mean there is no room to improve its killing ability to a point of DRT status… but that also consists of good marksmanship training across the board…there is no reason to have to designate a marksman when all soldiers and sailors should be designated as marksmen.

    There is nothing wrong with a well built, well maintained AR and that is a factoid that trickles all the way down from the top tier. There is no reliability issues with the DI design that a retro fit is going to fix.
    There also is no problem with the 5.56 killing what it is aimed at… it has been been deemed "unpredictable" by some who have shot humans or seen other humans being shot by the round but that does not mean it is obsolete…it just means we need a heavier 5.56 load that is designed from the ground up to kill 2 legged creatures(barnes tsx) and maybe an upper in a heavier caliber(6.8/7mm/7.62) to augment the 5.56 kit.

    SALUS

    BLACK

  135. Jager – flattered that you'd care about my weak voice in this hurricane of opinion. I doubt I'll be able to answer your complicated ques in one post. Rational debate is always welcome.

    Solution? What's the problem? The enemy not going down or getting hit? Until we have some radical innovation let's look at training first. I'd defer to SFMedic for details but there are boatloads of marksmanship, maintenance and armorer training we don't do. Set a high standard and train to meet it.

    Acquisitions? Soup sandwich. Case in point, this upcoming "competition" which isn't a competition it's preventive political maintenance. Something to show some politician when he starts sticking his nose into rifle fielding when a constituent with deep pockets probes him or the politico wants to add to his resume for an election. The Army isn't going to re-equip the force with a new weapon or caliber until there is a leap in lethality, accuracy, maintenance or weight. That was stated afetr the XM8 comp and is historically how we do things if you look at the evolution form the Springfield-M1-M14-M16 journey.

  136. I do 3 gun tournaments with my DI AR in which I may fire several hundred rounds in quick succession. Granted I never through my gun in the dirt or had to weather a dust storm before using it, I have had no malfunctions with the rifle as long as I properly cleaned it before game time.

    I have had malfunctions with other equipment but not at the fault of the rifle itself.

  137. Part of the problem was poor location and lack of artillery and air support. The M-4 was not at fault for this and some problems was the panic fire solders there where emptying there mags way too fast.

  138. yeah according to the media, the M4 barrels were "white hot" LOL. Anybody with a basic knowledge of metallurgy will know a M4 barrel would burst (optimistically, if the gas tube doesn't) before getting white hot.

    I believe the part about the M4 and M249 bolt seizing up, which is one of the side effects of basically firing the weapons beyond their capabilities.

    Artillery and air support (to include UAVs and heavy bombers) was used, which forced the enemy to withdraw. The battle proved that the insurgents were highly resourceful and tenacious, definitely underestimated.

  139. I honestly could care less about what rifle (if any) is adopted to replace the M4. As long as it is generally more effective.

    The SCAR or ACR are certainly credible entries, due to their technical features that the AR15 design doesn't have. Of course those platforms are more expensive now, though a cost comparison to the M4/AR15 is unfair since the later has significantly more numerous production assets.

    If the military adopts a improved M4 that is better than the existing model, then more power to the soldiers that will benefit from this.

  140. What do you consider the effective range of the 5.56? It seems that the average Marine with an ACOG has no problems sending a 5.56 5-600 meters.

  141. Agree.

  142. Johnny Quest | February 8, 2012 at 5:11 pm |

    Reid

    "an inherently weak, flawed design"

    Please expound on what YOU base this statement.

  143. bringing back the 7.62 at this point is illogical. It was foolish to adopt that round to begin with (over the 280 british or similar cartridges), though the military was still attached to the 30-06 and its power and a cartridge effective up to 800 meters was still overpowered for the average infantryman that statistically engaged targets below 300 meters.

    I believe there are plenty of adequate 5.56mm cartridges that are more effective against soft targets than the 62 grain M855 green tip. The 70 grain barnes are among many examples (as is the Mk 262 and Mk 318). 5.56, when proper cartridges are used, are more than adequate for engaging enemy infantry. Of course, it is less than ideal at ranges up to 500 meters. Infantry do not typically engage targets at that range with the exception of designated marksmen, automatic riflemen, machine gunners, and snipers.

    The 5.56 is not a weak, inherently flawed design. Since the population is becoming more urbanized, not less so, it is conducive for a 21st century military force to retain the caliber. In the event of World War III with the Soviet Union, the 5.56 would also be more ideal as a infantry cartridge than the 7.62.

    I believe the most ideal M16 design that could have been adopted for the US military would be M16A4 with a collapsible stock, heavier barrel, nickel-coated BCG/bolt, and ambidextrous safety. I like the 20" barrel for its accuracy and velocity (especially with other cartridges besides the M855). The cost to retrofit couldnt have been too high.

  144. Johnny Quest | February 9, 2012 at 3:54 am |

    "….5.56 was adopted because it takes a couple of guys to evacuate the wounded…."

    majrod –

    that is fundamentally untrue. There are references that describe Gene Stoner's developement of the round along with his rifle.

  145. Johnny Quest | February 9, 2012 at 3:57 am |

    When your argument holds no water, resort to personal attacks. Who would have guessed?

  146. See…your about 10-15 years behind on your understanding of current tactics and equipment.

  147. 'You act like the 416′s piston was just slabbed on there like a pakistan gun shop….."

    May as well have been, and that includes LWRC, LMT, Addams Arms, et. al. There is absolutely no reason to alter the rifle in that fashion.

    "You seem to ignore the fact that Stoner designed the AR16, which incorporated a gas piston and stamped steel design, and the gas piston Stoner 63 weapons system after the AR15/M16. Both weapons were not successful, though the AR16 lead to the development of the AR18 and subsequently modern gas pistons."

    A little education for you. First, the AR16 was a different method of manufacture, one reason for the change, and let's face it, most competing designs had an op-rod/piston set up. Stamping proved in those days especially, to be more cost effective than forged and milled aluminum. That was the last design he did while at ArmaLite by the way, and it was a 7.62MM battle rifle.

    You are incorrect in that the 63/63A had moderate success, but was never adopted beyond primarily SEAL Teams and a few folks within SOG.

    Gene had nothing to do with the AR18,.

    Lastly, Gene worked with Reed for I guess the last 15 years of his life anyway, and never went back to an op-rod 'assualt rifle' in the AR form. He in fact made the DI a bit better and of course went back to the grandaddy, the AR10, for his SR25 series cumulating in the M110 ,and Knight's SR16/16 in 5.56.

    The ONLY op-rod piece he really worked on was the evolution of the 63A, which was originally designated the Stoner 86, and now in it's final incarnation the Stoner (Knight's) LMG.

    "The 703 was not proven to be reliable enough to replace the DI M16. That is the last time Colt attempted to produce a gas piston for the M16 until very recently, after H&K marketed the 416."

    Reliability had nothing to do with it. The DoD determined it wasn't necessary, and not unlike today, there is not enough if any improvement over the standard weapon to warrant a change.

    Also you are incorrect about the more recent op-rod rifle from Colt (Winchester to be exact) in that somehow the 416 was the impetus for their development program. HKool-aid drinkers would of course like to believe that, that the all seeing all knowing super being at Orbendorf sprinkled fairy dust on the DI rifle and created a semi-devine op-rod rifle, but nothing is further from the truth. The grumblings of Sen Coburn (R-OK) had allot to do with it the interest in an op-rod rifle.

    In a letter to Army Times magazine, Colt COO James R. Battaglini (US Marine Corps Maj. Gen., ret.) said:

    “The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system. Rifles were being designed with these systems in the 1920’s. Colt proposed a piston operated weapon to the Army in the early 1960’s. Today Colt Defense has the ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the U.S. military services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon”
    http://kitup.military.com/2010/07/theres-no-relia

    “You keep bringing up ARFCOM frequently and criticize any possible improvements to Stoner’s design”

    This is where your disconnect is. You believe that fundamentally changing Stoner’s design by adding an op-rod/piston is an improvement. It is not an improvement, and in fact a detriment i.e. increased weight, bulk, parts, and cost. When this thing all plays out, I think the op-rod M16 based on Stoner’s rifle will pass into history. That is not to say an op-rod type rifle won’t be adopted some time in the future, that probably will be the case, but it will be designed that way.

    “You are also excessively lippy with several people here, which makes me laugh that you attempt you highlight me as “having problems with everyone here”.

    Only lippy with you. You on the other had have problems with several of which Riceball and Lance come to mind. Whether you agree with Lance or not, or whether his position is valid or not, you attack him also. I could go look for more, but no time for Sergeants.

    “And you are a AR15 fanboy who obviously believes everything he has read on the internet”.

    Try an original thought, although imitation is the supreme form of flattery. In any case, I am a fan of a lightweight and proven rifle. I am not a fan of an afterthought scabbed on to that same rifle guised under the false pretense that it is now superior.

    “Your exact criticism of the aforementioned weapon designs are being continually spread by the internet. Again, you are just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole.”

    The criticism is based in the fallacy being perpetuated that adding an op-rod to the AR/M series is somehow superior the Stoner’s DI design. That is it. If a rifle originally designed with an op-rod is what is needed, then do that. Get a 550 series and be done with it.

    You and I have different opinions. I carried and used the AR/M series in various configurations on more than one occasion, far more than you can fathom. With some tech improvements with materials and some mechanical, the rifle and particularly the carbine has come into it’s own, all the while maintaining the benefits of lighter weight, simplicity, better accuracy, and associated ergonomics.

    All these piston conversion s whether by HK, LWRC, LMT, et. al., are a solution to a problem that does not exist. I will acknowledge that since the Bin Laden raid and the alleged use of the 416, now all of the sudden even some of the anti op-rod AR folks are giving the 416 a pass , as though it is different. Well it isn’t, it is a conversion like they all are. A MK18 would have (and may have) done an equally good job at a lighter weight. Give me a Colt Commando type with a good rail, Vltor A5, and optic any day over an op-rod conversion.

  148. Typo, the 703 was a Winchester design.

  149. "May as well have been, and that includes LWRC, LMT, Addams Arms, et. al. There is absolutely no reason to alter the rifle in that fashion."

    It is a matter of different thinking. I believe that if a weapon system can possibly be improved, then why not attempt to do so? That goes without saying direct impingement is more reliable than people think, though I think the M16's sullied reputation in Vietnam has disingenuously carried throughout the decades, despite being significantly improved with the A1, A2, and A4 variants.

    Whether or not it offers a superior platform (it is too early to tell, thus direct impingement traditionalists remain justifiably dubious), I have to give credit to companies for making a effort. i am surprised, however, that nobody has attempted a long stroke AR15 gas piston with a reciprocating charging handle.

    A little education for you. First, the AR16 was a different method of manufacture, one reason for the change, and let’s face it, most competing designs had an op-rod/piston set up. Stamping proved in those days especially, to be more cost effective than forged and milled aluminum. That was the last design he did while at ArmaLite by the way, and it was a 7.62MM battle rifle."

    It also incorporated stamped steel, which demonstrated that Stoner wanted to improve the platform by attempting to construct something that is more reliable and easier/less expensive to manufacture. It was 7.62, and led to the development of the AR18 (which wasn't designed by Stoner, regardless of what many think).

    "You are incorrect in that the 63/63A had moderate success, but was never adopted beyond primarily SEAL Teams and a few folks within SOG."

    No, I never said the Stoner 63 was successful. In fact, it was a example that you can either have a specialized weapon that excels in its primary role, or a multipurpose weapon that performs all roles poorly. The Stoner 63 was a admirable attempt; one has to respect what it was trying to accomplish.

    "Gene had nothing to do with the AR18,."

    Other than the AR18's design derived from the AR16, nothing. Many still think Stoner designed the AR18 however.

    "Lastly, Gene worked with Reed for I guess the last 15 years of his life anyway, and never went back to an op-rod ‘assualt rifle’ in the AR form. He in fact made the DI a bit better and of course went back to the grandaddy, the AR10, for his SR25 series cumulating in the M110 ,and Knight’s SR16/16 in 5.56."

    Exactly. He had to reason to attempt another design of a gas piston AR15 because the military had no intention on adopting one. By that time anyway, the reliability issues had been largely ironed out of the M16.

    "Also you are incorrect about the more recent op-rod rifle from Colt (Winchester to be exact) in that somehow the 416 was the impetus for their development program. HKool-aid drinkers would of course like to believe that, that the all seeing all knowing super being at Orbendorf sprinkled fairy dust on the DI rifle and created a semi-devine op-rod rifle, but nothing is further from the truth. The grumblings of Sen Coburn (R-OK) had allot to do with it the interest in an op-rod rifle."

    I honestly do not believe that. I found it hilariously suspicious that Colt designed the APC (advanced piston carbine) and a hybrid gas/DI system after the HK 416 was first introduced. I respect what HK was trying to do, because they had intentions on improving the M4/M16 in a similar manner in which they improved the Enfield L86. Are both Colt system's better? I cannot say because I have never even held one. Based off of Colt's description, they have sparked my curiosity however.

    I believe that Colt (wisely) has designed both new gas piston and direct impingement rifles to secure their hold on the military's rifle/carbine contract. That would be a smart thing for them to do anyways.

    “The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system. Rifles were being designed with these systems in the 1920’s. Colt proposed a piston operated weapon to the Army in the early 1960’s. Today Colt Defense has the ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the U.S. military services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon”

    Which is great news. I'm glad to see a American company taking steps to ensure it remains relevant in the small arms world, especially with military contracts. Going back to the Colt APC, I would like to examine this carbine closely.

    "This is where your disconnect is. You believe that fundamentally changing Stoner’s design by adding an op-rod/piston is an improvement."

    No, that is not true at all. I believe in exploring the possibilities of making it more reliable. Given the fact that firearms technology is far ahead of the 1960's, it is important to keep our options open and explore a little into the unknown. But I'm glad we have that understanding.

    "It is not an improvement, and in fact a detriment i.e. increased weight, bulk, parts, and cost. When this thing all plays out, I think the op-rod M16 based on Stoner’s rifle will p*** into history. That is not to say an op-rod type rifle won’t be adopted some time in the future, that probably will be the case, but it will be designed that way."

    I cannot disagree with that. Personally, I hope the LSAT concept takes off and leaves cartridge-based weapons in the bin of history. It will be delightful to see such scientific breakthroughs in my lifetime.

    "Only lippy with you. You on the other had have problems with several of which Riceball and Lance come to mind. Whether you agree with Lance or not, or whether his position is valid or not, you attack him also. I could go look for more, but no time for Sergeants."

    I do have problems with anybody that posts disinformation or something utterly ridiculous. I also have a problem with people resorting to personal attacks and getting worked up over electrons printed over a electronic screen. You have the option of being civil, even with a disagreement, though I suppose to some it is easier to act like an *** hole.

    “And you are a AR15 fanboy who obviously believes everything he has read on the internet”.

    "Try an original thought, although imitation is the supreme form of flattery. In any case, I am a fan of a lightweight and proven rifle. I am not a fan of an afterthought scabbed on to that same rifle guised under the false pretense that it is now superior."

    Likewise with HK fanboy (which is a tired and old "insult"). I am a HK fanboy. I also a fanboy of all that goes bang, like FNH, Colt, Glock, etc, etc. In fact, out of my collection of private arms, I own two HK weapons. I honestly do not know how you drew to the HK fanboy conclusion, especially since my original point is that the 416 is not a horrific weapon and HK itself has very legitimate criticism like every other major gun manufacturer.

    "The criticism is based in the fallacy being perpetuated that adding an op-rod to the AR/M series is somehow superior the Stoner’s DI design. That is it. If a rifle originally designed with an op-rod is what is needed, then do that. Get a 550 series and be done with it."

    See this is where we part. I do not believe that scientific experimentation to possibly improve a soldier's killing capability is a fallacy. If this were the case, we would still be using smoothbore muskets. I don't give a baker's **** if it is a DI M4 or gas piston M4, as long as one weapon is objectively more reliable and improves the effectiveness of the man/woman in harms way. Of course, many believe the DI alter is sacred and should not be desecrated, though these same people seem to reject any notion that the design can possibly be improved upon. Reluctance (or fear?) to move ahead is cowardice.

    "You and I have different opinions. I carried and used the AR/M series in various configurations on more than one occasion, far more than you can fathom. With some tech improvements with materials and some mechanical, the rifle and particularly the carbine has come into it’s own, all the while maintaining the benefits of lighter weight, simplicity, better accuracy, and associated ergonomics."

    Oh i can fathom it, believe me. I respect the idea of the technological improvements in materials and methods of production, however. I read your link about the M4 (defense review), and saved it to my favorites.

    "All these piston conversion s whether by HK, LWRC, LMT, et. al., are a solution to a problem that does not exist. I will acknowledge that since the Bin Laden raid and the alleged use of the 416, now all of the sudden even some of the anti op-rod AR folks are giving the 416 a p*** , as though it is different. Well it isn’t, it is a conversion like they all are. A MK18 would have (and may have) done an equally good job at a lighter weight. Give me a Colt Commando type with a good rail, Vltor A5, and optic any day over an op-rod conversion."

    I believe the Bin Laden raid led to the 416 popularizing among gun enthusiasts (alongside the 2011 Chinook shootdown and the MSM photos of burnt HK 416 receivers). I think their logic is sound, as they see members of a elite unit using a specific weapon (whatever it is), leading them to associate the standard of the weapon to the standard of the people operating them. I wouldn't have minded carrying a Mk 18, because I would trust my personal weapon with my life (like I have trusted a M4, 416 and a SCAR).

  150. – Lance
    No one is saying the M27 isn't a 416 derivative and i'm pretty sure the M27 is classified as an AUTOMATIC RIFLE calling it a machinegun is like calling an MP5 an assault rifle.

  151. the M27 is not a LMG, but its used like one if that makes sense.

    its purpose to to lay down accurate suppressive fire, the issue IMO is that its magazine fed and right now we only have good 30rnd mags, in which the person is supposed to carry 20 magazines. im serious 20 magazines

  152. actually the MK16 was discontinued in SOCOM, since it did not offer anything over the M4. though the few purchased are still used some times

    the MK17 is very much used since its one of the best battle rifles you can get right now.

    a few buddies of mine recently had an OP that lased a day in which they were issued a MK16, when they got back they requested their M4A1's back. these guys are gun guys who know their stuff and they prefer the M4A1 over the SCAR, that should say something

  153. @ gwb
    Sorry, I had a senior moment; I meant to say the bigger the bullet – the bigger permanent cavity. (instead of more hydrostatic shock)

  154. KnowALittleBit | February 12, 2012 at 3:56 pm |

    Lance,

    That makes sense, but I can tell you there just isn't a dependable 100rd drum mag out there that is suitable for combat applications. The so-called Beta mag started life as the C-Mag, a dismal failure. When H&K almost snookered the Army with the XM-8, the autorifle variant was to be equipped with the BetaMag. Most folks don't know that in order to hedge their bets, H&K bought the rights to the C-Mag, which was reborn as the Beta ("new and improved" C-Mag). So, buying a Beta actually puts money in H&K's pocket due to licensing and royalties. Congress finally wised up back in 2006 and defunded the XM-8, and I see no reason anyone would want to buy the Beta since it is now an H&K product in all but name. On the other hand, the M249 SAW has always had magazine feed as a fallback if belted ammo isn't available. That goes back to its origin as the FN Herstal Minimi. Doesn't work real well, but the M249 is a true light machine gun, whereas the abortion the Marines adopted has all the drawbacks of the bipod equipped M16 from 'Nam days. That was a stop gap solution between the BAR and the SAW. At the end of the day, you can get away with using a light machine gun like the SAW in the autorifle role, especially with its 200 rd assault pack, but the reverse just isn't true. There simply isn't a rifle barrel out there that is designed to push the same number of rounds in the same amount of time as a machine gun. You'll never convince H&K fans of that, but it is what it is.

  155. Alex, the 5.56 was never developed as a shoot-to-wound system. As near as I can find, it's an old wives tale. 5.56 went forward because the smaller, lighter, faster round was believed to be adequately lethal on personnel while being more controllable in full-auto and more weight efficient for infantry.

  156. I have one, it's a so-so pistol. The magazines are very hit and miss and the extractor is on the small side. My Glock 19 has more extractor contact area than the FNP-45 (not 100% on this, it's an estimate). It's absolutely huge too.

  157. KnowALittleBit | February 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm |

    Objective system? As in the Objective Individual Combat System, of which the XM-8 was the 5.56MM kinetic weapon component. Hmmm, I think that was tried and called the XM-8. It cost you, the taxpayer, about $65M to fail; did you notice? "Soldiers" can't configure their weapons to "their satisfaction" for a very simple reason: The Soldiers aren't paid enough and the taxpayer isn't willing to pay more for a Buck Rogers weapon, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma notwithstanding. Also never mentioned in this entire dialogue is one simple fact: No Army, or other armed force, is ever going to equip their grunts with a weapon that exceeds the range of Command and Control. If they did, it would be a one time deal, eh? So, all the talk of what bullet is the best and what weapon is the best pretty much pales in comparison to that one simple fact, doesn't it?

  158. Yes, the AR should be replaced and so should the 5.56 round. The design is inherently less reliable. Many small components, uses hot dirty gas to propel the carrier and has a very large bearing surface. The design has so much self infliction involved.

    More specifically. Having a carrier that is guided by the upper receiver's shape, by the way of surface contact, into a receiver extension tube, if damaged, which it is prone to as it is "weak", will stop the gun from functioning. Then couple that with the increasing level of friction from the lubrication, that is self contaminated with the remnants of the fired cartridge, by itself will stop the gun from functioning properly. The gas tube is also very weak and is more easily damaged, which will stop the gun from functioning. Compared to other designs there is also more parts that need to be monitored and eventually replaced before failure to keep the gun functioning. Like the bolt; it isn't very strong, there are many lugs, but they are very small, making them weaker, eventually it needs to be replaced. There is also the added complexity (tuning) that the design incurs when shortening barrels and or adding suppressors. For instance: gas port size, buffer weights and springs. That is only speaking to a few problems with the AR design.

    The 5.56mm round is a fragmentation reliant design. High velocity is necessary, so a longer barrel is needed. Obviously a longer barrel is heavier and less wieldy. Removing barrel length to decrease weight and improve handling decreases the 5.56mm effectiveness overall and especially at longer distances. The bullet is very small in diameter and is generally on the lighter side. Without that high velocity the bullet just makes a small, not so noticeable (even for the person shot), hole. In other words, this means the 5.56mm does not transfer its energy. Yes, the cartridge allows you to carry more rounds for the weight, but you will need more rounds to kill. That actually is a good thing for police who do not want to kill, but are required to shoot someone. The bullet is also easily deflected by intermediaries. So again, you will need to carry more rounds. The bullet is also not very aerodynamic. It loses much of its velocity quickly, making it effective up to about 300m, even though you can hit targets out to 500-600m. Another negative about the 5.56 is it's a straight case design. This decreases probability of successful extraction.

    In contrast to the 5.56mm is the Russian design, their 5.45mm, it is tapered for more reliable extraction and has a bullet that is designed to tumble to transfer energy. It is better than the 5.56 in a few ways. Comparably, one of the biggest being is its effectiveness in shorter barrels.

    Combine the 5.56 cartridge with the M4 and you have a less reliable system. Both in mechanical function and lethality. It is light and accurate (with a free float rail) though. Seems to be its only redeeming qualities.

    The AR system should be replaced with a design that has a tappet or piston system. Has at least 2 gas adjustment settings. Can be fitted with a folding stock. Also the rifle should use a new cartridge similar to the 6.5mm, but with a slight taper and longer case (between 5.56 and 7.62 NATO) and a bullet between 100-123gr.

  159. @ Joshua and knowalittlebit

    Can you give me a facebook or email I got a few more questions to ask.

  160. KnowALittleBit | February 20, 2012 at 8:16 am |

    I like Joshua's solution K i t b e a r 0 8 at yahoo dot com

  161. @Nmate

    I do not see why you want to argue. My post was not meant for debate.

    The reality is, the 5.56mm was designed to be high velocity (longer barrels), a 14.5 inch barrel is not long. I do not see why you attempt to rationalize that .22 caliber for military use against humans. The philosophy of more rounds for the given weight is an understandable one, but people want to argue the 5.56mm's terminal effectiveness.

    It is simple, 5.56mm bullets have a low ballistic coefficient and are more easily deflected (same with 5.45mm) by vegetation. Without fragmentation or expanding bullets a .22 caliber is very unlikely to strike and accomplish the required damage to the necessary organs. Purely due to its diameter. If a .22 was an amazingly efficient caliber we wouldn't care for the .45 ACP.

    In terms of taper. I never said a large taper. A slight taper could be an aid in extraction from the chamber and not cause problems. Must a new round be tapered? Maybe not.

    What am I wrong about with the AR? I never said, "carbon fouling locks up the gun." I did say, "from functioning PROPERLY." What I am saying is the AR, as a complete system, is very much self defeating. How? You have a system with a spring extractor, spring ejector, cams off the receiver, gas rings, small lugs, obtrusive charging handle, a receiver extension that can't be used for striking and isn't capable of having a folding stock, a carrier that is reliant on surface contact (instead of "rails") to guide itself to the extension thereby increasing the bearing surface, requires staking of parts and can have carrier bounce.

    That isn't even mentioning the added heat and fouling. Or being over gassed with a suppressor. Or catastrophic failure when firing just after coming out of water.

    In regards to a new cartridge, it would obviously be better with more case capacity. More velocity, the better.

  162. [quote]"Or catastrophic failure when firing just after coming out of water"[/quote]
    According to some, fashioning(drilling) a drain hole in the buffer tube makes the above a non-issue.

  163. Thanks for the heads up!

    SALUS

  164. KnowALittleBit | February 27, 2012 at 8:03 am |

    Joshua, need some clarification on the following:

    "On the 5.56 you should go look up the 70gr barnes tsx, its an expanding bullet that is approved for miltary use…"

    "Approved" for military use by who? Which units are approved to use it, and when did it get into the inventory? Thanks!

  165. crackedlenses | March 5, 2012 at 8:03 pm |

    What I am suggesting is that soldiers have the option of choosing between a smaller assault rifle and a larger, heavier battle rifle. If it means pulling M14s out of storage and making them available, then I'm all for it.

    The reason I'm advocating this is that some soldiers will never be happy with anything less than a powerful, in-your-face battle rifle in 7.62 mm. I believe they should be given the freedom to choose to hump the monster if they really want to. And, those who are just happy with their M4s can keep them, and the two types will balance each other out.

    Expensive? Probably. But no rifle can do it all; like with the camo debate, if we want to cover all bases we are going to need more than one for standard issue….

  166. hey know, what is it about the M320 that got it accepted? To me its overly bulky and I much prefer the M203.

    only benefit i see to the M320 is its ability to side load the longer training rounds

  167. You can load much longer grenades into it. It can also more easily be used as a stand alone weapon. Theoretically, it's advantageous to the M203. I don't think those grenades are widely available, though.

  168. KnowALittleBit | March 7, 2012 at 7:20 am |

    Joshua, you still Active Duty?

  169. As far as I know, we can only use open tipped rifle ammunition so long as the open tip is for aiding accuracy and not increasing terminal effects. Units that are tasked with counter terrorism can use whatever ammunition they want, since counter terror is exempt for whatever reason. I'm not sure of the specifics.

  170. yall guys shoot me another email.

    i forgot to put yall in my contacts now i cant find your emails in my email that gets 40-50 spam messages a day lol

  171. The "Extreme Dust Test" is not all that great in my opinion. I always wonder why it is not commonly known that there was more than one Extreme Dust Test, the EDT that had the M4 failing to fire 882 times is actually the second EDT. The first EDT, sometimes the summer test, had the M4 failing to fire around 300 times. That's a difference of about 500. Why the difference? There was a different set of testers used on both. I imagine the guy who was about to retire from the military and had his resume submitted to Heckler and Koch is the reason for the 500 round difference. There are also a lot of subtleties that are glossed over about that test such as; the M4 and HK416 were the only rifles in actual service at the time of the test. The SCAR and XM8 were prototypes specially prepared for the test. The XM8 even used specialized magazines. Furthermore, most of the M4's FTFs were due to faulty magazines. Also, it is conveniently forgotten that the XM8 had about the same amount of catastrophic FTF as old M4s and the XM8 also had incidinces of actually cracking its lower receiver. I don't put faith in the extreme dust test, especially the winter one, it's just too fishy. Could anybody skew the test results by submitting old surplus M4s that needed to be overhauled to compete in the test, could anybody skew the test results by providing defective magazines for the M4? Probably and the startling different test results from the first test and the winter test make me believe that something less than honest was going on. I also noticed that defects with the Heckler and Koch offerings were downplayed to the point that most people don't realize that there were things wrong with them as well.

    I'm not much on conspiracy theories but the extreme dust really smells like one.

  172. 1000YdStare | March 5, 2013 at 10:03 pm |

    IMHO, the AR-15 DI is long in the tooth. No gun is flawless, but some are less flawed. The piston operated Robinson XCR (Circa 2012 or later), Steyr AUG and now the Isralie Travor all come to mind. These weapons just work. Google the reliability of an AUG! 16,000 rounds were recently put through the same AUG receiver with no malfunctions. This is the stuff an AR-15 platform can only dream of.

    In a gunfight in the middle of a desert with the Taliban closing in, I'll take one of the rifles mentioned above any day over an AR-15. I am not interested in a beauty contest (AUG and Travor lose, hands down) and I don't want a gun that needs to be cleaned three times a day with special lubricant to function properly. I want a gun that goes BANG every time I pull the trigger.

    Disclosure: I own both an XCR and an AUG A3, and a TRAVOR is on the way. Travor? Well, lets just say our friends in Israel know just a little bit more than us about fighting wars in the desert, and when you have been at war for thousands of years, you've learned to manufacture weapons your entire country can bet there unborn children's future on.

  173. I have never used an M16/M4, or for that matter any weapon, in combat but I still would like to put in my two cents worth. In the first place, the M16 was designed to, and first purchased by the US Air Force to, replace the M2 Carbine which was still in widespread usage by Air Force personnel. The M2s had not been subject to a service wide rebuilding program like the M1 Garand and were near the end of their useful lives. The 5.56 cartridge was designed using a new powder that eventually failed to meet US Army spec and rather than invest in trying to re-engineer the powder the manufacturer, who had small hope of receiving an Army contract simply stopped manufacturing it. The replacement powder used caused some problems with the weapon and in addition to that the weapon itself had some flaws, especially the lack of a chrome plated barrel or chamber as well as a buffer that was inadequate for the new powder. These problems were eventually corrected. The US Army and Marines adopted the M16 because it was available and they needed a rifle for the Vietnam War immediately. As I said before I've never been in combat and I'm hardly qualified to expound on the merits of on rifle vs another but one thing that is generally overlooked is both the M14 and older rifles exhibited problems during the war both from failure the chrome plate the barrel and chamber and warpage of the wood used their stocks creating accuracy problems. Most weapons, even legendary ones, have flaws. These flaws, with some notable exceptions like US torpedoes in WW2, usually don't prevent them from being used effectively provided their operators have been well trained.

Comments are closed.