The Army awarded Remington Arms Company an April 20 contract to make tens of thousands of M4A1 carbines. By outbidding Colt Defense — the original maker of the M4 — Remington may end up being the only winner in what many gun makers have labeled as the Army’s well-intentioned but doomed effort to arm soldiers with a better carbine.

On the upside, the award means that more soldiers will go into combat with the M4A1, a SOF version of the carbine that features a more durable barrel and a full-auto capability. The Army’s decision to dump the  three-round burst setting will give soldiers a more consistent trigger and better accuracy.   

It’s part of the service’s dual-path strategy to improve the individual carbine. Army weapons officials recently completed phase one of the service’s Improved Carbine Competition and will soon announce which companies proved they have the infrastructure and production capacity to turn out thousands of new weapons. Gun makers that advance to  the second and third phases of the competition will have hundreds of thousands of test rounds fired through their prototypes before the Army announces one winner.

Many small-arms firms believe the endeavor is a waste of time since the Army has shown no interest in new calibers or features that would increase modularity. In the end, the winner of the competition will likely lose when the Army conducts a business-case analysis comparing it to the new-and-improved carbine that emerges from the parallel effort known as the M4 Product Improvement Program.

Questions have already started to surface over just how successful the PIP will be since the Army recently canceled a search for an improved bolt and bolt-carrier assembly. Companies such as LWRC International, Remington and Smith & Wesson that competed for the bolt and bolt-carrier assembly portion of the PIP were notified by the Army April 10 that none of the submissions offered enough improvement over the M4′s existing bolt and bolt-carrier assembly. It will be interesting to see if similar efforts to improve components such as the selector-switch assembly and the forward-rail assembly suffer the same fate.

For now though, congratulations to Remington for winning a contract to make 24,000 M4A1s. More orders are likely to follow since last summer’s pre-solicitation detailed a requirement for 70,000-100,000 M4A1s. This has been a long, tedious road since the Army launched its improved carbine effort in late 2008, but Kit Up!, is going to follow it all the way to the bitter end.

{ 223 comments… read them below or add one }

Lance April 22, 2012 at 2:12 pm

All the way this is the better idea since there is no rifle on the market that w/o modular caliber and quick barrel change (which nullifies the ACR's advantage) allowed will be better than a standard M-4A1. The Fact the USMC and Navy said NO to any ICC winner anyway making this a army only program doomed this program last year. Over all the new Remington M-4A1s will address alot of issues they had with older M-4s in service. The addition of a free floating rail system will be the BIGGEST improvement. the USMC's M-27 IAR has ineradicable accuracy due to its FF system so adding it to M-4s and M-16s is only logical. Overall the cancellation of the new bolt/carrier isn't a lose since it was only the bolt lugs that had issues with shorter gas systems. A FF is the beast improvement to the design is made light enough.

Overall Colt wont lose as much as some think though the US Army own the rights to Colt's M-4 any companies who makes them for the Army still has to pay royalties to Colt to produce the weapons and the fact Colt makes SAWs and M-240s for the DoD now ensures they do fine. Im glad to see other US companies making money US military carbines. Remington quality is just as good if not better than Colt is anyway. Im sure that they be graet new M-4 in the future.


Mark Bigge April 22, 2012 at 2:16 pm

I would like to see some small business set asides for this contract
and the same for the optics


Joshua April 22, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Good for Remington.

They sill have huge hurdles to jump over to keep the contract, if they prove they cannot they will lose the TPD and have to destroy all information about it.

Colt still owns the TDP and the Army is just licensing it out to Remigton, im all for it though cheaper M4A1's hopefully means more will get new rifles.
As far as the IC? Its not going to go anywhere, it never was. No rifle to date does anything better than the M4, at most they are slight incremental upgrades, like auto capability, free floated barrels and cold hammer forged barrels, all of this can be had on current M4A1's.

They in no way fire the 5.56 any better than the M4 and they do not give any realistic reliabilty upgrade. I have never seen an M4 have issues that was not related to user error.

The money is better spent on new M4A1's and better training, clean you M4 when your at base(if in field do a quick wipe down daily), use lubrication(dry sand is harsh, wet sand is slick) and use good magazines and youll never have problems.

As for the BCG I can see why they stopped it, I have mever seen a performance upgrade that can actually be proven by a fancy expensive BCG when compared to one with current Crane spring upgrades.

Now a foreend can be proven to offer better performance, theres a reason our top SF groups use the DD RIS II


Norm April 22, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Official Army Position: We are very interested in improving all aspects of the current M4 carbine, as long as said improvements don't involve actually changing anything about it.

Why don't they just come out and say it? :)


HalP April 22, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Greg April 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Isn't it about time to designate new M4s as M4A2/M16A5s, and i think full auto will only shorten the life of the barrels inner workings and wear them down faster. Plus having a fully automatic firing carbine or rifles will cause a "kick up" in the fore/rear sights thus screwing up the accuracy.


This one dude named April 22, 2012 at 5:47 pm

Nobody said anything about full-auto only, the weapons probably will only ever be fired on semi-auto anyways. The benefits of a full-auto mechanism is more consistent trigger pull and therefore increased accuracy on semi-auto, AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE. Also, the new carbines aren't different weapons, they're just being manufactured by Remington as opposed to Colt (they're still M4A1s). I don't want to sound rude, but please actually take time to read the article before you comment.


Joshua April 22, 2012 at 8:17 pm

EXACTLY!!! the issue with burst triggers in our rifles is that each position of the cog has a different trigger pull, this causes inconsistencies when it comes to semi which is what you should honestly be using 99% of the time


rabbit April 22, 2012 at 7:28 pm

I would much rather see our soldiers getting SCARS, they work better than the m4s and don't jam from sand or mud, And the barrels can be changed out to fit the job. They are a much better rifle system than the m4 or m16


Lance April 22, 2012 at 8:19 pm

Overall the barrel change and caliber select was deleted so in 5.56mm only the M-4 was just as good no sense in wasting the money. More SCAR Hs for SOCOM in 7.62 NATO is a good thing though.


Joshua April 22, 2012 at 8:20 pm

I have never been issued a SCAR but the few people that I know who had them couldnt stand them.

I do have alot of experience with the M4 and I can say it doesnt just jam from sand or mud, though mud can be an issue if it gets into the chamber.

If you do your part and clean your rifle(ala quick wipe down when in the field daily) and keep it lubricated it wont jam.

I fail to see the point of barrel swap on a carbine since we only use 5.56, barrel swap is great for LMG's but thats about it.


Lance April 22, 2012 at 8:22 pm

From what I heard in 5.56mm most SOCOM operative ditched the SCAR and stayed with SOPMOD II M-4A1s. BUT… The SCAR H has gotten some traction its 7.62mm caliber and short barrel made it popular in tandem with M-14 EBRs in the sand box.


Joshua April 22, 2012 at 8:38 pm

the thing about the MK17 is that when it came out there were no other battle rifles like it.

you basically had the G3 and the FAL, none of those rifles offer modern designs like the MK17 did.

while the MK16 was found as offering nothing over new M4A1's the MK17 on the other hand was found to offer so much more than any other battle rifle at the time. Because of this SOCOM cancelled purchases of the MK16 to put the funding towards more MK17's and MK20's(sniper variant of the MK17).

the MK17 is actually liked, the MK16 is only liked by a few. I have also heard good things about the MK20 but never actually seen one other than pictures


Jr April 22, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Why not just get any new rifle. Do what was done with m14


Jr April 22, 2012 at 9:11 pm

And what's wrong with a bullpup design


Joshua April 22, 2012 at 9:16 pm

Alot, I'm going to put this as someone who has seen alot of combat put it when I asked this question.

Bullpups are for people who dont see alot of combat.


Lance April 22, 2012 at 9:22 pm

In combat experience the only Bullpups to do well are the British L-85 and the Austrian Styer AUG STG-77. Some designs are innovative but like the FS-2000 didn't do too well in exports. Overall KELTECs .308 Bullpup is the best design for a bullpup made but lacks military interests.


Joshua April 22, 2012 at 10:07 pm

There is a reason why SF groups of countries that use bullpups choose the M4 over it.


Dumb Grunt April 22, 2012 at 11:37 pm

Except for Israel and their Tavor rifle.

DBM May 30, 2014 at 9:26 pm

Lance, I'm glad to hear they finally fixed the L-85. It only had to be returned to the manufacturer 6 times that I know of. In august of 01 the brits were with us in Kuwait for war games. They couldn't fire their rifles the whole time they were in country. And brit made ammo sucks. Really dirty.


Andrew April 22, 2012 at 9:39 pm

What about the HK416?


Joshua April 22, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Doesn't offer any real advantages over a new M4A1 while costing almost double.


Lance April 22, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Id say the free floating barrel gives it a slight accuracy advantage but when the Army gets a FF barrel system to the M-4 it may negate the differences.


Lance April 22, 2012 at 11:45 pm

The Tavor in great in test but doesn't have that much combat experience yet, to tell if its one of the better designs. Maybe when the next war comes with the new Islamic Egypt we can see how it dose.


Dumb Grunt April 22, 2012 at 11:54 pm

Actually, the HK 416 does offer some advantages over the M4A1.
1. It stays cooler for higher sustained rates of fire. There by needing less lubrication.
2. The gas system will not blow up if the is water in it. If water gets into the gas tube of a M4A1 and you fire it, it will rupture dramatically.
3. Less heat/gas/carbon fouling in the receiver, means longer service life and easier to keep clean.


Lance April 22, 2012 at 11:57 pm

I say your right on some issue like that the HK major disadvantage is HKs inflated price on all of there products. The minor improvement isn't worth the transfer of systems.


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 4:32 am

1. Not an issue, using good lubricants it takes alot to burn them off. You should also not use a carbine like an LMG, precise aimed fire in semi is how you should be firing your rifle, also an M4A1 can can fire 12 mags back to back if the need be but that shows poor leadership.

2. Not an issue, give the rifle 3-4 seconds to drain or harge the rifle to drain it instantly. People always use this as a reason pistons are better but im not seeing it, ive also never seen anyones M4 blow up after being in water.

3. It doesnt mean longer service life, after 600 roundsthe BCG will only be about 110* well below the temp. They forge the metals at, you will bust the gas tube long before you do damage to the barrel or internals of a M4A1, as far as cleaning who cares? The M4 takes 10-15 minutes for a good cleaning, 2-3 for a combat cleaning, and 30 minutes for a white glove.

People always say well you dont have to clean a piston but the funny thing is, if you value your life youll clean your rifle daily anyways, ive seen M27 IAR guner cleaning their rifles just as much as the guys clean their M16's.

Look at it like this, you take care of your rifle and it will take care of you.


coolhand77 April 23, 2012 at 8:52 am

Case in point, my roomie just got a used "prototype" rifle from a well known rifle shop that was a piston conversion AR. They had Fail Zeroed the internals, but not the gas piston. When we got it, the action felt a little stiff and gritty, so we stripped it down to see what the issue was. Loe and behold, the piston plug wouldn't come out till I put a wrench on it and broke it free from all the carbon build up and the piston inside was almost in the same state. Another 1000 rounds and you would have probably had failures due to carbon build up. Pistons are not the end all, be all. They just move where the carbon build up happens, add parts to the rifle, and change how you take it down and clean it to make sure it doesn't jam. In an MG they have the benifit of reducing heat build up in the chamber area, but in civvie rifles, and the average grunt's rifle, they just add weight and complexity because you arn't supposed to run them as an LMG. Full auto is just for "emergency" situations where you need a sudden high volume of fire. Most of the time it should be fired semi auto, with deliberate aimed fire.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm

I believe that a M4 easily has the ability to be made stupid reliable. When the 416 was first conceived, it was created based on lessons learned from the M4, though since those first lessons were learned (after clearing out M4s from clean clinton-era storerooms and into deserts), more lessons about M4 reliability have been learned and many improvements to the internal parts have been made. One of these lessons is that CLP sucks, plain and simple; joshua and i went on a rant about the merits of synthetic motor oil a while ago :D

Everytime a army leaves a major war and enters peacetime until going to war again, it re-learns these little lessons.

I think a piston design has advantages and disadvantages, though i strongly prefer rifles that have been developed from the ground up to use a piston. I dont see the 416 becoming standardized among the army, or even a piston carbine by other companies adopted, though you can bet your *** that colt, not wanting to be stuck at a disadvantage again, has patented and designed their own gas piston carbines.


Dumb Grunt April 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm

Just stating facts.
1. You must use more lubricant for a Direct Gas Inpingement system than a Gas Piston system. If you do rapid fire few mags in an intense fight. Can you pull the bolt carrier group and hold it in your bare hands without getting burned???
2. Water in the gas tube is an issue, just because you have not seen it happen doesn't mean it has not happened. A 3-4 second delay to clear your gas tube can get some one killed or injured in combat. If it does blow, then what??? At best, you have a "bolt action" rifle.
3. The receiver(upper and lower) are more vulnerable to the thermal stress of the DGI system. Remember the receivers are made of aluminum not steel. The "internals" and barrel are made of steel, not aluminum. Less thermal stress on the receivers the longer the service life it should have.
4. I NEVER said the gas piston system was maintenance free.


Joshua April 24, 2012 at 7:36 am

Dumbgrunt your name is fitting.

1. Yes i put 660 rounds through my M4 in about 50 minutes and was able to grab the BCG, i onlt did so as a test to see how hot it was. While it was quite hot it was not unbarable

1.0 i dont think you use more lube? I use motor oil and after 660 rounds in about 50 minutes y BCG had plenty of lube left, i have pics on my computer.

1.1 let me ask you this, in the real world when would you take your BCG out in combat? Let me answer that for you….never, this is one of those things piston fanboys use that doesnt relate to the real world, also from 3 indipendent tests there is maybe a 40* diff between a M4 and a hk416 bolt carrier after multiple magazines.

2. Your wrong, drop your rifle in a mud puddle? Pick it up shake it off and charge it. Drop it in a water puddle? Pick it up skae it off and charge it. Takes 2 seconds.

If you honestly think those 2-3 seconds will get people killed your an idiot, going by your mindset if you have to reload your magazine people are going to die during those 2-3 seconds. Fact is 99% of the time those 2-3 seconds wont get anyone killed.

3. Your wrong, ive seen worn out BCG's, springs, gas tubes, barrels, stocks and RE's but never in my life have i seen a upper or lower damaged from the DI system.

Clearly you have no real world experience and are graspig at straw, but your just making a fool of yourself


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 11:14 am

One issue that the AR piston crowd fails to acknowledge is seized actions. Such a thing would prove disasterous for a HK 416 and other piston guns, requring the rail to be removed in order to free the gas piston. I have experienced such a thing with a poorly maintained 416 that had the gas piston neglected after thousands of rounds and a long sit period (it required a pair of pliers to remove it; ill add that heads rolled LOL). This is also the glaring advantage of a long stroke piston system; the "violence" of the inertia is excellent at mitigating possible system zeisures (PWS is the only company i know that uses long stroke pistons for their ARs, but i digress). I still believe gas piston guns that were designed from the ground up around the piston are still superior to even the finest piston ARs (the system was designed for DI afterall).

Its a matter of differences. matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so with a piston gun, you are bringing the heat and carbon to the gas block and piston, instead of to the critical bolt carrier area, which is advantageous with a gas piston and especially so if a suppressor is used. However, I believe proper lubrication can allow the DI to be just as reliable as a gas piston with the advantage of less moving parts. Less heat around the bolt and bolt carrier group is a good thing.

I think the "over the beach" capability is only relevant to special operations forces rather than regular infantry. Draining a DI gun of water is a couple second process anyways.

A well disciplined unit will clean and properly oil a 416 (or any other piston gun to include the AK), just like they cleaned and properly oiled their M4s. From my experience, the 416 is a bit more forgiving of neglect than a M4, though this is a moot point for everybody except special forces units that spend considerable times in the field with a high operations tempo. Of course, adequately lubing a DI M4 will also give it similar optimal performance.

Also in my experience, the upper and lower receivers receive more wear externally (from the environment and terrain) than internally, even after tens of thousands of rounds. There is more wear in the bolt carrier group and components in a DI gun than the upper receiver itself.

There is a reason why the 416 was conceived and fielded. It is more advantageous for 1st SFOD-D and DEVGRU to use the 416 than it is a regular infantryman simply because of the elements, operations tempo, and use of sound suppressors. That goes without saying that the M4 and Mk 18 are also still used for a very good reason: they are fine weapon systems.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 12:44 am

the unit cost for a M4 and HK416 is actually pretty similar. Research the HK website. its about what you want to do with your money actually (speaking from the perspective of a nation's military).

The 416 has many measurable advantages over the M4, though, in my opinion, there are better weapons out there than the 416.


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 4:25 am

Well i have never seen a HK416 go for $678 in military purchases, which is now what the Army is payig, before that it was $898 for a new M4, still $400 cheaper than an HK.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 1:33 pm

the army is paying 678? i thought it was approximately 12-1300 for a fully equipped rifle?

Anyways, the DOD price for the 416 is way different, being 1425.


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 8:29 pm

now that Remington got the contract they are.

it used to be around $1200 for a M4A1, now its $678


Go Navy! April 24, 2012 at 9:02 am

Why can't HK give civilians that price? :) :)


coolhand77 April 24, 2012 at 9:16 am

Because they are HK, we are civilian serfs, and we don't deserve guns unless we are the rich royalty, a government, or a mexican drug lord? [they just got stomped on for selling weapons to a mexican state that was on the "no sell to" list IIRC]


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 10:03 am

Thats actually exciting.

HK's military/DOD pricing is competitive, though 678 dollars a pop, which isa complete rifle with rails, etc i assume but cannot substantiate, is hard to beat.

Yeah HK didn't technically do anything wrong with Mexico, though selling arms to the federal government is just as bad, if not worse, than the state of Chihuahua, though HK sold to the central weapons purchasing authority.


Buzz April 23, 2012 at 2:40 am

Great now the soldiers have another spray and pray weapon to burn up ammo and rifle barrells.

AND it still fires a round that is basically worthless as a man stopper, especially when they have been smoking opium. Speaking of which thats probably what the army leadership was doing when they decided to stay with M-16 design.


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 4:36 am

If they are doped up on adreneline and other stimulants it doesnt matter what you shoot them with.

When facing an enemy high on stimulants your only real means of stopping him is with good shot placement, head/upper spinal cord.

Ive seen someone doped up on stimulants get shot 9 times by a .45 and keep going, ive also seen one get hit by 2 tazers who kept coming, he eventually died because the tazers stopped his heart.

An enemy like that only stops when you stop his brain.


Riceball April 23, 2012 at 12:18 pm

Yes and no. You hit anybody with a .50 they will definitely drop no matter how much adrenaline, or drugs they're on. Actually, I should restate, you won't drop them per se, but you'll guarantee stop them, nobody will keep coming when there's giant bloody hole in their chest.


coolhand77 April 23, 2012 at 12:32 pm

I hate to nit pick…
Yes, I know its an unverifiable anticdote, but I seem to recall a story from a "been there, done that" guy of a ND on a firing range involving a Barrett and a SEAL. Now, most people, I agree, won't keep coming when theres a .50 cal hole blown through their center mass, however this guy took the round in the leg and it made a clean through and through hole in him [obviously missing bone and the femoral artery]. They had to pull him off the guy with the Barrett to treat him as he was more interested in beating the crap out of the guy that shot him.
Conversely, another individual who I talked to [Will Hayden of Red Jacket fame] related [and I have seen photographic evidence to confirm] what a 5.56, 55 grain bullet out of an M16A1 [1 in 12 twist] will do to the human body inside the "effective fragmentation range". He mentioned holes you could put a fist in as exit wounds, and after seeing the damage done to someone's thigh over in the Phillipines, I can confirm when that sucker tumbles and fragments, it makes a mess.
Shot placement, and terminal effects do make a difference, and blowing a great big hole in someone only works when they know it [psycological], and/or you hit something that causes rapid or instantanious incapacitation [physical]. Those are the ONLY 100% stoppers.


majrod April 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm

coolhand – interesting post and there is much that is obviously true especially your bottom line. I find it hard to believe anyone had a through and through with a .50. The forces involved are just enormous. Maybe a fragment or even getting nicked but a through and through in the leg? It's hard to believe there's enough meat on anyone's leg to fit a through and through unless the guy's name was Goliath.

jumper April 24, 2012 at 8:10 am

I don't beleive that story for a second. I've seen both ballistic testing, and real world application, of the .50 BMG round. The energy even a thru-and-thru imparts on a person is absolutely incredible. Even if it misses directly hitting bone or major blood vessel (unlikely) the kinetic force and shockwave demolishes the tissue, certainly past the point of being able to walk on it and go beat some *** afterwards.

The 5.56 does do some nasty damage as well… it's fast enough to become unstable and tumble once it enters a body and makes a **** of a mess.

coolhand77 April 24, 2012 at 8:56 am

Thats fine, I was relating the story as it was related to me. Frankly, you see bullets do some strange damn things. Bullets that SHOULD expand or fragment punch through and through, while bullets that should hold together fragment violently.
I think the point was it was an almost point blank hit. Never did elaborate on WHERE that hit was on the leg…****, a through and through of the calf muscle might miss everything vital and leave you "hopping mad". I'm not a SEAL, but from what I hear, those SOBs have a "don't quit till you are dead" mentality…and pain just ****** them off.

rapier975 April 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm


Col. Beckwith was gutshot with a .51 round in Vietnam. Obviously it didnt kill him or blow him apart, as he went on to form SFOD D


majrod April 23, 2012 at 6:01 pm

rapier – again interesting but I'm skeptical. I've seen what people look like after getting hit with a .50. It's unlike must calibers. Check out the door gunner's description of the incident in the review section of this page.

Here's a link to another site that talks about .50 cal wounds.


Joshua April 24, 2012 at 8:46 am

Sean parnell also reported about hitting an al quida member with the M2 and takig his arm off.

When i made my statement it more in relation to small arms fire, dope up enemies will withstand small arms fire.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 4:24 pm

the 5.56 is anything but "worthless as a man stopper". While this may be true with the M855, other rounds in the military inventory, such as the Mk 262 Mod 0 and 1, Mk318, and M855A1 make it extremely accurate and effective in taking down a human target.


Jr April 23, 2012 at 4:06 am

Ok what about the acr or scar xm8


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 4:23 am

Great for Israel and their conscript Army, it still doesnt mean a bullpup is that great of a rifle, when the SOF groups of countries issuing bullpups choose an AR pattern rifle that should tell you something.

Nothing against Israel but their army is just that, a conscript army.


Matt April 23, 2012 at 6:47 am

The SCAR 16 is not a very good weapon, little after market support and spotty help from the folks at FN, the 17 is a 7.62 battle rifle unlike other so it has a huge use as a support or spotter weapon.
Glad the army decided to keep the M4 and gave Remington a contract. FF hand guard full auto capability, outstanding. I've used the M16 series on 3 Iraq trips and in RC south Afgahnistan….I've noticed a lot of critics of the system……but none from veterans of current operations, the system is proven…the system works.

The new brownells brown follower mags were great over there.


Matt April 23, 2012 at 6:50 am

Also let's not forget we are in a budget cutting era, going to some new unproven design could be a disaster in this new era, we have a proven 50+ year old design that we can continue upgrading
Tia system was designed in the 50s, we are into the second decade of the 21st century and this weapon is still standard A in numerous NATO formations very popular with elites and has huge industry support.
Maybe a new carbine can do better, but in this era so austerity…I don't see a point


Greg April 23, 2012 at 9:40 am

Exactly the system is familiar and simple to use and operate, it's in the DNA of every soldier, marine, airman, sailor, and SF here and abroad.


Greg April 23, 2012 at 9:47 am

Alot of those vets are probably from vietnam mostly, when the original M16 and CAR-15s had the tendency to jam more than usual. Witch is why it's been updated from A1, A2, A4 and maybe one day and A5. then the CAR-15, M727 and M4s ect, no weapon is full proof but the AR series is one of the most used, recognized and simple.


Matt April 24, 2012 at 7:05 am

Yeah the original M16 as designed by stoner was a great weapon, until McNamara got his hands on it..cut corners and fielded way to quick

It really damaged the weapons reputation for a generation, I can remember as a kid hearing the horror stories about it, I entered the army very sceptical about the weapon, all those worries are gone, and the M16/M4 is a favorite of mine…****, I own 3 AR style rifles.


coolhand77 April 23, 2012 at 9:00 am

The Troy TRX is relatively inexpensive, robust, light, and can be customised. Ther are also other options out there. You don't HAVE to spend $500 on a freefloat quad rail juggernaut boat anchor anymore.
Oh, and gas tubes are about as close as you can get to a true "free float" as you can get without going recoil operated, roller locked delayed blow back, or some other system. Theoretically you should be able to successfully freefloat a gas piston, but as i stated above, unless its an LMG, you don't really NEED a piston.


Billy April 23, 2012 at 10:04 am

Why not have a M4/A1 with Semi, Burst, and Full Auto?


coolhand77 April 23, 2012 at 10:26 am

Simplicity. Less internal parts, more consistant trigger pull, less chance of hitting the wrong setting in a hairy situation. Its really obvious when all settings are in 90 degree increments. Off, On, and YEEEHAWWWW [or as some of us who don't use them call it, the happy switch].
Heres a better question…why burst? What does burst fire give you that good trigger control on full auto doesn't?


Riceball April 23, 2012 at 12:30 pm

I don't think the issue was trigger control on bust vs. auto but in semi vs. burst vs. auto. From what I understand something about the burst trigger makes trigger control more of an issue when fired in semi than it does when you have a full auto trigger. I do know that the switch from full auto to burst was because the military, namely the Corps, felt that full auto was a waste of ammo (a long running theme in the US military) and that a 3 round burst was better since you're supposed to fire in bursts, even with full auto, anyway. I believe this all came out of post-Vietnam research where it was, apparently, found that the troops were apt to simply just rock 'n roll on full auto instead of aimed shots on semi or controlled bursts in full auto. Of course this disregard the facts that a lot of the troops on the ground were conscripts and didn't have as much training as troops do today but that's what the research indicated and traditionally the US military has always been reluctant to issue rapid fire weapons in fear of the troops wasting ammo; this was (so I've read) the reason why the Army didn't field many, if any, lever action rifles during the Civil & Indian Wars period, and why some brass were at first reluctant to field the Garand.


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm

The reason a burs trigger group is loathed is because it has a cog in it.

The cog is what tells the trigger how many rounds to fire, this cog us also what gives every trigger pull in semi a different feel.

To get proper shot placement you want your trigger pull to be the same every time, having three different trigger pulls is not ideal. Thats why people dont like burst.


majrod April 23, 2012 at 10:40 am

"The Fact the USMC and Navy said NO to any ICC winner anyway making this a army only program doomed this program last year."

Why would the USMC and Navy saying no to an Army program doom it? DUH!!! Ever heard of the XM25? What about the M1 Garand? Yes! The Navy/Marines actually said "no" to the M1 Garand that the Army adopted and the Marines backtracked on two years later. The ICC will probably fail. It has nothing to do with the other branches buying in. That's just hubris talking.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 1:21 pm


or the krag-jorgenson rifle, johnson 1941 rifle and its machine gun variant, and the…you guessed it…M16.

The M16 was initially adopted by the Air Force and, later, very reluctantly by the Army, which was dead set on the M14.


Lance April 23, 2012 at 1:47 pm

The M-16 was not just a USAF rifle it was used by Special Force and approved for Vietnam. Initially the Army was against the M-16 but by 1964 adopted it for most US units sent to Vietnam. The M-1 was not rejected by the USMC but they did a watch and see with it. After Army units used it the USMC then adopted it. The USMC has not always gone. with the army on rifles. Civil War units had Remington Zuave rifle over Army 1861 rifles. In WW2 they did use 1941 rifle and LMG Army did not. They (except for SOCOM units) went with a AR-10 platform first the army followed them on it. The main fact is with sequestration cuts and bad politics happening most services have to have other backers to help programs get threw the budget drama. JLTV is a key where the USMC saved it from the chopping block last year, from a all Army program. The fact not all services would use a ICC winner makes it less popular and logical to generals who know they need to have partners to save R&D projects.

The XM-25 is a army weapon, outside of test Marines have not adopted it. And the USMC is also NOT adopting the M-320 and staying with M-203s. The USMC wants there own automatic grenade launcher but to use 40mm grenades not the XM-25s 25mm grenades.


majrod April 23, 2012 at 5:46 pm

"watch and see"? Revisionist history. The Army adopted the M1 in '36, deliveries in '37. Up to the Nov '40 trials "where the M1 again came out on top, but Marine officers believed all of these designs to be inferior to the standard M1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle."

According to Gen Hatcher's "Book of the Garand" The USMC conducted another trial in Dec '40. Test included the M1903, the Garand, a Winchester Semi-Auto, and the Pedersen rifle. The Marine Corps Officially selected the M1903 Springfield, while noting that the Garand was the best of the semi-autos.

Yeah, that's not rejecting. LOL!!! It took four years to overcome their reservations about reliability, accuracy and fear that Marines would use too much ammo. Smarter Marines saw the writing on the wall and changed their mind four months later.

My point remains that the Marines and Navy's participation isn't "doom" for the ICC. It's irrelevant. Look up "hubris".


Lance April 23, 2012 at 6:43 pm

No really majrod the 1903 is just once case your making and the Marines adopted it after 1942. Mostly they didn't think the M-1 would be perfect right off and they chose a watch and see approach till Army units on Guadalcanal proved them other wise. Just because the Corps didn't buy into M-1s doesn't mean squat in the ICC battle. They use different weapons from the army. They said there will NOT never use a ICC winner, and so make this a army only weapon then (which now looks like a all M-4 army). The army is going all carbine (now seems just all M-4s) and the USMC is staying with M-16A4s and M-4s for special Marines to carry. The Navy too isn't going all carbine they use M-16A2s and M-16A3s with only crews, SPs and SEALs using M-4s. Not all services will go the old cold war way and use a universal weapon for all services anymore likely every service will look even more drastically different from one another something that didn't happen 30 year ago.


majrod April 23, 2012 at 10:31 pm

"Mostly they didn’t think the M-1 would be perfect right off and they chose a watch and see approach till Army units on Guadalcanal proved them other wise."

The Marines ordered their first 50,00 M1s in Mar '41. Guadalcanal happened in Aug '42. The Marines had adopted the M1 almost a year earlier.


Lance April 23, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Yet no Marines in the PTO did not get M-1s till 1943 and even alot of Army units had 03s till 1944. So in the end the M-1 which one fo the best weapon we had in service was not fully fielded even in the army till 2 1/2 years after US entered the war. And the 03 was around in several niches till after Korea ended in 53. And while the Corps had some work being done in 41 with M-1s they didn't use them in combat till 43.


majrod April 24, 2012 at 10:07 am

"Yet no Marines in the PTO did not get M-1s till 1943…Corps had some work being done in 41 with M-1s they didn’t use them in combat till 43."

The 2nd Marine Raiders had M1s at Makin Island in Aug '42. (Don't you get tired of being wrong?)

Marines and their fans never admit mistakes. The Marines adopted the M1 late because of a bias for the 1903 and pride. Their propaganda machine later blamed the lateness of issue on Marines getting equipment last or the Army having a higher priority which is entirely untrue (just like hand me down equipment). The USMC dallied with the M1 and then tried to pawn their tardiness on the Army.


majrod April 23, 2012 at 10:46 am

Why spend millions if not billions for a slight incremental improvement? The only reason the Army is even doing this competition is so they have data to counter the Congressman lobbying for a change because his district happens to have a small arms factory. Anyone who looks at the last 100 years can see we don't change the primary rifle unless there's a SIGNIFICANT improvement to lethality, reliability or accuracy (M1903, M1, M14, M16). It's that simple and those focused on the latest sales literature don't get it.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 4:13 pm

Im not sure, majrod, but the military invests hundreds of billions of projects like the F35, F22, and others despite the F15 and F16 being still able to more than match anything in the sky right now. It just seems hypocritical to not want to change the military's carbine because it is only a slight improvement when they do the same thing with other weapon systems. The slight cutting edge how the military industrial complex survives and thrives.


Lance April 23, 2012 at 4:42 pm

While the cutting edge works well with fighters and ships not so much for ground weapons. Remember our tanks till near the end of WW2 where horrible in performance compared to German tanks and the Sherman was cutting edge in early war America. Same goes for Krag Jorgenson. In which in a world of Mauser rifle was obsolete before it was adopted in 1893 so in small arms terms the military industrial complex is off, and in the world of cutted budgets and sequestration the army is looking to save much bigger and more important projects like JLTV and Armed Scout helicopter than this waste of time that was brought on by politics not solders in the field.


majrod April 23, 2012 at 5:49 pm

xc – Time will tell and we can revisit. In the meantime there's a much bigger difference between the A/C you describe than between the M4 and its competitors.


majrod April 23, 2012 at 10:49 am

Dan – might want to follow your advice. Greg said "i think full auto will only shorten…" not "full auto only".


majrod April 23, 2012 at 10:52 am

Agree with you Josh


majrod April 23, 2012 at 10:58 am

Great and thoughtful comments so far!


Go Navy! April 24, 2012 at 9:10 am

This issue of the M4 will go on and on. I personally don't have issues with my M&P15. Of course, I am not in the sandbox a world away or the round count of the active combat soldier. Like any other firearm, it needs to be maintained and parts will wear out. I think the M4 and M16 series will here for a very long time. (look at the AK47/74 series….still going on strong).


Jim37F April 23, 2012 at 11:01 am

RE the barrel swap, there have been plenty of times I wished I could remove the barrel of my M4 simply to get easier access to the star chamber for cleaning lol Other than that, there really isn't a practical reason for a carbine to have a quick change barrel


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 1:45 pm

there's no reason to re-learn and re-train for bullpups when we have been using the conventional layout M16 since the 60's.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 1:50 pm

It is my opinion that the SCAR "does work better", though its hard justifying re-equipping the whole army (though I like the idea). You are still limiting the platform to the 5.56mm cartridge and using AR15 magazines, so the effectiveness of the SCAR is limited by those factors. I also believe the 5.56 and 7.62mm's capabilities overlap and the army will stick with the 5.56, especially using improved cartridges.

The "H" variant is better than the M14, though walnut and steel purists will burn you at the stake LOL ;) The H variant and Mk 20 will become more popular. I like the M14, though I believe the SCAR H is measurably better than the M14, G3, and FAL.


Lance April 23, 2012 at 1:59 pm

In a way your right Xcalbr. Overall we can argue over which is best weapon. But there both a fixed barreled 5.56mm platform so there no logic and cost sense in a switch. The M-4 will go bang and kill a IslamoNazi as good as any other gun.


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 4:19 pm

like i have said a hundred times before, if you put a full automatic trigger group (even to justify improving the trigger pull LOL), heavier barrel (like noveske?), free float rail, good magazines (like the tan follower GI mags), and nickel BCG with a SOPMOD upgrade kit, then the M4 can be made to be extremely reliable. oh, and dont forget replacement of CLP.


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 8:27 pm

NiB has not proven to be more reliable, actually according to ARMY PiP it offered no improvement, since thats what LWRC entered.

NIB is touted as not needing lubrication, im sorry but anything that says you dont need lube is probably a gimmick, ive used a NiB BCG in my rifle and had horrible results with the bolt sticking and making it almost impossible to charge.

if they gave me a NiB BCG id pay out of pocket to get a good phosphate one


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 10:17 pm

I dont agree that "it doesn't need lubrication", but it is a standing fact that such bolts are easier to clean and do have several advantages, which is why newer mortar tubes incorporate the coating.

I remain skeptical of the army report (which i would like to see), because the DOE and DOD have tested them (Fail Zero brand i believe) and they have more than a measurable improvement in reliability. If Nickel Boron improves the wear life on jet engine parts, then it is certainly good enough for a rifle.

I have had extraordinary results with my NiB BCG and so have many other people I know. Of course, its reliability was compounded when I transitioned to Froglube. I hate marketing BS, but sometimes you run into things that simply work and excel your standards.


Pistol762 April 23, 2012 at 1:52 pm

Perhaps a rock might be better to reach out and touch someone!

Somewhere there has to be acompromise on ammo basic load, range of rifle, weight of weapon, stopping power. Not at all sure the carbine is an answer other than fiscal solution, cheap to make.


Jim April 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm

Bullpups for people who dont see much combat?? Bloody cheek!


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 8:31 pm

ok let me fix that bullpups are for countries that dont win wars.

lets see british chose the L85A2 and the SAS chose the L119A1(M4)


Jim April 23, 2012 at 4:08 pm

The reason why SF use M4 variants is usually the weight (SUSAT mounted L85A2, is 2kg heavier than an M4) of the issue L85A2. Its a more accurate weapon with a longer barrel but a shorter overall length. The L85 suffers somewhat from balance issues as being very short, it has a higher centre of gravity. Bullpups are unlikley to make an entry into the US arsenal as they are non traditional, at least that seems to be the rationale. Bullpups had a bad reputation which the A1 did nothing to disprove, but the A2 is a world beating weapon, The M4 and its upgrades and variants, fit the bill for a much larger army, like the US.


Joshua April 23, 2012 at 8:36 pm

barrel length has no effect on accuracy, if my 10.3" MK18 can get 1.5moa groups with mk262 and hit targets at 500yrds I dont need a longer barrel.

bullpups suffer from LoP issues
bullpups suffer from ****** triggers
bullpups suffer from lack of ambidextrous features
bullpups suffer from harder to diagnose stoppages(have to unshoulder the rifle to check the ejection port)
bullpups cannot be used on your weak side when going around corners or using cover

I will say it again, its telling when the SOF groups of countries issuing bullpups choose AR-15 platform rifles


Tim April 24, 2012 at 10:43 am

"bullpups suffer from LoP issues
bullpups suffer from ****** triggers
bullpups suffer from lack of ambidextrous features
bullpups suffer from harder to diagnose stoppages(have to unshoulder the rifle to check the ejection port)
bullpups cannot be used on your weak side when going around corners or using cover"

None of these issues are inherent to a bullpup design (except the stoppage diagnosis which also applies to AR-style rifles when firing from your weak side), they are design flaws of particular rifles.


coolhand77 April 24, 2012 at 10:53 am

First one is solvable in the initial design. Frankly its all a matter of using the right length internal mechanism. I seem to recall a russian prototype with an internal "loader" system that had the magazine almost all the way back to the shoulder of the shooter. It also had forward or downward ejection which solved the 6th gripe on the list, going around weak side corners. in fact the P90 is technically a bullpup layout and it ejects brass down, again, solving that problem. My FS2000 ejects forward, solving that problem.
Crap triggers? Again, design issues, easily solvable. The RFP seems to have an excellent trigger. My FS2000's trigger was improved just by adding one part, and the same retrofit works on the F2000 and the AUG.
Ambidexterous features-only non ambi feature on the F2000 is the charging handle. Funny, the AR15 and the AK family are in no way fully ambi either, so this is a non starter.
the only one left is the stoppages, and frankly, thats a matter of training, and maybe design. In fact, if you have a stoppage on a conventional BP with a right side ejection port, all you have to do is rotate the rifle the same way you do an AR or an AK to see the ejection port and diagnose the issue and its right there in your face instead of a foot from your face…I see no difference.
Been over these arguments before, can you tell?


xcalbr April 23, 2012 at 10:33 pm

I honestly don't believe that the L85 is more accurate. I just dont see a reason to adopt a bullpup for CQB and perceived improved accuracy when you can just use high quality ammunition that allows conventional layout SBRs to be astonishingly accurate.


Matt April 24, 2012 at 7:12 am

I'm not a big bullpup fan. I have fired an L85 A2 when I was in Germany during some joint training with the Brits.

I didnt see any issues with it, I liked the SUSAT reticle a lot I have heard the horror stories about the L85A1 the stories sound a lot like the M16 s teething problems.

Funny that the L85 is based on the AR18 designed by stoner after he left armalite.


coolhand77 April 24, 2012 at 7:31 am

Yah, they changed some things internally from the 18 and apparently screwed the pooch on the first runs.
Frankly, if they could lighten it up, and change over to forward eject [FS2000 and some AK bullpup varients] that would solve quite a bit. Keltec proved you can fix the bullpup trigger issue too.
The reason for a longer barrel is not accuracy. Its better TERMINAL performance as terminal performance is dependent on impact velocity. The effective range of terminal effects increases in relation to muzzle velocity, therefore if the bullet leaves the barrel faster [longer barrel equals higher MV] it drops below its effective terminal velocity at a longer range. The 5.56 was meant for 20" barrels. Chopping 5.5 inches off them for the M4 reduced the effective range with the M193 and M855 projectiles. The M855A1 was supposedly developed to adress this [more MV out of an M4 Barrel] but it increases the chamber pressures up near proof load level which will wear out the rifles even faster. There have also been comments that the terminal effectiveness isn't any better than the M855 green tip ammo.


Lance April 24, 2012 at 12:18 pm

No Maj rod there was some doubt about the semi-auto rifle and the Marines waited a bit to see how it dose in combat. Glad it worked and the USMC in the end adopted it and had pride in using it to defeat Japan. This debate has NOTHING to do with the fact the M-4 is staying in service much longer than just some predicted.

Main fact is the Army and Marines will have very different structure uniforms and weapons from now on.


bryson April 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Lance, you are DEAD wrong. Majrod has it correct. Look up the Battle for Guadalcanal, and tell me what rifles the Marines had, and what was being RUSHED to them (even by submarine in some cases) just to get them the best weapon on any battlefield at that time.
All branches can choose what they want for weapons, but when they ignored the M1 rifle, the USMC made a costly mistake that cost mens lives in the PTO. History is a series of facts that can be researched. I suggest you do some.


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 3:26 pm

"Main fact is the Army and Marines will have very different structure uniforms and weapons from now on."

I can see having different vehicles better suited for amphibious operations, though I find it astronomically stupid that the Marines have different uniforms and small arms.

Every branch needs the same uniform, LCE, body armor, MOLLE pockets, radios, helmet, handgun, carbine, LMG, and GPMG. It is not only possible, it can happen tomorrow if the SECDEF actually did his job.


Lance April 24, 2012 at 4:12 pm

@ Bryson

I was saying it may have been a mistake not to go with all M-1s but look at the BIG picture the M-1 was a revolutionary rifle in the days where all other power where still stuck with bolt action rifles. While the M-1 proved itself before the US entered the war not everyone was bought on it. the Army adopted in 36 but too did NOT field it in any numbers til 1943 most army units in Africa, Italy and New Guinea had 03s till 1943. Some units did have M-1s but not all. It took full US war production 3 years to make the M-1 issued for every rifle man in the US Armed Forces. So IM NOT saying ti was right to stay with 03s as late as they did but they did, not my decision. This has nothing to due with the current debate. The M-4 and M-16 are just as good as any new gun on the market we are not talking about a revolution in small arms like the M-1 was in the 30- early 40s. Were talking about a 5.56mm mag feed rifle a ACR in that respect is the same as a M-4.

However @ xcalbr and Bryson
There is no revolutionary weapon on the market so the USMC is staying with there own weapon the M-16A4 which is still world class weapon and is better than the Army M-4 in some areas. You might not like it but the USMC and the Army already have different uniforms helicopters APCs and yes in a way different Rifles and in some way pistols the USMC has M-9s for most troops and even made a better version the M-9A1 in service. But they use M-45 also and is one of the only services to use .45 AUTO anymore. The Army has alot of M-16A2s in service, but infantry units use all M-4s. the USMC uses M-16A4s and only give M-4s to specialist in the field. So hate it or not both services will be different in every way to each other,


majrod April 24, 2012 at 5:10 pm

"most army units in Africa, Italy and New Guinea had 03s till 1943."

Uh, no (again). All those Army units had M1s as their primary rifle. The Army used the 1903's for basic marksmanship instruction and stateside units. Deploying units were issued M1s.

Obviously you don't get tired of being wrong.


Joshua April 24, 2012 at 1:31 pm

I agree with this.

If we ever go to war with a state of the art military our small arms wont win it.

A true war is won or lost by your ships, planes, tanks, etc these are the things to focus on.

When you already have an excellent small arms platform like the M16FOW, money is better spent havig the cuttig edge vehicles vs a new rifle that offers maybe a .5% increase.


Joshua April 24, 2012 at 1:40 pm

You can argue it all you want but the proof is right there in front of you.

No SOF groups use bullpups, but 90% of them use the M4 or an AR-15 pattern rifle.

The P90 is the only exception but its not a combat rifle, its a PDW completely different thing.


moore April 24, 2012 at 2:32 pm

Hum im more worried about the full auto feature then anything else. I have read and heard the stories during vietnam of troops going full auto, and not hitting a **** thing, and quickly running out of ammo. Substain fire will do wonders, but i can see troops fliping the switch over to full auto, and wasting a whole mag and still only hitting the target once or twice.


Joshua April 24, 2012 at 4:19 pm

thats when the leaders do their jobs and nip that **** in the bud real fast.

any leader worth 2 cents will keep his guys on semi.


rapier975 April 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm

By and large, today's troops are better trained than drafted troops were in Vietnam. Anymore, it is actualy quite rare to see a Soldier utilize anything other than semi-automatic. You can easily dump a mag faster using 3 rnd burst than you could using semi, and yet Soldiers are not doing this. My PD's SRT has full auto weapons, and we still dont use that function.


Lance April 24, 2012 at 4:35 pm

In Vietnam some marine commanders made order for men NOT to have there rifles on full auto and kept them on semi in some ways full auto nor burst isn't needed in much combat situations.


Jordan April 24, 2012 at 7:52 pm

What is it with ******* "officer think." That if "leadership" doesn't address some "problem" in a stereotypically heavy-handed fashion, the enlisted men will just fall all sorts of ******* apart. "On full auto they will fire forever and run out of ammo." No, they will probably switch to semi. OR…they already have their weapon on semi because they are not in a CQB/VBSS situation, and they already know how to shoot, because they've been on more deployments and more firefights than the O around them, and the O in charge of procuring weapons.


Old Soldier April 26, 2012 at 2:59 am

True story:

Back in '79, I heard a master sergeant talking about what a waste of time marksmanship training was. He boasted that he had never aimed his rifle during any firefights, keeping his face in the dirt and relying on full-auto to pump out lots of rounds. This benighted soul was not in a line company, but he is proof that "pray and spray" was a reality.


bryson April 24, 2012 at 3:14 pm

SCARS is not well liked by all. It overheats the handguards and its parts commonality is non-existent. FN made an improvement on the M4, but not by much. And at 4 times the cost of an M4, Congress isn't going to jump on that grenade anytime soon…


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 8:10 pm

on the contrary, the SCAR is largely well liked, especially the "H" variant.

parts commonality? thats untrue.

There is a 83% commonality between the platforms. If you were talking about commonality with the M4, then that is irrelevant. the SCAR project never had a pre-requisite requirement to have parts commonality with the M4 carbine.

I carried a SCAR for a deployment to Afghanistan and never had problems with the handguards overheating. This is in fact mitigated by the rifle's design: its gas block, the spot where gas piston rifles accumulate the most heat, is located outside the handguards.

It is not 4 times the cost, though they were more expensive than M4s by Colt. There is legitamite criticism for the SCAR also.


bryson April 24, 2012 at 3:18 pm

One word, ergonomics. Try to do a 3 second magazine swap on a bullpup and not take your eyes off target. Easy as pie on an M4, we practiced all the time. Can't be done with a bullpup, you have to unshoulder it to get access to the mag release.


coolhand77 April 26, 2012 at 4:14 am

Apparently you don't have much experience with Bullpups. F2000 doesn't require dropping from cheek weld and I can do all the manipulations weak handed in under 3 seconds WITH retention.
Most people say the same about the paddle release on the AK…watch Sonny Puzakis some time…thre seconds? Without retention try 1.5 seconds.
Mind you, this might be true of the SA80…but we all agree thats a poor design for a bullpup.


bryson April 24, 2012 at 3:29 pm

I hauled a wounded Honduran in '88 that had a .50 wound in his chest from a skirmish with Nicaragua. He lived for 5 hours, died when a blood clot entered his heart. .50's are bad, but they aren't railguns either. The human body can take amazing punishment and keep moving. Head/spine are the only gaurantees…


bryson April 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Correct! The seperate sears for the 3 round burst are all different surfaces, therefore 3 different trigger pulls! This equates to trying to qualify with 3 different rifles…Not a great system, as you never knew where in the 3 round cycle you were when you wanted a 3 round burst. But it was a compromise over a complex mechanical system that would have surely been more prone to failure. Colt noted this when the M16A2 was being tested, and one of the main reasons the other branches stayed full auto.


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm

we already have more than the cutting edge!

The M1 Abrams, and its Rheinmetall 120mm gun, cannot be matched by anything on the planet! In fact, Rheinmetall has designs for a 140mm but there is no existing armor than can defeat the existing 120mm. Technology even exists that will provide another giant leap in gun technology: electrothermal-chemical technology and it is being casually researched because existing threats cannot defeat or outmatch what is already in service (and has been in service since the 80s).

Our air force and naval air elements are the most numerically superior and technologically advanced, even while flying jets that have been in service for 20-30 years! There is no threat that can match a F15E, F16, F/A18E Superhornet. These are the reasons why research and development as well as standardization of the F35 and F22 are being questioned, because existing designs already eclipse the threats that are out there.

The military is focusing on improved communications (FCS) and true full spectrum control of battlefield units. Disingeniously, they are neglecting investment in airborne forces, which are essential for force projection (strategic response forces). The technology and equipment is there to have the finest strategic response forces in the world (and we have that not based on our existing merit, but because of the deficiencies of our competition), though they are still lacking in capability.

I wont even get into the Navy, which is also vastly technologically and numerically superior than the US competitors. Research into "stealth destroyers" like the Zumwalt are also being questioned because there is no threat the existing ships cannot destroy.

I think its time to update the rifle of the infantryman. Perhaps the military is counting on LSAT to provide the cutting edge and they are keeping it quiet. Small arms is equally important since 4th generation warfare and MOUT will become more commonplace, not less so; battlefields of tomorrow will be fought with infantrymen more than ever.


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm

better terminal effectiveness? there is the Mk 262 and the Mk318. It is more conducive for nations to invest in better cartridges than entirely new rifle concepts (like bullpup).


bryson April 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm

But ALL rounds rely on velocity to achieve terminal performance. +P rated pistol ammo works better in short barrels than standard ammo not because of bullet design, its because of the higher energy level at the higher impact velocity. The same reason 5.56 was adopted to begin with…you have to have velocity to create a wound channel-or in the case of the mk262 OTM bullet from Sierra, an unstable one that yaws inside a targets body.
Black Hills ammo makes the MK262 and the MK318 ammo. They were designed to work in 10" thru 18" barrels, but not at all ranges will the shorter barrel be effective. The SDM rifles of all branches use a 16"-20" range to make use of the muzzle velocity they afford. The longer the barrel, the farther the effective range, up to a maximum. Its physics, not opinon.


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm

you are 100% spot on bryson.

My point was that the goal of a bullpup is to field a compact assault rifle for infantrymen engaging targets up to 300 meters.

The logic for bullpups is that they are shorter, despite theoretically having rifle/carbine-length barrels, though, being a drastically new design, there are many unintended problems associated with such weapons.

if infantrymen want short weapons, that are effective up to 300 meters, i was saying it is more logical to employ a simpler, less expensive, less bulky, and ergonomically superior M4 or equivalent layout rifle that uses cartridges that perform optimally out of 10.5-14.5" barrels.

SDM is an entirely different argument that im not getting into. Yes those ammunition types perform stupendously well in a designated marksman rifle.


bryson April 24, 2012 at 3:47 pm

Brits HATE the L85! Even after HK rebuilt them as SA-80 series, at a cost per rifle of more than the original cost-I learned this from some Highlanders in '03 Iraq- they still are susceptible to breakage and jam.
The FAMAS is reliable, but complex. And the French I worked with like our M4 better.
The Russians designed a bullpup AK. It aint on the battlefield…
Now, the Israelis have a new one, the Tayvor, and its supposed to be rockin'. But its not combat tested-it has seen skirmishes recently- and therefore unproven in battle.
Oh, yes! The Chinese have the QBZ-95. It might work too, but as yet, it hasn't been proven.
So, there you have it! Not much combat for the bullpup design.


Joshua April 24, 2012 at 4:18 pm

see my comment above about Israel.

no disrespect to them but they are a conscript Army, and are far from knowing what is great. they are also not known for taking care of rifles, in their case the M16FOW may not be the best since it does require miner care like cleaning and lubricating it, something they do not like to do very often


Lance April 24, 2012 at 4:33 pm

I do think the L-85 or should I say fixed L-85 SA-80 isnt that bad of a weapon. The Styer AUG is also a good Bullpup weapon despite having none NATO mags and being over priced, it shoot well and has decent ergonomics for a Bullpup. The Tavor isn't going to replace all M-16s in Israeli service but for units in the West Bank where open combat doesn't exist anymore the shot carbine would be better. However units near the Lebanese border have M-16s and be better in open area combat in that theater of ops. However the Tavor is brand new and isn't combat tested. it dose well in test but the riggers of combat will tell if its a decent weapon.

The Chinese Type-95 is crap. it has very poor ergonomics and has a tall carry handle and sight giving a poor check rest for the shooter. it shoots 5.8 Chicom and so no one out of China has ammo for it. China has come out with the Type-03 to supplement it in service. The weapon and ammo was adopted more for Chinese pride than capability. In many cases the Type 56 is better weapon, but to Chicoms thats a Russian design.


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Hey brits, if you guys want a better rifle, we (americans) can produce them in 3.5 hours at a price of 678 a pop. Wishful thinking. I wish I could have the authority to bring up such a offer ;)

I dont mean to sound like a horse's ***, im serious. After handling and firing a L85 in Afghanistan, I feel damn sorry that the Brits have to use such a abomination. There is a reason why SAS and commonwealth SAS counterparts use the M4.

But bullpups will change the world! *****…sure…


Lance April 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm

Sorry but ive got war documentaries and pictures of solders having 03's in the PTO in 42 and 43. Not all Army units had M-1s my uncle can tell you that too pal.


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 5:35 pm

dude, my grandpappy carried a M1 in Operation Torch, and so did other soldiers in his outfit; the ought three was a sniper's weapon. that was november in '42. Since the late 1930's, the M1 Garand was staple to the Army and the Marines, because of a stupid nostalgic attachment to the ought three, reluctantly accepted it into use.

The US military has a love for nostalgia. Unfortunately, it is quite stupid.


Bryson April 24, 2012 at 5:45 pm

They weren't made by a credible source then. Do yourself a favor and get some reading in, its an old fashioned thing to do I know, but it will help. I promise. No Army units left CONUS after the spring of '42 without M1 rifles as their primary arm. Even the Reserve and Gaurd units got them.
Please remember, designated marksmen and snipers all carried '03s, and a lot of Marines had them in the PTO. The Army was almost non-existent in the PTO outside of Pearl and New Guinea in '42, we had lost almost all of the other bases. Now, the 37ID- an Ohio National Guard unit- was sent to New Guinea in August of '42 and they had-you guessed it- M1 Garand rifles.
A handful of M1s are known to have been at Bataan when it fell. Here's a reference for you: The Us Army in World War II (1): The Pacific By Mark R. Henry, Mike Chappell. Enjoy the read.


Lance April 24, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Well your right about the ETO most solder sent there had newest and Best equipment. But solder and yes there were solders in New Guinea and the Aleutian islands and even fighting with Marine in Guadalcanal. Solders in the Philippines had 03s and while yes 90% of army troops after 42 had M-1s. I too check my sources and here is one of them enjoy.

World War II

World War II saw new production of the Springfield at private manufacturers Remington Arms and Smith-Corona Typewriter. Remington began production of the M1903 in September 1941, at serial number 3,000,000, using old tooling from the Rock Island Arsenal which had been in storage since 1919. The very early rifles are almost indistinguishable from 1919-made Rock Island rifles. As the already worn tooling began to wear beyond use Remington began seeking Army approval for a continuously increasing number of changes and simplifications to both speed up manufacture and improve performance. The milled parts on the Remington M1903 were gradually replaced with stamped parts until, at about serial number 3,330,000, the Army and Remington recognized that a new model name was appropriate. Other features of the M1903, such as high-grade walnut stocks with finger grooves, were replaced with less expensive but serviceable substitutes. Most milled parts made by Remington were marked with an "R".

M1903 production was discontinued in favor of the M1903A3. The most noticeable visual difference in the M1903A3 was the replacement of the barrel-mounted rear sight with a smaller, simpler aperture rear sight mounted on the rear of the receiver; it was primarily adopted in order to speed familiarization by soldiers already trained on the M1 Garand, which had a similar sighting system. However, the leaf spring providing tension to the elevation adjustment on the new aperture sight tended to weaken with continued use over time, causing the rifle to lose its preset range elevation setting.[7] Other modifications included a new stamped cartridge follower; ironically, the rounded edges of the new design largely alleviated the 'fourth-round jam' complaints of the earlier machined part.[7] All stock furniture was also redesigned in stamped metal.

In late 1942, Smith-Corona Typewriter Company also began production of the M1903A3 at its plant in Syracuse, NY.[8] Smith/Corona parts are usually identified by the absence of markings (Smith/Corona bolts are sometimes marked with an "X" on top of the bolt handle root). To speed production output, two-groove rifled barrels were adopted, and steel alloy specifications were relaxed under 'War Emergency Steel' criteria for both rifle actions and barrels.[9] M1903A3 rifles with two-groove 'war emergency' barrels were shipped with a printed notation stating that the reduction in rifling grooves did not affect accuracy.[10] As the war progressed, various machining and finishing operations were eliminated on the M1903A3 in order to increase production levels.[10]

Original production rifles at Remington and Smith-Corona had a dark gray/black finish similar to the Parkerizing of late World War I. Beginning in late 1943 a lighter gray/green Parkerizing finish was used. This later finish was also used on arsenal repaired weapons. It is somewhat unusual to find a World War I or early World War II M1903 with its original dated barrel. Much, if not all, World War II .30-06 ammunition used a corrosive primer which left corrosive salts in the barrel. If not removed by frequent and proper barrel cleaning these residues could cause pitting and excessive wear. In the jungle fighting on various Pacific islands cleaning was sometimes lax and the excessive moisture compounded the corrosive action of the residue.[11]

The M1903 and the M1903A3 rifle were used in combat alongside the M1 Garand by the U.S. military during World War II and saw extensive use and action in the hands of U.S. troops in Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific. The U.S. Marines were initially armed with M1903 rifles in early battles in the Pacific, such as the Battle of Guadalcanal, but the jungle battle environment generally favored self-loading rifles;[12] later Army units arriving to the island were armed with the M1 Garand.[13] The U.S. Army Rangers were also a major user of the M1903 and the M1903A3 during World War II with the Springfield being preferred over the M1 Garand for certain commando missions.

According to Bruce Canfield's encyclopedic U.S. Infantry Weapons of WW II, final variants of the M1903 (the A3 and A4) were delivered in February 1944. By then, most American combat troops had been re-equipped with the M1 Garand. However, some front-line infantry units in both the U.S. Army and Marine Corps retained M1903s as infantry rifles beyond that date and continued to use them alongside the M1 Garand until the end of the Second World War in 1945. The Springfield remained in service for snipers (using the M1903A4), grenadiers (using a spigot type rifle 22 mm grenade launcher) and Marine Scout Sniper units.

The M1903A4 was the U.S. Army's first attempt at a standardized sniper weapon. M1903A3 actions were fitted with a different stock and a Weaver Model 330 or 330C 2.2x telescopic sight in Redfield Jr. mounts; the front and rear iron sights were removed.[7] Barrel specifications were unchanged, and many M1903A4s were equipped with the two-groove 'war emergency' barrel.[14] By all accounts, the M1903A4 was inadequate as a sniper rifle.[15] The Weaver scopes (later standardized as the M73 and M73B1) were not only low-powered in magnification, they were not waterproofed, and frequently fogged over or became waterlogged during humidity changes.[7][15] When this occurred, the M1904A4's lack of open front or rear sights rendered the weapon useless. Normally used with ordinary M2 ammunition with a 152-grain flat-base bullet, accuracy of the M1903A4 was generally disappointing;[16] some Army snipers who came across Japanese or German sniper rifles quickly adopted the enemy weapons in place of the Springfield.[17] The Marine Corps declined to issue the M1903A4, favoring instead a modified M1903A1 rifle fitted with a Unertl 8x target-type telescopic sight.

The U.S. Army Military Police (MP) and the U.S. Navy Shore Patrol also used M1903s and M1903A3s throughout the war. Various U.S. allies and friendly irregular forces were also equipped with the weapon. The 1st Brazilian Infantry Division, operating in the 5th Army in Italy was equipped with Springfield M1903 rifles. In August 1943, the Free French Forces of General Charles de Gaulle were re-equipped by the United States primarily with Springfield M1903 and M1917 Enfield rifles. The M1903 became one of the primary rifles used by French forces until the end of the war, and was afterwards used by local militia and security forces in Indochina and French Algeria.

Springfield M1903 rifles captured by the Germans were designated Gewehr 249(a).


xcalbr April 24, 2012 at 7:56 pm

here lance.

see how much easier it is to post this link instead of copying and pasting the entire damned first part of the article?


majrod April 24, 2012 at 9:14 pm

Aren't kids taught in school these days that wiki isn't a reliable/acceptable source?


Lance April 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm

I saw the same info posted on other books documentaries and websites.


majrod April 25, 2012 at 8:02 am


Name them… (just the links please or the title/author)


Ed Zachary April 24, 2012 at 5:57 pm

I hope we don't have to go to war with Lance writing the orders. What the heck does this mean?

"In which in a world of Mauser rifle was obsolete before it was adopted in 1893 so in small arms terms the military industrial complex is off, and in the world of cutted budgets and sequestration the army is looking to save much bigger and more important projects like JLTV and Armed Scout helicopter than this waste of time that was brought on by politics not solders in the field."


coolhand77 April 24, 2012 at 6:20 pm

Okay, seeing as the interwebs ate my last comment, I will keep this short. Do about 5 minutes research and you will see quite a few militaries use bullpups like the F2000, including special operations groups like Speznaz [the Groza] and the Polish GROM units [the aforementioned F2000].
Also, for they guy that mentioned fast mag changes, I can easily do 3 seconds on my FS2000…less if I skip retention.
Just because someone claims that the traditional layout is "superior" or that the bullpup is "inferior" doesn't make it so. The best rifles don't win wars or else the russians would have lost to the Germans in WWII. And frankly dissing Israel's army just because they are conscripts is junk.
I've said my piece. Belive what you want. I'm out.


Jordan April 24, 2012 at 7:57 pm

Either you were never in the service, or you're a POG, because its those types, or older veterans who were also POGs, complaining about "man stoppers". The same type who cringe at the praise for any rifle but the M14 and any pistol but the "greatest pistol ever made" the 1911. It is the hits that count, and those who blame the tools are usually those with the least accuracy.


This one dude named April 25, 2012 at 12:08 pm

Well I'll be. Good catch, Sir. The rest of Greg's comment does indicate that he believes our trigger-pullers commonly keep their selector switches on settings other than Safe and Semi, so at least the rest of my reply remains perfectly valid.

My apologies, Greg. Disregard the first part of that first sentence.


Old Soldier April 26, 2012 at 2:51 am

The M16's reputation for unreliability had nothing to do with McNamara.

The direct-gas design makes the rifle more sensitive to changes in powder, and the original cartridge spec used a very clean-burning (but more expensive) powder to minimize fouling. To save money, the Ordnance folks mandated a switch to a less expensive powder which left more residue and had a significantly different pressure curve which increased the cyclic rate by roughly 30 percent. Add in the "wonder weapon" reputation which had folks who should have known better touting it as a self-cleaning design (so the Army issued a lot of rifles without cleaning kits) and you've already got the ingredients for lots of weapons breakage.

Topping it all off was a not-terribly thick chrome plating in the barrel, which proved inadequate at preventing corrosion in the SE Asian humidity. That, in turn, highlighted one of the weaknesses of the 5.56mm cartridge design: it's designed to increase the chances for a failure to extract (little tiny rim plus a higher-than-average chamber pressure), so even a little corrosion in the chamber (like you might get from keeping a round chambered for a week or two in your "self-cleaning" rifle) would be enough to overwhelm that tiny extractor and leave you with the fired casing stuck in the chamber.

It's ironic that one of the "reliability" improvements of the M16A1 actually increases the chances of an extraction failure. After all, when a dented round requires enough extra force to chamber that you have to use the forward assist, what do you think the odds are that it's going to extract any easier?


coolhand77 April 26, 2012 at 4:18 am

To add to that, the ball powder used, IIRC was recycled artillary powder. I don't think even WOLF ammo is quite that dirty. Even an AK, if given dirty powder that gums up the gas piston WILL fail.
My roomie is a 101st AB alum. Combat Medic. Hes never had to use his forward assist. Probably would never use it. Of course like a good soldier he also kept his weapon clean.


coolhand77 April 26, 2012 at 4:24 am

The Polish GROM units use F2000s.
The Croatians are designing a native bullpup based off the AK And IIRC, they use the F2000 for their spec ops units.
Speznaz uses the Groza bullpup and the "dual medium" underwater rifle is a forward ejecting AK based bullpup.

You might dis the Israelies as an "all conscript" army, but considering they are a small nation, constantly under seige by the surrounding muzzie extremests, can you blame them? Also, a bullpup makes sense for them as a mostly mechanized army. They found the flaw with conventional, long weapons through hard experience [FAL].
Only complaint I would have about the Tavor is the mag release, and thats cause I like the F2000 release better [easier to manipulate under stress and get a fast mag change]


bob cohen April 26, 2012 at 5:02 am

so, if remington makes these in its new york facilities – will they have the new york "micro stamp?"


coolhand77 April 26, 2012 at 6:05 am

I think that law just got scrapped. Its technologically infeasable to do at the moment. Firing pin would have to be made out of "unobtainium"


Buzz April 26, 2012 at 9:27 am

Didnt the Brits have to return all of their HK's 4 times to the manufacturer before they would work properly and then again in Sept 2001 when during a field exercise with the Americans in Kuwait Brit soldiers could not fire even one round because of malfunctions.


Buzz April 26, 2012 at 9:35 am

Theoretically the 5.56 kills by hydrostatic shock out to 50 meters. From 50 to 100 meters the round is supposed to fragment. Beyond 100 meters lit lacks velcity and mass to be more than a flying ice pick. I have also seen pictures of the weird effects of a close in shot that hit bones and bounced around inside a VC but the vast majority of shot tended to go right through the guys body. Hit them enough time and sooner or later they die.

The SS109 bullet used in the A2-M4 has a tongston core in it for penetration which effectively ended any fragmentation and thats why the new composit round was invented.


coolhand77 April 26, 2012 at 11:26 am

Sigh…here we go again
The SS109 does not have a "Tongsten" core. The SS109 in the M855 has a STEEL TIP about the same size as a pellet gun pellet, backed by a lead base. The M855 "lead free" has a tungsten tip with a steel core. The M855A1 [another lead free "Green" round] has a bigger steel tip, with a solid copper core. The M995 is the one with a solid AP core that does not fragment.
In addtion, the 855A1 has been having teething problems, and spikes the chamber pressure to get better MV from the M4 length barrel. This WILL wear out the rifles faster as its closer to proof load pressures, not standard "safe" pressures.
The thing that ruined fragmentation was the shortening of the barrel and the tightening of the twist from 20" tp 14.5" and from 1-12 to 1-7" respectively. This basically overstabilized the bullets and dropped the MV, reducing the effective range of the tumbling effect that allows it to split along the cannelature, weather it was an 855 or a 193 round.


Joshua April 26, 2012 at 3:15 pm

I never made fun of israel, they are a great country.

Look at it like this an army of people who are forced to be there will never be as good as an army of people who want to be there.


Mike April 27, 2012 at 7:40 am

Except that Colt does not make M249s and M240s, or if they do it is a very small number. FN Herstal makes the majority of both of them as well as M2s and Mk19s.


BDCooper April 27, 2012 at 3:43 pm

Cool you need to chill. The 109 was designed to have a Tungsten "steel" core. Lazy writers frequently omit the tungsten reference. The round was designed to penetrate fictional body armor our intel guys said was going to be fielded to all russian soviet troops. Bottom line is the .223/5.56 is a varmint round which is not a reliable man killer.

BTW almost all of the worlds tungsten comes from China. The army has announced that all future AT Sabot rounds will have a tungsten penetrator. We officially cannot fight a war without china's ok.


coolhand77 April 27, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Cite me a source. Otherwise I'm going to have to go grab a ss109 out of one of my mags, pull it from the case and section it myself, and then you are going to have to call me a liar when I say its steel. EVERY source I have seen says its a steel penetrator with a lead core, including photos from an aquaintence that sectioned one because it wasn't penetrating as well as some M193 he was shooting at the same steel target.
If you have an athoretative source, PLEASE enlighten me.
As for the not reliable man killer, google "phillipine 5.56 leg wound" and you should find some pretty good evidence to the contrary. NOTHING is 100% reliable. Not even .50 BMG, 7.62×51, or .45 ACP which so many people quote as the "go to" cartridges.
As for chilling…well, I might be a little blunt at times, but I'm tired of getting told "politely" to shut up cause I don't know what I am talking about so pardon me if I get a little snippy.


Buzz April 30, 2012 at 8:05 am

Cool you’re excused for being snippy. I have been around for a long time and I remember when the SS109 round came out. I even remember reading the little pamphlet that came with the AT-4 that in large letters "Not intended for use against Tanks".
As for bullets/guns, pick one you'd prefer to be shot with. Some are much more reliable man stoppers than others and which does what best changes with situation and even the weather. Example back in the early 90's cops in Baltimore shot a guy 17 times with Hydroshocks at about 10 feet. He lived. So did the cop the guy had shot in the back of the head at less than 18 inches. All pistols involved were 9mm's. If any of those shot had been from a .45 there would have been little chance of survival. Army went away from the .38 and 44. Special because they didnt do the job so well.
In the late 50's and early 60's the Euro armies were looking at 6.5 – 6.8's to fit the niche of big enough round to reliable kill the enemy but small enough to be controllable in fully auto weapons. They had all decided to arm their armies with full auto capable rifles because of the AK-47. The US was forced to accept the 5.56 rifle round by politics so the NATO armies were forced to slowly convert to 5.56 because they knew we would be supplying them with all of their ammo in any war.
The so called pucker wound picture you are referring to sounds suspiciously like a picture taken in Afghanistan 30 years ago showing the effects of a 5.54 round fired by an AK-74. The Russians decided against arming all of their soldiers with the AK-74 when they saw how poorly the 5.54 round performed overall. Remember that pucker wound will only happen (if it does) at less than 50 meters and is supposed to be caused by hydrostatic shock.
Bottom line is if you don’t hit the target you aint going to kill it. I’d rather take my chances with something that causes gross trauma anywhere it hits. Saying that the M-16 platform does allow you to put a lot of well aimed shots down range quickly. To bad so few soldiers actually aim when the situation allows for them to do it. Historically only 1 in 10 or so they taught us in IOBC years ago.

The aurguent on best rifle/round will go on forever until we get star Trek Phasers then it will be another aurgument.


coolhand77 April 30, 2012 at 8:21 am

Okay, a little crow eating time…
I was just informed that the tungsten cored M855 is the M855 "Lead Free". However, ALL the literature I have seen referring to the M855 [not the M855LF] says nothing about a tungsten core. So my appologies for being snippy as I did not realize we were talking about the Lead Free version of the 855. That of course won't fragment worth crap.
No, the pic I am talking about has been around the internet for a while, and is sourced to the phillipines. In fact I think it was posted by someone who worked on the leg [they were able to safe it despite the huge amount of destroyed muscle and vascular tissue], and included the xrays showing the fragments and broken bone associated with the wound.
I understand that tumbling and fragmentation is velocity dependant, and I also realize that cartridges have limitations. Were I "blue sky" clean slating a new weapons system [actually did that once...still have the drawings somewhere], an ambi bullpup, with front or bottom eject, using a 6.5mm VLD high BC cartridge similar to the 6.5 grendel, with as short a length of pull as physically possible, and a user configurable barrel assembly or upper would be the weapon of the future [at least till the phasers come out]. Unfortunately I haven't the resources of, say Red Jacket, or Keltec to work on said idea, so, I stick with what works currently.


Jim May 1, 2012 at 8:29 pm

Er and being a serving Brit, I can assure you the L85A2 is not hated! Requires the correct maintenance like all weapons, and it has its own peculiarites, but we've had it for over 20 years now, we are used to it, what is really required is a new sight, which is slowly being introduced. The SUSAT is a reasonable sight, but reduces your peripheral field of view when aiming and correspondingly your situational awareness and new target aquisition.


Buzz May 2, 2012 at 6:19 am

Cool, Give me a little time and I'm sure I'll be asking for a man sized slice of crow pie. Dont forget the coffee for me to wash it down with.
A friend of mine just asked me for my opinion on what pistol to buy. After a dissertation on the pros and cons of several I basically told him find one from a reputable company that fits well in your hand and is reliable. What works is what you can actually hit the target with.
When I was going through all of my training we were advised to stay away from forward ejecting weapons as the ejected shell casings have a habit of marking your concealed position. On the flip side I have a very nice burn scar on my neck from a hot 7.62 case being ejected into my shirt collar. That took some real talent on my part to get that to happen!


coolhand77 May 2, 2012 at 9:05 am

All depends on what you mean by "forward ejection" Up untill recently [well, since the retirement of the Maxim based machineguns] "forward ejection" meant like the HK91/G3 family where the case gets flung about 15 to 20 degrees to your right in the forward arc, hard enough to get your attention if it hits you and probably 20 to 25 feet down range if it doesn't hit anything. I'm sure on full auto it looks like a fountain of brass. On the other hand the FS2000 and RFB, have a more controlled forward ejection pattern that drops a nice, neat little pile of brass right under the muzzle of your gun. Added benifit is that if you are firing from a vehicle, all the loose brass dribbles out the front , and probably out of the vehicle as well. No hot flying shell cases to bounce around and wind up in your lap, down your shirt, or in your boot top.
I was at the range for my birthday a few years back, and because of the weather [january] I had my shirt collar buttonted to the top and was wearing a boonie hat. Somehow, a shell from my friend's .40 missed the hat, and my face and went right down my collar…stayed there long enough to leave a nice crecent moon burn on my chest. The strangest things happen with flying brass.


Buzz May 3, 2012 at 7:04 am

The M60 that got me was really hot so it was heating the brass up really nicely for me.

Thanks for the education on the newer "forward" ejecting weapons. M-2's bottom ejection can be a pain so I can see the benifit.

BTW I got thinking of our previous posts. Lots of old stuff never made it to the internet but the info I was given years ago about the tungsten penetrators may have been based on the army going to that core but decided to go to steel as a cost saving move. Wouldnt be the first time.


coolhand77 May 3, 2012 at 10:06 am

yah, that kinda heat really highlights the open bolt firing for MGs doesn't it?
Its very possible. If my roomie gets redeployed I might ask him to [if he gets the opportunity] have an armorer section a green tip and see whats inside. All the stuff here at home seems to be the regular M855 and not the M855LF.


bryson May 3, 2012 at 7:19 pm

Actually, Big Green's parent company, Freedom Group, owns DPMS and Bushmaster. These companies make Remington's AR series rifles. They will be making most if not all of these rifles.


bryson May 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Gentlemen, bullets DO NOT tumble. Some yaw after impact, or in flight if not spun at a fast enough speed(gyroscopic stabilization), but none commit the so-called buzz saw tumble. Sanow and Marshall, along with the Small Arms Board that accepted the 5.56×45 round in 1960 noted "yawing" of the bullet in the target. This means the bullet turned PARTIALLY, but not continuously inside the target. It was tested on pigs, and can be easily verified by a search. However, several hacks have posted their own version, with various adjectives used to describe what they don't understand about ballistics.
Reference:Wound Ballistics: Basics and Applications
By Robin M Coupland, Beat P. Kneubuehl, Markus A Rothschild, Michael J Thali


coolhand77 May 3, 2012 at 7:45 pm

Okay, so bullets don't "tumble" [I agree that the "reports" of a tumbling 5.7x28 acting like a buzz saw are pretty far fetched] by your definition. I seem to recall at least one wound track diagram, in which the bullet yawed end over end twice before exiting the gelatin block, and was used as reference material by one Dr Fackler.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a full end over end yaw be considered "tumbling?"
Ah, found it –


bryson May 3, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Not to be picky, but it doesn't specify whether it completed one or more "tumbles". The diagram shows 2 large cavities separated by a smaller canal. This would be one complete turn, but NOT inside the 30cm column highlighted. 30cm/12in. is the accepted depth of the human torso for testing, so a bullet would have a hard time truly "tumbling" inside it. It does refer to this behavior as yawing though. Most bullet designs will do this at low velocity, and some are designed to; 5.45×39, MK262 OTM etc..


bryson May 3, 2012 at 8:26 pm

More than some, not as much as some…However, I have used the SA-80 and its horrible. The 3 second magazine change is a real life under stress magazine change done by Army standard, not civilian style. Every mag change occurs with your buddy's knowledge, and hopefully your team leader. That requires a delay of acknowledgement. Example:
Shooter: I'm black! Changing mag!
Buddy: Roger, covering.
mag change occurs, then…
Shooter: I'm up!
Buddy: Roger!
Do it your way all you want, I teach kids to survive as a team on the battlefield.


bryson May 3, 2012 at 8:39 pm

The parts commonality I referred to is less than the 100 percent on the M4 series, as compared to the ones I saw in use with NSW in Ramadi. They spoke highly of its accuracy, but disliked the fore grip's tendency to overheat( one had several layers of personally applied tan duct tape on it, another extra Knight quad rail plugs) and parts issues between different platforms. I would trust the end user before an FN sales brochure.
83 percent isn't much if your unit armorer has to carry all the extra stuff in his ruck to convert/repair your team's gear.


xcalbr May 3, 2012 at 11:22 pm

I knew i would have to go into this deeper, but does the M4 and the SR25 or M110 have any parts commonality?

That was my point. Considering that the SCAR L and H have 83% commonality, those being two DIFFERENT calibers, then that is pretty significant. That is why they are fielded.

The SCAR platform has more parts commonality than any other rifle system in the US inventory.

The only issue I have experienced with the SCAR is the latch on its buttstock, though it is still surprisingly robust.

And 83% is significant with a armorer if he is used to operating with entirely different part sets between the M4, M110, SR25, or M14. that is the reason why the SCAR was adopted, again.


bryson May 4, 2012 at 8:38 am

And I knew you just wouldn't listen to what I was saying. Please see :
If the SCAR were so well liked, and is such an advantage, why do the operators want to get rid of it? Because its just not that much better than an M4, and it costs at least 3 times what an M4 does.


BDCooper May 6, 2012 at 12:37 pm

The yawing effect during flight increases lethality of small calibar bullets such as the 5.56 and thats why the new composite rounds for the M-4 yaw. Many people still believe the M-4 bullets tumble in flight and thats where a lot of confusion comes from.


Old Soldier May 7, 2012 at 4:21 am

Yawing during flight decreases lethality by decreasing the likelihood of actual target impact.

Yawing behavior *after* impact increases wound severity by offering an increased contact area for increased energy transfer to soft tissue.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 4:58 am

Yawing decreases leathality? You'd better tell that to the army ammo developers. The high velocity 5.56 round has a very flat tragectory and I'll go out on a limb here and speculate that the arc induced in the trajectory was meant to increase the probablity the round will (for lack of a better word) tumble on impact instead of act like a flying icepick.


coolhand77 May 7, 2012 at 5:42 am

what little yaw there is during flight is attributed to the ballistic trajectory, and is more of a pitch angle change during flight. TRUE yaw [what laymen would call bullet tumbling] during the flight to the target reduces the chances of hitting the target by altering the trajectory of the projectile. If you can't hit the target, you arn't going to be lethal.
Conversly, a properly weighted [base heavy, nose lite], spin stabilized projectile, SHOULD after impact [and loss of spin stabilization] begin to yaw significantly off flight axis, as the base of the bullet wants to keep going [heavy mass inertia] while the light weight nose creates drag and wants to stop faster [light mass inertia]. Its like a car on a race track getting bumped off axis from behind.
Simply put, YAW [not pitch angle] during flight is bad, while Yaw, terminally [after impacting the target] is good.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 5:55 am

Your description of ballistic trajectory vs yaw is quite correct.

crackedlenses May 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Ironically, small (5-6 mm.) caliber assault rifles have been proven to work. No major country uses the older 7.62 mm. battle rifle any more (although they aren't afraid to pull them out when the situation calls for it), and countries like China and Russia have been developing their own renditions of the 5.56 mm and steadily replacing their 7.62×39 mm. weapons. Like the early hand-cannons and matchlocks, 5.56 was barely adequate when it first came out. However, time has given it lethality, enough to make it totally acceptable as a combat chambering.

At the end of the day, however, much of this debate is a matter of personal preference. If the Army really wanted to get the best bang for it's buck, they would phase in a modular system like the SCAR that can use both 5.56 and 7.62 mm. with high parts commonality. Just my 0.02 as a civilian enthusiast…..


Lance May 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm

The Russian Military retired most of there 7.62x39mm AKMs decades ago in the 70s in favor of the AK-74 in 5.45mm. China used Type 56 rifles and carbines only in the Navy and Military Militia most have gone to the 5.8 Chicom Type 95 series in the 90s. Sad to say ICC wont have modularity available so in the end the M-4A1 is the best but in the 5.56mm field till LSAT matures later.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 3:48 am

You need to do a little more research on the Russian Army. They were going to replace the AKM (BTW thanks for using the correct name designator) with the AK-74 but stopped. Most Russian Army soldiers still use the AKM. Logistically speaking, it wouldnt have made sense for them to make the switch over. Russians are not into retooling factories and they have huge inventories of 7.62 ammunition they have to use.


Lance May 7, 2012 at 12:18 pm

While some reserve and special forces units do have some AKMs, like SOCOM units here in the US have M-14s. About 95% of Russian troops use AK-74s in 5.45mm. 7.62mm rifles aren't used much.


xcalbr May 7, 2012 at 2:59 pm

that is incorrect. the AK74 has been the standard Russian army rifle for nearly 40 years. The only units that use the AKM are few specialized units that favored the 7.62x39mm round's effectiveness against unarmored human targets in Chechnya.


coolhand77 May 7, 2012 at 2:35 am

Colt has one. model 901 IIRC. Its a 308 "AR10/LAR308" lower modified to handle an adapted 5.56 upper with a built in mag well block.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 4:00 am

There have been truely lethal 5.56 rounds offered to the US military but all have been rejected as being a violation of the Geneva Convention. Which BTW proves few military lawyers have ever read said document. Usually they mean to refer to the Hague Convention but in reality the politicians have gotten it into their heads that anything other than a Ball round is illegal. That being the case we need to go to a larger round and then argue about the best platform to fire it from.


coolhand77 May 7, 2012 at 4:15 am

OTM seems to be getting some good reviews [77 grain].
You are right, the PC lawyers don't know how to read, only how to "follow orders" it seems. IIRC, we didn't even sign onto the Hague Convention, and either way, Hague and Geneva only apply to standing armies, which we are fighting neither in *************, or Iraq, therefore they do not apply. They applied before we went in and broke Saddam's regiem, but thats it.


coolhand77 May 7, 2012 at 4:17 am

hmmm, I guess it doesn't like my spelling of @$$crakistan.
Oh, and IIRC Iraq didn't sign either so that means neither party was constrained.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 5:03 am

Cool your understanding of both treaties warms my heart:-) I have even printed the Geneva Conventions (1&2) and given them to people to read so they could point out how we were violated them. The usual response is they wad them up and throw them at me.


coolhand77 May 7, 2012 at 5:36 am

I've been told in the past I should have been a lawyer. Seems as though, despite having to wade through legalese, I CAN read english, and comprehend, which seems to be a feat that some lawyers are incapable of…or it disagrees with the outcome they want. Personally, I am a "truth" kinda guy. Truth has no agenda and the law is the law, for good or ill.
I too would like to know where the reference of using 9mm "rifles" in the Falklands comes from. I've talked to a guy that was actually there, as well as reading and doing a little research after a few documentaries on the subject, and besides the "Sterling" SMG, the Brits were armed with the L1A1 [FAL]. That and some anti tank rockets…the individual in question was part of the group of Royal Marines that engaged an Argintinian frigate with those rockets…crazy ********.

Buzz May 7, 2012 at 4:04 am

Almost forgot. You need to read the British Armys combat rifle experience in the Faulklands. The lead units in combat were using 9mm assault rifles and not were not able to engage the enemy because their bullets wouldnt even reach the enemy positions.


Old Soldier May 7, 2012 at 4:18 am

Buzz, you're going to have to provide a specific citation to make that claim plausible.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 4:59 am

- Buzz, you're going to have to provide a specific citation to make that claim plausible.
Old soldier could you specify which one? Thanks


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 5:12 am

-No major country uses the older 7.62 mm. battle rifle any more
Cracked Lens
I had forgotten(probably from lack of sleep) that the primar reason the euro's moved away from the 7.62 to the 5.56 was because they were almost completely dependent on the US for ammunition if we went to war.

The US Basic Load for Europe during the cold war was 10 days worth of ammunition (as opposed to a units basic load of 3 days) as that was the expected duration of any conflict with the Soviet Union. All of the other NATO countries had 1-2 days worth of ammnition. They had to convert or buy and stock more ammo. In the long run it was cheaper to replace weapons than buy more ammo and build more ammo storage facilities.


crackedlenses May 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm

I think you under rate their knowledge of good weapons. They have long been accustomed to building their own and improving everyone else's. I highly doubt they switched from an AK-type (the Galil), to the M16, to the Tavor just because someone thought it looked cool. After all, the stakes they put on their weapons are much higher than most countries'. I'm betting that their decisions concerning weapons procurement are more utility-based than most…..


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 3:55 am

A lot of weapons the israelis use are based on both utility and economy. Galil are expensive to produce based on low numbers and difficult to maintain due to no one besideds the primary builder makes spare parts. M-4 type weapons are made by dozens of companies and for the most part they will accept parts made by other companies. The US military buys a significant amount of ammo (5.56 and 9mm) from Israeli Arms and in return as part of our military assistance we make available all of the small arms parts the IDF needs.


crackedlenses May 7, 2012 at 11:28 am


I still say the debate is a matter of preference at the end of the day. Go look at the last "Is the M16 still viable" post and the AK-12 post. Many soldiers are perfectly happy with their 5.56 mm. weapons, and apparently believe they work just fine for killing the enemy. That is why I advocate for a modular system that can accomodate both ends of the spectrum.

Something else interesting to look in to is the debate that must have raged in Germany when the StuG-44 entered service. What I've read doesn't seem to indicate a problem with lack of lethality or range…..


Snakebymistake May 7, 2012 at 12:35 pm

The Army Brass has always taken a design by compromise even all the way back to the Rev War when the Safety Committee Musket was designed, which for all intensive purposes was a mix of British and French parts they had laying arround. **** the Navy wanted the YF-17 because the YF-16 couldn't operate off of a carrier, later we got the F-18. I worked on the marketing of the V-22, now there was a cluster fXXk and goat ropeing contest all rolled up in one!


xcalbr May 7, 2012 at 3:15 pm

operators want to get rid of the SCAR? sorry, thats a load of ********. You said the parts commonality is terrible, which is 100% false. You didn't pay attention to my point. The SCAR L, H, and Mk 20 have more parts commonality than the M4, M14, and SR25.


Old Soldier May 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm

Buzz, read the whole first sentence.

If you miss the target, your lethality heads towards zero fast.

Yaw during flight decreases accuracy, although the effect is greatest when it is the result of instability at the base of the bullet rather than the nose. A European arms manufacturer did some really simple but effective research on the effects of bullet instability on accuracy back in the 1980s, and did a nice write-up of it in International Defense Review circa 1982. By the way, they also disproved the whole "brush-busting" myth — anything substantial enough to deflect a 5.56mm bullet would also deflect a 7.62mm bullet.


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 4:49 am

Old Soldier,
The basic problem here is that yaw has been used incorrectly by myself and in in many military pubs. The word Yaw is being used to describe the arcing tragectory of s bullets flight path.

Your right about the bush busting myth, however the deflection angle is usually more radical for high velocity, high spin rate projectiles. Saying that a deflected bullet is still a deflected butted and is not hiting its intended target.

BTW I got my first good nights sleep in weeks last night so maybe I'll be more lucid today:-)


Snakebymistake May 8, 2012 at 5:08 am

Dear Ol Soldier: You are so right about the use of words used by people who never looked them up. I have seen a 45/70 deflect off of a willow bush and a .22/250 explode hitting a piece of grass. A bullet depending on the rifling spin, it's length/weight ratio does have a yaw factor but it is the nose of the bullet that yaws. When it's speed drops the yaw can increase too. People should research before they put fingers to the keyboard or open their yaps. A very wise President said "if you don't open your mouth people will never know how dumb you are." My mother also said that, "if your mouth is flapping your ears cann't hear anything because of the noise." Old Bold, yet careful, Helo Pilot


Patrick May 27, 2014 at 10:56 pm

Bull Shit…………..


Old Soldier May 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm

Bryson, under certain conditions, bullets most certainly do tumble.

Way back once upon a time, in the legendary land of Graf, I was with some cav scouts doing some plinking with M60s. We were shooting at silhouettes on wooden stakes we had stuck in the ground about 200 meters out. There were lots of large puddles of water in the grass, so it was very entertaining to see the rounds splashing all around the targets. When we retrieved the targets after umpteen hundred rounds, about half of the bullet holes were made by keyholing bullets (presumably after bouncing off the water, but some of those barrels were a bit on the worn-out side even before we started).


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 5:05 am

xcal you have your facts confused.
The AK-74 is 5.54 and not 7.62. The AKM is the mass production of the AK-47 which has not been manufactured since 1953. The AKM is the same design but instead of using the time consuming process of milling the reciever out of a block of steel, it is made from stamped sheetmetal. Early AK-47s also had solid wood foregrips and stocks which were changed to lamenant wood for the AKM. This process eneabled the soviets to crank out a lot of weapons very quickly and cheaply.


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 5:10 am

**** the Navy wanted the YF-17 because the YF-16 couldn't operate off of a carrier, later we got the F-18.

Snake, The F-18 we got was so underpowered that it couldnt take off with a full fuel load if it was armed. They had to take off and then do an in flight refueling. Thats why the nay built the Superhornet.

I do believe that the F-111 they tried to make a Navy bird out of it too.


Snakebymistake May 8, 2012 at 5:21 am

Yes, you are right but after working on the V-22 it was a repeat of the same old story, we will put this cheaper engine in it to sell now to them and sell them the upgraded engine later. I don't think the Navy has bought a good airplane since the Hellcat and Hose Nose F-4U. They had POWER. Actually the old A1 two seat Spad had a lot of power, slow but it was a blast to fly!!!! Almost did a tourque roll when I started it!


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 5:53 am

- I don’t think the Navy has bought a good airplane since the Hellcat and Hose Nose F-4U

For years people have been pushing to get the navy and the AF to buy modernized versions of the Hellcat type of aircraft for close air support and general tactical bombing missions. Most of the jets used in this roll now were designed for air superiority and adapted for use as ground support to justify their existence. The prop fighter bombers were very agile and could be flown slow enough to accurately bomb targets with cheap dumb bombs. The new stuff is so expensive the pilots are told to fly very fast and high to avoid ground fire. The prop planes also had lots of machineguns for straffing.


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 5:46 am

Cracked, you’re right about the debate being a matter of preference. However, through my many years of being associated with the military I have heard more soldiers (including special ops guys) complain about the lack of lethality and especially at long range. In the old days they used to say if it won’t reliably take down a White Tail deer with one shot it won’t reliably take down a man. I don’t think any state allows deer hunting with a 5.56 weapon.
Few soldiers now days have ever fired anything other than the 5.56 so they have nothing to compare it to. The M-16 family of weapons are light and don't kick the crap out of you every time you fired it. Try firing an old M-240 (pre army adoption) and you'll find they were brutal.
The AR-15/M-16 was (besides the political reason) adopted because the soviets had the AK. It was also lighter then the M-1/M-14 and a soldier could carry a lot more ammo. Because engagement ranges in Vietnam were usually extremely close, the high velocity of the round was supposed to mitigate the rounds lack of mass. Heard lots of complaints about how effective that was from many of my soldiers who served in Vietnam. As the army became more mechanized the shorter carbine type weapons were also a plus as it made getting in and out of vehicles easier.
In IOBC years ago they told us that soldiers in WW2 had the highest rate of aiming to kill at 1 per 10. 9 of 10 pointed their weapon toward the enemy and pulled the trigger. Has something to do with being able to rationalize to themselves that they did not intentionally take another mans life. If he hit someone it was by accident. I’m sure you’ve heard the term spray and pray. Artillery is called the King of Battle for a reason. It inflicts the most injuries of every war. Modern Artillery crewman should never see the enemy. Its just another boom to them.


coolhand77 May 8, 2012 at 6:04 am

Buzz, I suggest a little research before commenting on hunting legality. I know for a fact its legal to hunt deer with anything over a .22 rimfire in Texas. In addition, a good 70 grain Nosler or other high performance .223/5.56 [close enough dimensionally that the .223 will run safely in ALL 5.56 military weapons] will do the job that any other legal caliber will. I've even heard from individuals who have done a comparison, hunting with .223 and .308 during the same season, and due to the velocity, the .223 violently expanded and dropped the deer faster than a through and through with the .308 [even with expansion]
Mind you we are talking civilian hunting loads designed to expand and/or fragment over a greater range of velocities than military hardball, and much more consistantly. I would NEVER go hunting with hardball unless it was the only thing I had available and I was starving [and even then I would get as close as I could so I could be sure of a kill shot]


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 6:18 am

Was not aware you could hunt deer in tx with a 5.56.

Yes I am aware that .223 will fire reliably threw all military weapons as I'm sure that you don't want to fire a 5.56 in a civilian weapon not expressly marked for 5.56.


coolhand77 May 8, 2012 at 6:30 am

I wouldn't say ALL states allow it, but it IS a misconception [generally propagated by the M14/.308/ "That plastic rifle is a poodle shooter" crowd] that the 5.56 is not effective even if employed properly.


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 11:54 am

Checked the TX hunting firearms regulations and basically as long as its not a rim fire its legal. I find that disturbing because there are a few caliber of weapons out there not suitable for humane reasons and a lot of people who would not be as choosy about the correct ammo to use.

Buzz May 8, 2012 at 6:10 am

Finally got an oppertunity to look at that leg wound picture. Pretty nasty but the gunman got really lucky and the round hit the femur causing it to explode. Didnt see any bullet fragments so it probably "yawed" and exited making the wound worse.

The 5.54 leg wound I mentioned was a soft tissue only hit. It was a perfect example of a wound caused by hydrostatic shock. Didnt look as nasty as the wound you mentioned though


coolhand77 May 8, 2012 at 6:28 am

Umm, thats not the description that the guy who posted the pictures gave…WARNING: PICTURES IN LINK ARE GRAPHIC. DO NOT LOOK IF YOU HAVE A WEAK STOMACH.

If you read under the x-ray pics, the white flecks are fragments from the m193. IIRC, it missed the bone and the bone was fractured by the temporary stretch cavity. Range was "across the street" which should be, under 100 feet or so. If the bullet had hit the bone, it would have been a much uglier fracture, and he probably would have lost the leg.


Buzz May 8, 2012 at 11:32 am

Admittedly not a doctor so not qualified to read xrays. However have seen the scars on some of my soldiers from 5.56 and they were more like straight holes through them.
The 5.56 has a history of eratic wounding. Sometimes it will inflict devastating wounds and other times it act like nothing more than a flying ******.

As you (or someone said) no round is a always deadly. My ex-father in law was a naval fighter pilot in WW2 and took a round through the throat. He was able to get back to the carrier and land before passing out. Got to spend some serious time in the hospital.


coolhand77 May 8, 2012 at 11:56 am

What range were they shot at, what barrel [length and twist], what ammo? The m855 is NOTORIOUSLY over stabilized for what its supposed to do. older 55 grain ammo works much better terminally, and much more consistantly.
Variables make a difference.
Case in point, some of the older german 7.62×51 NATO had a thinner jacket that tended to explosively fragment like the M193, 5.56 ammo, even though it was not intended to. BUT you have to have that ammo, the correct barrel twist, and the right terminal velocity for it to work.


Buzz May 9, 2012 at 4:49 am

They were shot with standard army issue 5.56 ammo fired from M-16's. Many units were so well supplied/resupplied soldiers on patrol would frequently toss away ammo to lighten their load.

Many VC got their ammo for captured M-16s and food by simply following US soldiers in the field and walking around the areas where they had camped for the night or stopped to eat.

bryson May 13, 2012 at 11:45 am

"operators want to get rid of the SCAR? sorry, thats a load of ********."

NSW that I worked with my last tour ('09-10) only liked the sniper version, preferred M4 with navy MK262 or 318 ammo. Say what you will, I'll take their expert opinion over any other. That would be Seal Team 3, Ramadi Iraq. Check their history, you can verify my timeline.
"You said the parts commonality is terrible, which is 100% false. You didn’t pay attention to my point. The SCAR L, H, and Mk 20 have more parts commonality than the M4, M14, and SR25." – Yes, I did. You fail to realize most of these are MIL-SPEC weapons, made under contract and have a large degree of commonality. Not all parts will, but they weren't built to like the SCAR. However, all M4s- which have only been built by Colt Defense- are COMPLETELY interchangeable with FN, Bushmaster and a host of other supplier's M-16 variants. While the M4 has been modified to make it more reliable, if needed an M16A2 lower CAN be used reliably on an M4 upper. This is THE point for whether or not to even discuss whether the SCAR creates an advantage over the current rifle/carbine. At 3 times the cost of an M4, and no real improvement in performance according to the Army's own tests, the SCAR comes up wanting.


bryson May 13, 2012 at 11:57 am

The word Yaw is being used to describe the arcing tragectory of s bullets flight path.

The act of a bullet wobbling in flight is gyroscopic rotation, or precession.
Yaw refers to the rotation of the nose of the bullet away from the line of flight, usually only measurable after impact.
Here's a primer you may want to read…


bryson May 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm

IF a bullet could/would tumble after firing, and had not impacted/glanced off/penetrated a material along its flight path, it would not be accurate and would have a VERY short range as velocity would drop off dramatically. Obviously, all of the impacts above can impart yawing, but no known bullet is designed to yaw in flight BEFORE impact.


Will June 13, 2012 at 6:18 pm

If, indeed, Remington is going to be making the M4A1 for our troops I hope they do a better job than they did with the POS police patrol rifle they foisted off on civilian law enforcement a few years ago.
If not,

Trainers take note:
Devote a huge amount of training time to clearing malfunctions.


Justin September 17, 2012 at 10:36 pm

Remington is a subsidiary of Colt any way so colt wins either way


oscar d September 17, 2012 at 11:27 pm

The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police use the M-16A1 with the 55gr bullets. And we still find that round to be a killer. Some use the M-14 because of the extended range and it can penetrate a coconut palm's trunk, negating cover.


Josh November 19, 2012 at 6:53 am

Lance you are so illiterate. Please learn to type and read what you type before you enter it. Thank you. Plus you are wrong.


fastone December 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm
live sexy webcams April 22, 2013 at 5:03 am

Hi, i think that i saw you visited my site so i came to “return the favor”.

I'm attempting to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!


Bridget May 13, 2013 at 3:31 am

With havin so much content do you ever run into any issues of plagorism or copyright violation?

My website has a lot of completely unique content I've either written myself or outsourced but it appears a lot of it is popping it up all over the web without my permission. Do you know any techniques to help protect against content from being stolen? I'd genuinely

appreciate it.


0311/11B July 3, 2013 at 8:42 pm

I'm not suprised Remington got the contract. Remington was bought out by a company called Freedom Group which falls under Cerberus Capital. Guess who owns Cerberus?? George Soros, Obama's boss.


Patrick May 27, 2014 at 10:49 pm

Sand, mud, dirt, grimy, filth, slimy ooze, sludge, marsh, swamp, quicksand, sandstorm, blizzard, darkness. Tired, confused, scared, worn out, injured, wounded, deaf by loud , night vision lost? Then your best friend jams!

Black Weapons are making manufactures flush. Politian's flush. Over 50 years of flush. How many of you would like to sit on a hillside and exchange rounds across a valley in poor conditions at about 500 yards with your enemy, he is equipped with a 7.65 round. While your black weapon is a 5.56 round. Don't drop it. Good Luck


bryson May 28, 2014 at 5:57 am

Patrick, you have obviously not been there or done that. I have. An M4 is a CARBINE, not a rifle, and should be employed as such. Since Argentina went 7.62, no one uses a 7.65 in a rifle. Several pistols do, its called 32ACP here.
If I want to reach out, across a valley, we carry weapons for that too. I don't expect my M4 to.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 6:04 am

Cool, I stand corrected. The brits were using Sterlings and not rifles as I very incorrectly wrote. Unfortunately, I read the the military article almost 30 years ago. It didnt paint a very flatering picture of military preparedness and training.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 6:14 am

BTW Coolhand, remember "truth" is something that changes with perspective like results based on statistics. I think what you really mean is the combination of both truth and honesty.
Example, One of my good friends was once so close to Raquel Welch he asked her to marry him. This is a true statement but not an honest one. The honest part left out was he was standing next to her at a book signing and asked her to marry him so he could say he had asked.


coolhand77 May 7, 2012 at 7:03 am

Thats called telling a half truth, or making an implication based on purposely withholding information. In court that could get you in big trouble…in reality it just makes you a liar. Truth, facts, etc are black and white. Its people that manipulate them with an agenda in mind or an outcome.
But thats my old fasioned opinion. If you couldn't tell, weasel words and lawyer games kind make me cranky.


Buzz May 7, 2012 at 11:03 am

I hear you Coolhand. Its called lying by omission.


Kevin May 28, 2014 at 10:06 pm

The Israeli Special Operators still run M4 rifles


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: