Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 61

Thread: M-4 finally

  1. #1
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default M-4 finally

    Its what we told them in 67 and they are figuring it out in 2010

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ntent=My+Yahoo

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    248

    Default

    I've seen firsthand how effective the 5.56 is in combat. I'd rather carry the extra weight of a 7.62 next time around. Dead badguys can't shoot back.....

  3. #3

    Default

    the biggest problem with the m4 is the barrel length of the weapon for in my own personal studys of the round the round does better with a full length 20.inch barrel to make the round as accute as you can with the longer barrel set up ....this a problem when you chop off a 6 inchs of barrel to make a weapon more compact for use in a vehicles and air craft ..then get into a place where the targets are basically about 600 to 800 yards away and you want the round to hit them ..

    me i go with a full sized upper with a m4 style lower to make it getting in and out of the vehicle if that the case

  4. #4
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default


  5. #5
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    The long barrel didn't help in Viet Nam plus it was a jam matic.The M-14 was better than the AK but nothing sense. I carried my M-2 carbine over the AR because it fired when you pulled the trigger

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Our M4's functioned fine. The 5.56 NATO round is designed to produce a "disproportionately large wound channel" The boolit tumbles when it hits tissueThis only occurs effectively at certain velocities. The M4's shortened barrel reduces the effective range of these effects. I have hit targets at 400 meters and farther with an M4, and targets out to 1000 meters and farther with an M249 SAW (with an ACOG). That doesn't mean that the projectiles were very effective when they finalliy reached the intended target. I have even shot jackals at 200 meters with 5.56 multiple times and watched them run away.......

    I would take one of our modified M14's any day over an M4....
    If I am getting shot at, and I shoot back, I want someone to die, not get pissed and huck another RPG at me....

    The ideal weapons for asskrakistan are area weapons with very long ranges: 155's, 120mm mortars, 81mm mortars, MK19 grenade launchers, and the venerable M2 .50 cal..... I have put over 1,000 rounds through a M2 in one confrontation without so much as a hiccup. If Th rate of fire it's spitting out drops, just squirt some CLP in it, and go to town. The M2 is a shining example of the ole' "if it aint broke, don't fix it" philosophy.

  7. #7
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default 7.62x51 NATO...


  8. #8
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    I'm guessing we could give our arms builders an AK-47 as a starting platform and with in 90 days they could have it issued to the troops as a unreliable weapon system

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SwampView AK, Overlooking Mt. Mckinley and Points Beyond.
    Posts
    8,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sthrcave View Post
    The 5.56 NATO round is designed to produce a "disproportionately large wound channel" The boolit tumbles when it hits tissueThis only occurs effectively at certain velocities.
    I've heard that before, but I always have a hard time accepting it.

    The only way that the cartridge could be designed that way is to shoot it in a barrel that has insufficient twist, to stabilize the bullet.

    Early on, they used the wrong twist, and the bullet was unstable and tumbled on impact, because the designers didn't know what they were doin. IMO, the claim that it was sposed to tumble was only a way of covering up their incompetence.

    The round was underpowered from day one. The AR type gun was a mess. It's a wonder that it was made to work at all, considering all the trouble it had in the beginning, and all the soldiers that died because of it.

    And, all because of the hot-shot, "know it alls" in the Kennedy Administration. We're still stuck with it, and it ain't gonna change because of some FOX news story, either.

    Smitty of the North
    Walk Slow, and Drink a Lotta Water.
    Has it ever occurred to you, that Nothing ever occurs to God? Adrien Rodgers.
    You can't out-give God.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Smitty:

    I agree with everything you have said. I have seen first hand the effects of the 5.56 on people, and can attest to the fact that it is not suitable for combat. The frustration one gets from shooting someone who is trying to kill you and having them run away or continue firing at you is indiscribable. Thus the touting of the M2

  11. #11
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amigo Will View Post
    I'm guessing we could give our arms builders an AK-47 as a starting platform and with in 90 days they could have it issued to the troops as a unreliable weapon system
    LMAO! No doubt.

  12. #12
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty of the North View Post
    And, all because of the hot-shot, "know it alls" in the Kennedy Administration. We're still stuck with it, and it ain't gonna change because of some FOX news story, either.

    Smitty of the North
    Bro, you are right on target...and you don't even know the half of it.
    They have been sending troops into combat with LESS than 151 live rounds (total) to be considered "qualified" I understand.
    To me this is unacceptable.

    I guess it goes something like this: (from a friend)
    In regards to redeployment training (MARKSMANSHIP) Soldiers receive basic PMI and then group and zero with 18 rounds. Then they group and zero their optic with 18 rounds. Then they fire 40 round Iron and 40 rounds optic for qualification. After this they will move on to NBC fire that will be 20 rounds. Then you have night fire that consist of 15 rounds. For a grand total of 151 rounds fired and that’s to get a soldier on the plane heading to a combat zone!
    I wrote a letter to McCain but never got a response...even after "follow up" phone calls.
    Everyone, PLEASE write/email your congressmen and request a more complete training budget for our guys in combat...like maybe the 3000rds EACH necessary for true proficiency.

  13. #13
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default If anyone does want to email their congressman...

    Here's a copy of MY letter you can copy if you like.

    Dear Senator McCain,

    I have some very respected friends who are actively serving in the Military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    It has come to my understanding that their weapon training is sorely under-funded and inadequate before going into combat!
    In many cases they are currently being considered "qualified" for combat after firing only a meager 151 round qualification course!

    This is unacceptable!

    It was also brought to my knowledge that computer generated systems have been developed and emplaced in order to reduce the amount of training ammunition used by these warriors. Computer games cannot replace the range time necessary to build a solid shooter!

    Reducing the training ammunition costs should never be more important than our soldiers getting adequate training. Especially in a time of war! A soldier needs a minimum of 3000+ rounds to develop the muscle memory and technique necessary for combat. 3000+ rounds at a minimum.

    Further, real-world current battle strategy and tactics often require lot of "urban warfare" house-to-house type combat, and thus: EVERY common soldier's training (in addition to Long Range training) must include plenty of CQB type training.

    Close Quarter’s Marksmanship (CQM) and Long-Range Marksmanship (LRM) type training are skill’s that cannot be built in computer-based training, or with a lack of ammunition and range time.

    Senator, please investigate this situation and correct it.

    Further loss of lives of ANY of our troops due to inadequate and under-funded training is completely unacceptable!

    Please let me know what you find out, and what we can do to correct this serious lack of support for our troops. I have faith that you can do something about these issues. Please also contact me further if I can be of assistance in any way in this quest.

    Thank you Senator, Sincerely,

    (ME)

  14. #14
    Member marshall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Near Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by arizonaguide View Post
    They have been sending troops into combat with LESS than 151 live rounds (total) to be considered "qualified"
    AZ, I don't doubt you but you're source may have miss lead you.

    I can't imagine any division of law enforcement or military that would issue any person a gun or send them into combat with training numbers that low. Personally I think your info was miss understood. It sounds more like a requalification course that requires 151 rounds for scoring.

    Local law enforcement guy's that I know shoot 60 warm up shots and 60 shots for score every 90 days just to carry. The guys that check out on AR's shoot hundreds of rounds in a variety of conditions with multiply clearing and malfunction drills.

    I can't imagine for a minute that our military would send anyone into harms way with 151 total rounds down range.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Eagle River
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Qualification takes about that many rounds, but predeployment trainup uses up a lot more ammo, both live and blank. I fired thousands of live rounds out of my SAW before I crossed the pond....

  16. #16
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default Typical M-16/M4 training...

    Well that does make me feel a LOT better. Maybe that's why I never got a response from McCain's office.
    (at least Ted Stevens would have replied! )

    But, the word I got was they did some very basic "qualification" in bootcamp (that we've all done in bootcamp, typical for everybody...maybe a couple hundred rounds) then did this 151 round "combat qualification" with "night simulation" and "gasmask" shooting...and off to war they went. That bothered me enough to try to get McCain on the issue.

    It takes at least 3000+rds to get truely proficient with good muscle memory, etc.
    I DON'T want to see that shortchanged for ANY of our guys downrange.

    From my buddies original email:
    In regards to redeployment training (MARKSMANSHIP) Soldiers receive basic PMI and then group and zero with 18 rounds. Then they group and zero their optic with 18 rounds. Then they fire 40 round Iron and 40 rounds optic for qualification. After this they will move on to NBC fire that will be 20 rounds. Then you have night fire that consist of 15 rounds. For a grand total of 151 rounds fired and that’s to get a soldier on the plane heading to a combat zone!
    I do occasionally get to train with a few mil folks (instructors) here in AZ, and the instructors are constantly fighting for more "realistic" training budget. NEVER is it "enough" for their comfort sending folks into harm's way...and they all seem to see HUGE shooting skills weaknesses (almost incompetance) amongst the "officer" ranks and non-combat related specialties.

    I'm a believer in the concept of the marine corps...that EVERY person should be a "rifleman" FIRST! No matter what branch of the service or occupational specialty. But I'm also a believer in the M1Garand, M14, and SCAR (in 7.62). And the same argument between the 9mm-vs-the .45acp.

  17. #17
    Member arizonaguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Arizona/Alaska
    Posts
    1,523

    Default non-combat specialties?

    I guess part of what I'm saying is that there is no REAR area where a person is away from "the front" in todays war on terror. EVERY person should be WELL TRAINED to handle the rifle (whatever type it happens to be). There are no real REMF's in todays war. (IMHO) 3000rds minimum...for EVERYBODY (mandatory) and regular re-quals! A cost effective investment in ALL our troops.

    Washington Email addresses here (if anyone is so inclined): http://conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

  18. #18
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    Last war with so called lines was Korea and they were not much. The only good thing about the M-16 is if the CO said your weapon had rust you could say,Sir the M-16 does not rust its discoloration per the operating manual

  19. #19
    Member Big Al's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Palmer,Alaska
    Posts
    1,737

    Default

    Of all the posts that populate this thread a fellow would think a real history would be used about the ammo, the weight of the bullets and the use of the 10" barrels would be used. The lack of the real history of each of these components and the AR platform is to my mind just ridiculous. Could the bullet weight have a significant effect on long range capability? Barrel twist of course does have and effect. The use of 10" barrel length and it use on the AR platform first began with the XM177 in the early 1960's. The first use of the 77 grain bullets first began at the GE proving grounds in Vermont was the outcome of strong winds created by helicopter rotor wash. What is the common problem with long range? WIND. The 5.56 has proven it's self in many combat situations. The AR's have proven it's self in many combat situations. The recoil system of the AK has proven cheap to manufacture and it did exactly what other firearms manufacturers knew it would do, have terrible barrel climb because of the stock drop and high long gas rod system. The down sides to the AK system are many. I identified these many times and have known about them for more than 50 years. This whole argument once again shows the true ignorance of the public. Which is more important? Having straight line recoil or high uncontrollable barrel climb? A safety that clangs or one that is silent? Does This ever make a difference in combat? Ammo that was first used in the 1940's or ammo that had a more researched development?


    I know this is in true opposition to what many like to do, it's more fun to let our ignorance show and to find communions of outlandish BS than to research information. Please folks let's not demonstrate our lack of knowledge on subjects.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tryants." (Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Member GD Yankee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    PANC
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    Why hasn't the 6.8 SPC caught on?

    I have no experience shooting bad guys who are shooting back. But the M4 can be improved. But outside of the M4/M16 design "flaw" issues, many of which apparently can be solved with relatively minor modifications (gas piston, HK416), there is the real debate over the killing power of the ammo.

    http://www.hk-usa.com/military_produ...16_general.asp

    5.56 vs. 7.62? Well, 7.62 will definitely "stop the threat" better than a 5.56. But how many 30 round mags of 5.56 can you carry versus how many 20 round mags of 7.62 can you carry in combat? Size and weight of ammo are going to limit the number or rounds each guy/gal can carry. And sometimes, all you carry is all you are going to get in the fight. I believe the powers that be are working hard to improve the bullet performance for the 5.56, and considering the numbers of M4/M16s issued, that would be the quickest improvement they could make.

    In 1986 there was an FBI shootout with bank robbers in Miami.

    http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/shooting.htm

    I believe it was the impetus for the FBI changing over from their 357 revolvers to semi-autos. In a shootout like that, what do you want to bring to the fight? Your 1911 with two extra 8 round mags of 45 (24 rounds total)? Or would you rather have a Glock in 9mm with two extra mags, the equivalent of carrying a 50 round box of ammo? Or perhaps a Glock .40 with two mags (say 12 rounds apiece, so 36 rounds)?

    Given the choice, I'd like to go into bad guy territory carrying a Barrett .50. But a compromise is always made. Hopefully our military leaders will fix the M4 with something that works better in the sandbox, and give it better ammo to kill the bad guys faster than the 5.56. Let's lean on them to do it right and do it soon. The bad guys don't have much of a choice in weapons, but as soon as we kill one, another takes his place. Let's make sure we deplete their manpower pipeline faster...

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •