Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 163 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
22,295 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The Army has half a million M4 carbines, the lightweight version of the Vietnam-vintage M16. So if the service was going to invest in a replacement, it wanted a “leap ahead” that would, among other things, cut in half the number of times the weapon jammed – a criterion the Army has not made clear until today. None of the eight designs offered for the Individual Carbine competition met that standard, Army officials said, so the service is going to stick with the M4 indefinitely.
Army Killed New Carbine Because It Wasn?t Twice As Reliable As Current M4 « Breaking Defense
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,864 Posts
Classic example of the dog chasing its tail.

The powers that be don't realize they already had something superior to the M4-M16.

It was called the M14.
Stupid government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,496 Posts
Good. They didn't need to spend an extra 2 billion. If they're so worried about malfunctions (average of 1700 rounds before a malfunction doesn't sound that bad to me) then maybe they just ought to spend more time on malfunction drills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
Classic example of the dog chasing its tail.

The powers that be don't realize they already had something superior to the M4-M16.

It was called the M14.


Stupid government.
The m14 was not. It was to big to heavy and better suited for longer range fighting . I carried one. Good rifle but not for modern combat.
Fail to feed ,fail to fire in these test is often due to weapon plain getting dirty, then the chance of a bad round comes in and lack of lube.
Huldra tested a gas piston Ar with the dirty 5.56 X39 Russian round it went 4800+ round with no oil added before a fail to feed. They oil it chamber a round and right back to shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,259 Posts
The AR design is good, even with its nature of depositing carbon in the chamber/bolt area. I personally prefer the M14, but I can understand the logistics of the matter.

But I do think we need a bigger caliber.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,579 Posts
Maybe the Russians are smarter then we think. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the average AK would go well past 1,600 rounds before a stoppage.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,864 Posts
I would think an Ak would run well over 5000-6000 before puking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C hawk Glock

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
Maybe the Russians are smarter then we think. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the average AK would go well past 1,600 rounds before a stoppage.....
Ak is a bit over rated they have taken on a god like rep. They are not very accurate they have very short range and the weight of a boat anchor and you can not carry as much ammo.
I had hoped they would settle on a gas piston M4 . I know I am sold on them . currently own 4 of them and do not see me ever buying a Di again.
And the conversion is not big deal.
When your carrying this stuff after awhile every pound counts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,194 Posts
Guess we'll be stuck with the AR platform until they DO invent death rays...
 
  • Like
Reactions: rachilders

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I have to agree with "oneshot", the M14 was one hell of a battle rifle, granted it was big and heavy but the simplicity of the gun and the power of the .308 round was great. Look at how many have been reintroduced into our current conflict. Best of both worlds would be the size and weight of the M4 with the .308 round, now that would neat. Only problem would be how many of todays troops would be able to withstand the recoil after being used to the recoil of the 5.56.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,486 Posts
Dumbest comment I've read on this forum. No offense.
I don't agree. Every unit in Afghanistan I worked with was very glad to have as many EBR's (enhanced battle rifle) and M240's as they could get.

The EBR is just a gussied up M14. It's old, heavy, has fewer rounds, but it has range, accuracy, and a lethal round. I preferred my M4--much easier to carry--but it doesn't have the same effective range as the 7.62 NATO. The M14 was a nice rifle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Ak is a bit over rated they have taken on a god like rep. They are not very accurate they have very short range and the weight of a boat anchor and you can not carry as much ammo.
I had hoped they would settle on a gas piston M4 . I know I am sold on them . currently own 4 of them and do not see me ever buying a Di again.
And the conversion is not big deal.
When your carrying this stuff after awhile every pound counts
I deployed to a particular location numerous times, and on the first trip there I found that we had nearly a whole conex full of 7.62 x 39. We also had numerous AKs so I took them out to the range all the time. I have shot thousands of rounds through AKs. I really tried to find something I liked about them and failed. I have been issued M-16s, CAR-15s, and M4s, own an M4-style Bushmaster and believe that if you know how to make them run, they work really well.

AKs, and this is my opinion only, are garbage. Before any AK owners get too annoyed, I am biased because I absolutely hate AKs. I can't even estimate how many times I thought I'd seated a mag in an AK, only to work the bolt and find no round went into the chamber. Click. Work the bolt again and the mag falls on the ground. Pick the mag up. hit it against your leg to knock the dust off and it pukes 15 rounds out the top. All the mags do this. So we order up some new mags. Those do it too. Sometimes you do chamber a round and the mag still isn't seated. Bang. Mag falls out. Infuriating. Additionally they are very inaccurate. Yes they offer more precision than a Glock 19, but in the distances common in daytime gunfights in Afg, they are inaccurate enough to pose a significant disadvantage.

Many units which have the ability are converting to the piston-style gas system in their new M4s. Some of those who must get their rifles through the regular supply chain are equipping with piston-style uppers. I never got a piston-style upper and I never had a stoppage with the M4 that I couldn't resolve by slapping the mag (then s--t-canning that mag). The secret WAS to freaking drown that sucker in lubricant. This sucked, because the weapon would literally be brown from all the dirt which stuck to it, but it would shoot. A couple years ago, our life support/armorer guy made everyone who arrived sit out in the sun and frog lube his weapons. That worked really well and I never had a stoppage again. So, drown it in lube or frog-lube an AR and they are very reliable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
I have to agree with "oneshot", the M14 was one hell of a battle rifle, granted it was big and heavy but the simplicity of the gun and the power of the .308 round was great. Look at how many have been reintroduced into our current conflict. Best of both worlds would be the size and weight of the M4 with the .308 round, now that would neat. Only problem would be how many of todays troops would be able to withstand the recoil after being used to the recoil of the 5.56.
The M14 was issued to designate marksman for use in longer distance stand off in Iraq and other current theaters. Not as a patrol rifle .
You can not walk all day and carry the ammo for it, try it some time. It was proven time and time again that more rounds down range was better than caliber.
Standard Infantry load for 5.56 is 210 rounds everyone finds a place to stuff a few more. When the 60 was still in use as a squad weapon it also fired the 308 . But it was also replaced with the Saw 249 that fires the 5.56. The 240 replaced the 60 and is chamber for the 308 but is not normally used at squad level again you have to carry the stuff.
Last the m14 like every other weapon it seems creates it's own myth they have issues after enough rounds went down range.
But what do we know .
I really like the M14 Until I stopped hunting I took a few deer with it at long range now it rest in a vault.
You forget the m16/m4 platform was meant to engage targets quickly from nose to nose to 450 meters. It does the job, and in train hands can and does make 600 meter hits.
Watched our master gunners do it all day long with an ACOG mounted
Most that shoot the platform on the out side have little understanding on how to use the sites correctly or the effect of change from the 5.56 55 gr to the 62 gr.
The Current M4 fills a wide range of duty well, it must be lubed wet bolt. They may not need a full break down cleaning but a quick cleaning of the BCG when you can is advisable. Knock the carbon off and back at it.
When you put a lot of rounds down range what do you think happens to a DI type weapon ,they get dirty, keep oiling it.
No one weapon is prefect many weapons are surrounded by myth and hype I would much rather carry the m4 and I did.
If you have never tried a gas piston model try it after a days shooting hundreds of rounds you will be amazed at how clean it is.
The Army claimed to have a issues with them on full auto after a crazy number of rounds where put through and the weapon heated up .
Time to get this one going again did you know Mattle toy company made parts for the m16 never was true but to this day people still say it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,676 Posts
Just want to clear up some specifics, so we're comparing apples to apples.

Rather than complain about the weight of the 1947 AK and the 7.62x39mm ammo it fires, compare the M16 to the AK74 with modern plastic furniture.
Smith, I think we can agree that the 249 can't replace the pig. :wink: The SAW greatly increased a fire teams' ability to put lead down range, but we still prefer the hard hitting 240B when we can get it. Like you said, when you have enough guys to carry the ammo.
The M4 and M16 are quite different rifles. The 16 is capable of man sized groups past 500m with iron sights. The M4 is noticeably less accurate and has a very slightly different trajectory. All that probably doesn't matter to anyone but paper target shooters.

Finally...I'm glad to read some empirical evidence of all the stoppages I've seen. I totally agree that the M4 does well being bathed in CLP. I've seen brand new Colts shoot several hundred rounds without failure (actually not impressive for a combat weapon), but when they start to hiccup, they fall apart. A thorough cleaning restarts the clock, but your bolt alone has, what, 6 pieces? The entire AK has 6 pieces to field strip...including the receiver!

AK- yes, the magazine is the weakest link. That thing is tough to load under stress. ZERO mag well! Fiddle and try to find a gap in the stamped receiver, get it lined up just right, hope the catch on the front of the mag grabs, yank it back with force and hope the front doesn't pop out. Hey, it ejects just fine!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,826 Posts
Oh, I knew the Mattle rumor wasn't true alright but examining rifle and its component parts sure isn't what led me to that conviction.

If "I ran the show" they'd be shooting a round larger than a middling varmint cartridge. Of course I don't run the show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,595 Posts
The m14 was not. It was to big to heavy and better suited for longer range fighting . I carried one. Good rifle but not for modern combat.
Fail to feed ,fail to fire in these test is often due to weapon plain getting dirty, then the chance of a bad round comes in and lack of lube.
Huldra tested a gas piston Ar with the dirty 5.56 X39 Russian round it went 4800+ round with no oil added before a fail to feed. They oil it chamber a round and right back to shooting.
Gee, I and others had one of a kind, it work in mud, salt-water and heat and sand and didn't didn't jam. In that time of history around us, the M16 had a few problems. The Marines in my area, wanted their M14's back, because they work and the M16's didn't work to well. My own M1A shot DCM or now CMP matches did not jam. Still holds MOA, sure nice to have one of a kind weapon.:image035:
 
1 - 20 of 163 Posts
Top