The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy
- Thread starter Steve Janes
- Start date
But bro, exactly how many problems does the piston solve? To my understanding, it takes the issues related to carbon fouling and heat stress and moves them 6 inches forward. The reliability issues related to poor maintenance still exist even with their precious piston, not to mention the added problems with an franken-piston-AR. The gun will still eventually fail, it will just fail at the gas port. So which problems are we actually solving here, if any?
Bottom line: maintain your guns people.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
This is probably the closest to the truth. After all, Remington won a recent bid over Colt to provide 120,000 M4 Carbines (although it's now in dispute) - and the price worked out to about $673 a copy.
That cheap? That is rather astonishing. And Colt just won a contract for the M45 CQB pistol @ 2,000$ per pistol. Go figure.
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Here's the source.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...-colt-still-earning-royalties-for-m16-design/
The real interesting part is the 5% royalty that Colt gets until 2050...
That's nice, who produces ammo in significant quantities and what other NATO NATION runs it? Oh wait, no one, hence why we run 5.56x45mm NATO as the STANDARD. There is nothing wrong with 5.56, it kills just fine when the user is competent.
TDC
It's weird how the U.S. irons out all the bugs in the M-16 series during the latter part of Vietnam and beyond. Wins a Nato reliability trial (in the early to mid 1980's) with the (20" barrel) system and then years later switches to the M-4, dealing with various bugs/issues as they occur.
Maybe they would've been better off doing what Canada did (adopt a 20" flat top upper) with a folder/telescoping stock to make the vehicle bound troops happy.
Maybe they would've been better off doing what Canada did (adopt a 20" flat top upper) with a folder/telescoping stock to make the vehicle bound troops happy.
The Marines run 20" flattops now. Its big green who runs the M4 almost exclusively. Shorter and lighter is a good thing, the issues with the M4 are usually related to the operator. As for vehicle crew members, who gives a sh*t what they "want" or "need". They aren't the primary fighting force and rarely use their rifles. Being compact and easily stored is not a priority. The stock is adjustable to fit different people, not to make it easy to store.
TDC
No system is "beyond improvement" ; militaries "progressed" beyond FAL's as general-issue, and they can "progress" beyond M-4's too.
The U.S. "muscled" in its desire for a .30-cal NATO round once
, and so it can "muscle" its way in on a 6.8/7mm NATO round again.....
A calibre-change coupled with an operating-system change would not be unwlecome by many....
The U.S. "muscled" in its desire for a .30-cal NATO round once
, and so it can "muscle" its way in on a 6.8/7mm NATO round again.....A calibre-change coupled with an operating-system change would not be unwlecome by many....
blaxsun
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Yup, the all time champion for CQB - the full length, fixed stock, FN FAL. It's not that I don't love the rifle (just as I was trained to) - it's that I've tried to use it in entry drills. Mind you it was always fun to watch someone get carried away and forget that the gun is wider than any door. Alley Ooop, nice bruise.
Most of the arguments against the M16 / M4 are founded on their less awesome performance when completing tasks usually attributed to other weapon systems. For instance, specialized tasks like sustained automatic fire and CQB are often critical arguments. However, we do issue two LMG's per section and one or two GPMG's per platoon to generate sustained automatic fire. Note that the lack of a rapid change barrel renders the M16 / M4 and other similar systems equally unsuited for the task as the barrel needs to be swapped after about 400 rounds of sustained automatic fire at a rapid rate. Also, we do issue pistols to a fair number of troops going overseas. The pistols aren't supposed to be mere badges of rank and are supposed to be used in areas where even using an M4 could be awkward.
I expect we'll see plenty of threads praising the piston-driven wunderwaffers and denouncing DI right to the day the US switches platforms. Which should happen within the next 2-4 decades. Good times ahead!
I expect we'll see plenty of threads praising the piston-driven wunderwaffers and denouncing DI right to the day the US switches platforms. Which should happen within the next 2-4 decades. Good times ahead!
No system is "beyond improvement" ; militaries "progressed" beyond FAL's as general-issue, and they can "progress" beyond M-4's too.
The U.S. "muscled" in its desire for a .30-cal NATO round once
A calibre-change coupled with an operating-system change would not be unwlecome by many....
The .308/7.62x51 is an excellent calibre and serves specific roles. The data is in and .308 as an infantry rifle is not optimal. America is broke and couldn't muscle up a good sh*t let alone convince the rest of the bankrupt world to spend insane amounts of money to change calibres and rifles. 5.56 kills just fine, focus on teaching people how to shoot instead of a "better" calibre.
Yeah, no. The FAL is a great design, but its too heavy and .308 is unnecessary.
You're right, the Marines are heavy into marksmanship, but even they've missed the boat with regards to effectiveness. There is no need for 20" ar's when a 16" will perform to nearly the same level. The emphasis on marksmanship/shot placement is a smart plan. Sticking with the 20" is less so.
TDC
