Mutiny At Arfdotcom

O

One Lung Wonder

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Location
Aaaaaadmontin AB
I'm not sure of the ins or outs of it but from what I read the boys are choosing sides over a debate about the military going to M4 carbines instead of the classic 20" service rifle. They're getting bent right out of shape over it too!

I had the civvie equivalent 20" barrel service gun in the AR15 and loved it. Carefully stoked with handloads it came so close to MOA I couldn't really gripe!:) But, because I am not a squaddie anyone that thinks like me is a joker or a piker or and idiot.

Now I'm shooting one of those AR 7.5" stubbies and loving that too! I don't sort brass, I don't take excessive pains with reloading and it only has a 3X optic on it...but at 50 yards the damn thing is going close to 2 MOA - with my chit house reloads at that - and it is a ton of fun to shoot. But, because I'm not a squaddie, I am too dumb to realize the gun is useless in combat because of the excessive muzzle blast.

And apparently all the military brass hats behind the decision are all a bunch of REMF morons that don't know anything either.

I'm watching that chit storm unfold over there and it cracks me up - I am getting the distinct impression there are 350 lb. fan boys gobbling doritos and trolling like bandits. I may be a simple Fudd (whom has probably shot more "soft" targets than your average Navy SEAL...(and probably just as many paper targets, come to think of it))...but to me it shouldn't even be a debate. The AR has interchangeable uppers that swap out faster than you can think about it. You can configure it for any mission, anywhere on the face of the earth! Why get so bent on barrel length...?
 
Arf.Com? Asset recovery fund is all I get. Are you talking about army.ca/forums?

When you said military, you talking the CAF or our friends down south? I haven't heard of our C7s being replaced with M4s.
 
mikethebike said:
why not carbines supported by minimi and m14 dmr?
sounds logical to me, but then im just a 20 pound overweight IT guy.
Click to expand...

I haven't been over to ar15.com in a while but I'd imagine the uproar is about the USMC going over to the 14.5" barrelled M4 since the Army did it a while ago. As much as I love the M14 type, I don't see them going back to that but I imagine their concept would be carbines supported by IARs and 249s and whatever DMR they're currently using (M1110?)
 
The shorter barrels are better for urban combat, where the wise men in command believe most - if not all - of the fighting will be in any future conflicts.

At least, that's my understanding. Can't say I disagree
 
The M4's would really kick ass if they also ditched the M855 for Mk262 as the standard issue ammo.
Till then, there's no question a 20in barrel has an advantage in ballistics over the 14.5in, but the carbine of course performs better in FIBUA type situations.
 
ChrisAlston said:
The M4's would really kick ass if they also ditched the M855 for Mk262 as the standard issue ammo.
Till then, there's no question a 20in barrel has an advantage in ballistics over the 14.5in, but the carbine of course performs better in FIBUA type situations.
Click to expand...

Shot placement still trumps all. Banking on the pathetic terminal performance of FMJ ammo is a poor tactic. Better training and more rounds down range will yield far better results than simply using a marginally better performing projectile.

As for the switch, it's something that should have been done long long ago. Sadly the most appropriate answer isn't the one being selected and it has a lot to do with what's in inventory right now and what can be supported. The M4 setup is much handier and gives up very little over the 20". A 16" mid length gas system rifle is the answer they should have pursued, but money is a factor.

TW25B
 
Yes for sure shot placement is the ultimate factor. But banking on ideal shot placement in the fog and chaos of combat isn't the best tactic either. Having the best possible projectile, that will deal serious damage no matter where it hits, is a win win, don't you think?
Mk262 is not just marginally better, it's significantly better than M855, US SOCOM guys proved this beyond doubt. It's not nearly as velocity sensitive for terminal performance on a soft target, like M855 is. Whether a 10.3in Mk18 or a 18in Mk12, the 77gr performs very well and very consistently. It really moots the whole barrel length debate I think.
But for the current 20in vs 14.5in thing, yeah I agree with you. There's a lot of politics going on. The M4, or 15.7in C8 really is the ideal size for modern military operations, no question.
 
The AR Forums experts should perhaps talk to the jarheads because from what I hear the average Marine is completely behind the move to carbines. It's not universal love, to be sure, but the lessons learned from Iraq taught them that a carbine is a little more useful in urban combat.
 
One Lung Wonder said:
I'm not sure of the ins or outs of it but from what I read the boys are choosing sides over a debate about the military going to M4 carbines instead of the classic 20" service rifle. They're getting bent right out of shape over it too!

I had the civvie equivalent 20" barrel service gun in the AR15 and loved it. Carefully stoked with handloads it came so close to MOA I couldn't really gripe!:) But, because I am not a squaddie anyone that thinks like me is a joker or a piker or and idiot.

Now I'm shooting one of those AR 7.5" stubbies and loving that too! I don't sort brass, I don't take excessive pains with reloading and it only has a 3X optic on it...but at 50 yards the damn thing is going close to 2 MOA - with my chit house reloads at that - and it is a ton of fun to shoot. But, because I'm not a squaddie, I am too dumb to realize the gun is useless in combat because of the excessive muzzle blast.

And apparently all the military brass hats behind the decision are all a bunch of REMF morons that don't know anything either.

I'm watching that chit storm unfold over there and it cracks me up - I am getting the distinct impression there are 350 lb. fan boys gobbling doritos and trolling like bandits. I may be a simple Fudd (whom has probably shot more "soft" targets than your average Navy SEAL...(and probably just as many paper targets, come to think of it))...but to me it shouldn't even be a debate. The AR has interchangeable uppers that swap out faster than you can think about it. You can configure it for any mission, anywhere on the face of the earth! Why get so bent on barrel length...?
Click to expand...

This seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Arfcom always did love to get their panties in a bunch! It doesn't surprise me one bit that they're at it again.

ChrisAlston said:
There's no question a 20in barrel has an advantage in ballistics over the 14.5in, but the carbine of course performs better in FIBUA type situations.
Click to expand...

I prefer the Brits informal acronym: FISH and CHIPS (fighting in someone's house and causing havoc in people's streets) ;)

For me, the bigger question that informs this decision is:

What kind of war is the USMC expecting to fight next?

Specifically, are they training and refining for another asymmetrical counter-insurgency campaign? Or picturing a peer or near-peer opponent with A2/AD capabilities? It seems like the rest of the Navy is leaning towards the latter.

If you're gearing up for COIN, then by all means have a wide variety of guns and optics that you can swap and pick for each specific task. Usually the initiative is on your side.

But if you're gaming a future where your supply and logistics systems might actually be at risk, it seems you'd make different choices in order to make each rifleman the most effective rifleman he (or she) can be in the widest range of plausible situations.

But honestly, what do I know? I'm just a guy who reads Ghost Fleet and points a camera at exercising troops. I'm no more qualified (but hopefully more levelheaded) than the Arfcom crew.

It's definitely easy for us outside the system to say "they picked wrong" or "if it was up to me I'd give everyone an Hk417/MCX/X95 etc" but all us in arm chairs are making a mistake by thinking any army is trying to get The Best Gun.

Budgets are real, as are existing inventories, training programs, and manuals of arms. It might be fun to ignore those things and imagine, but the organizations trying to outfit people don't have that luxury.
 
ChrisAlston said:
The M4's would really kick ass if they also ditched the M855 for Mk262 as the standard issue ammo.
Till then, there's no question a 20in barrel has an advantage in ballistics over the 14.5in, but the carbine of course performs better in FIBUA type situations.
Click to expand...

Are they not switching over to the M855A1 green round for general use and phasing out the M855? The A1 by all reports is a much better performer even out of shorter (M4) barrels. Have not heard much about it lately though.
 
20" barrels have their place: in a museum. The ease of handling in close quarters is a huge improvement compared to a small loss in muzzle velocity.

Fragmentation of M855 (or M193) bullets is so inconsistent that it makes no sense to choose barrel length on that basis. Better ammunition is the only real solution.

ChrisAlston said:
The M4's would really kick ass if they also ditched the M855 for Mk262 as the standard issue ammo.
Till then, there's no question a 20in barrel has an advantage in ballistics over the 14.5in, but the carbine of course performs better in FIBUA type situations.
Click to expand...

Mk318 is in turn even better than Mk262. It is much better at penetrating intermediate barriers.

Silverado said:
Funny thread title. A 'mutiny' at Arfcom is what got CGN started in the first place.
Click to expand...

As I recall, it was assaultweb.net.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom