Military Reconsidering M-4 in A-stan

[handgonnetoter]

The M4 runs fine if it's maintained and lubed properly.

The big talk of transitiioning to a Piston operated AR platform has merit but it's intentions are for the wrong reasons. This is a caliber issue, not a platform issue. The SCAR or H&K 416 are both 5.56 weapons and Piston guns. Why hasn't it been adopted Army wide ? Too many political points being won by those inside of Colts pockets. What would happen to Colt if the military just dropped them for entire weapons clean out and replacement with the H&K 416, chambered in 6.8 SPC ?

Jobs are lost, it's political nightmare and politicians lose elections when an American company loses current and further contracts to a foreign company.

But, this is still not a platform debate, it's a caliber debate.

We've seen this before when the people asked on the ground where Pvt's and PFC's with an ANG battallion where polled regarding their weapon systems. It doesn't take a genious or rocket scientist, especially somebody that's been down range to know that these soldiers are rarely trained to the level of Special Operations soldiers in their marksmenship and maintenance of the rifle system.

Remember, these where the same soldiers that insisted on running their rifles completley dry in a sandy envirenment, not a wet gun. What does that tell ya about the the mindset of the AD soldier vs Natoional Guard soldiers and Reserves ??

Lot's of grey area here with the issue.

Here's an easy fix. Replace the uppers with a "rifle" length upper not a 14.5" barrel. That solves 2.3rd's of the problem there.

I just don't see the Army going with a larger caliber anytime soon. This is more internet fodder.

It just kills me how politics, outsourcing, and the proper rifle for the military has become so innertwinned. In the mid 1930's, they needed to replace the aging M1903, so they just did it with the Garand - one of the greatest weopons of its time. Now? All the ramifications of just doing something as simple as getting a rifle with some ass into our troops' hands seems so impossible. I should have been born a hundred years ago - when things made more sense.

[wjh2657]

"It just kills me how politics, outsourcing, and the proper rifle for the military has become so innertwinned. In the mid 1930's, they needed to replace the aging M1903, so they just did it with the Garand - one of the greatest weopons of its time. Now? All the ramifications of just doing something as simple as getting a rifle with some ass into our troops' hands seems so impossible. I should have been born a hundred years ago - when things made more sense"


Bad example if you are talking about a quick change over to a new rifle. The Garand took almost 15 years to adopt. First, it was designed and submitted by a designer in one of our own government armories. It was first chambered for the .276 Pederson cartridge and had a gas trap that tended to malfunction. On the recommendation of McCarthur, the Army insisted on a rifle chambered for the 30-06 cartridge already in stock and available. Rechambered and the gas trap was changed to a gas port and the rifle functioned as needed. Supposedly issue in the late 1930s but the Springfield 03 was still the standard issue in the Pacific Theatre in the first year of the war.

Getting newer rifles has always been a problem.

[theicemanmpls]

As has been mentioned there are quite a few good weapons already on the market with more distance and punch IF they are needed. FN, Sig, Beretta...the Army/Marines can pick these up quickly if they are to work out the logistics issues and do the procurement. It sounds like it is not so much that the AK is "better" as that the 5.56 is just not as effective given the more open terrain and less urban environments of Afghanistan. Just as a .30-30 carbine works fine for deer in the East, it's not as effective for use in SD, MT or the plains where there are longer distances and different cover (rock vs. brush). Even noobs understand that basic thought, much less the Army.

Regardless, here's to doing whatever it takes to keep our troops safe and able to do their job with maximum effectiveness.

The OP said ranges from 1000-2500 yards. That is 1/2 to 1.50 miles. What rife are you going to use at those distances.

The US Army preaches an 800 meter maximum effective range for the .308, the USMC preaches a 1000 yard (915 meter) max effective range. While I have made hits at 1000 meters and beyond with the .308, I would have to agree with the Army and say that 800 meters is the limit for RELIABLE hits. After that the .308 is dropping like a rock and is inconsistent. As an all around sniping round that works great for both Law Enforcement and military sniping, the .308 is hard to beat!

[BigSlick]

Actually the ranges stated in the OP was 1000 and 2500 feet. That translates to 333 and 833 yards respectively. I agree with another poster that it’s not the platform but a caliber issue. I find it hard to believe that the enemy is engaging our troops at those ranges with iron sights or a scoped AK for that matter and scoring hits. The AK may be known for working well in a sandbox but its accuracy is horrible at those ranges. The ballistic info for the M4 firing the M855 62gr (green tip) at 300yds the bullet will still be traveling at 2,072 ft/sec, and retain 591 ft/pounds of kinetic energy, dropping 7.3 inches from a 50yd zero. No bad but not that great either at those ranges. Still lethal if a vital area is hit. The .308 would be the better choice for those longer shots (800 yards plus) and it’s still in the inventory.

[Quiet]

Nov 2009. US Army Ranger with Mk 17 Mod 0 (FN SCAR-H 7.62x51mm) in Afghanistan.

[Austin]

Back to m-14 i would say..... they sure arent going with a 7.62 x 39 because thats what the "bad guys" are carrying.

[utimmer43]

Nov 2009. US Army Ranger with Mk 17 Mod 0 (FN SCAR-H 7.62x51mm) in Afghanistan.

I knew I had read somewhere that a SCAR is available in 7.62. I think it was in an NRA magazine, but I didn't take the time to dig through the pile of them that I have laying here.

[ricbak]

Back to m-14 i would say..... they sure arent going with a 7.62 x 39 because thats what the "bad guys" are carrying.

Yup, I've heard that someplace, Oh, I used to say that, Too....