Military Reconsidering M-4 in A-stan

[festus]

FOXNews.com - U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan

The U.S. military is re-evaluating the Army’s use of the M4 rifle in Afghanistan following concerns that the Taliban’s primitive AK-47’s are proving more effective.

The M4 is an updated version of the M16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. But while the weapon is better suited for the kind of urban warfare common in Iraq, some have questioned whether it is deadly and accurate for Afghanistan – where U.S. troops often find themselves in long-range combat.

An Army study found that the 5.56mm bullets fired from the M4s don’t retain enough velocity past 1,000 feet to kill an enemy. In Afghanistan, forces are often up to 2,500 feet apart.

“It just makes no sense,” said Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr., a Fox News military analyst.

Scales said the M4 is “unsuitable” for Afghan terrain and “notoriously unreliable” in the first place. The Army Times reported on an Army weapons test three years ago that found the M4 performed worse than three other newer carbines when subjected to an “extreme dust test.”

Problems with the M4 locking up were also cited in a study last year on a July 2008 firefight that left nine U.S. soldiers dead in eastern Afghanistan.

The Taliban are meanwhile using heavier bullets that allow them to fire at U.S. and NATO troops from distances that are out of range of the M4.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. The sharpshooters are equipped with the new M110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet.

As for what could ultimately replace the M4, the Army’s center for small-arms development is trying to find a solution.

Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, said the M4 has the advantage of more-rapid firepower.

“The 5.56 caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target,” he told The Associated Press. But he acknowledged the weapon is much less effective at 2,000 feet out.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56 mm and 7.62 cartridges, Tamilio said.

Scales said the U.S. military simply needs to engineer a better weapon – he said the M8, a weapon that was under development before being halted several years ago, could be revived and improved for Afghanistan.

“We’re the world’s largest superpower. Why don’t we just make one,” Scales said. “This isn’t rocket science. We’re not putting a man on the moon here.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Ropadope]

Time for the 6.8 SPC or back to 7.62 NATO.

Lot's of M1A/M14 have been dusted off and in use in both theaters of war. Mostly for DMR use, but not alway's.

This alway's seem to creep up in a time of war, expecially with the AK47. Mostly the guy's that don't know **** are the ones that complain about firepower. Not to mention the AK is incredibly inacurate past 100-200 meters. Let Mr. Oliio go down range with a full load of 7.62 and see how he fares with a full kit of gear.

Of couse we have the advantage of CAS. And, it works quite well. :D

[utimmer43]

An Army study found that the 5.56mm bullets fired from the M4s don’t retain enough velocity past 1,000 feet to kill an enemy. In Afghanistan, forces are often up to 2,500 feet apart.

They're only figuring this out now?

[HK4U]

Why do we have to manufacture a new rifle. I would think there are a number of good choices already out there. What about about an HK, Sig, or Scar?

[theicemanmpls]

They're only figuring this out now?

1000 to 2,500 yards apart? Neither the M4 or the AK is suitable for shots that far. This is where the .50 cal Barret, 308 sniper rifles, or crew served weapons come in. Maybe even something more heavy could be called up.
Regarding the comment about the dirt; put an AK, and a M4 in a sandbox, the AK will work, the M4 will not.
The AK is a cheap weapon used by many army's and bandits. The M4 is a precision tool.

I am sure the US Military has a handle on this issue. A better grasp then the noobs on this internet forum.

[utimmer43]

... Scar...

How about that? Wasn't that what they made the SCAR for in the first place?

[utimmer43]

1000 to 2,500 yards apart? Neither the M4 or the AK is suitable for shots that far. This is where the .50 cal Barret, 308 sniper rifles, or crew served weapons come in. Maybe even something more heavy could be called up.
Regarding the comment about the dirt; put an AK, and a M4 in a sandbox, the AK will work, the M4 will not.
The AK is a cheap weapon used by many army's and bandits. The M4 is a precision tool.

I am sure the US Military has a handle on this issue. A better grasp then the noobs on this internet forum.

All of what you said is exactly my point. It's no secret that the 5.56 isn't suitable for long shots. Why is it that only after a little more than 8 years they are finally talking about using something with better range for this type of combat? Likewise, why are they only now realizing that the M4 isn't a great weapon to have in the desert, while an AK will work no matter what kind of crap it is all gunked up with?

[Ropadope]

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.

[rockman]

need more power to reach out and hit the enemy...

[ecocks]

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.