Military Reconsidering M-4 in A-stan - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Military Reconsidering M-4 in A-stan

  1. #11
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ropadope View Post
    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.

  2.   
  3. #12
    "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.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by ecocks View Post
    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!

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    TN, the patron state of shootin stuff
    Posts
    1,399
    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 its 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 its still in the inventory.
    Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress;
    but I repeat myself.
    Mark Twain

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    bouncing between CA and NV
    Posts
    186
    Nov 2009. US Army Ranger with Mk 17 Mod 0 (FN SCAR-H 7.62x51mm) in Afghanistan.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).

  7. #16
    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.
    -Austin

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
    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.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Austin View Post
    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....
    Semper Fi

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops to Prepare for Civil War
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 04-21-2010, 10:09 AM
  2. Another OMG email concerning Obama and the Military
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-03-2009, 05:20 PM
  3. Bush Weighed Using Military in Arrests
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-25-2009, 02:55 PM
  4. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 09:35 AM
  5. Can Canada disarm US Citizens Part 2
    By Right 2 Carry in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-02-2008, 06:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast