Army Looking To Replace The M4 - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Army Looking To Replace The M4

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    FT Bragg, NC
    Posts
    68
    Most FN weapons we use are made in thr US. The M249's are made in columbai,sc for example

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by vettefreak View Post
    Most FN weapons we use are made in thr US. The M249's are made in columbai,sc for example
    The control and profits still go overseas.

    There has to be a stop to this.

    An nation who's forces depend on the whims of foreigners, is indeed laughing stock!

    -Doc

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    FT Bragg, NC
    Posts
    68
    It is hard to keep industry stateside, when the companies are forced over seas by an oppressive tax system desigend to punish them for success

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by RedLegRider View Post
    Anything but the poorly designed gas tube system they have now.
    Delta Force operators are using the HK416.
    75TH Ranger Regiment is also using the HK416 along with the FN-SCAR. Tried and tested. If they work for the elite forces why not outfit the regular line units with them. It's all about reliability.
    Not sure where your getting this information concerning the H&K 416 with any SMU units. The SCAR is all but done and has been handed back in to SOCOM. It is no longer goes down range any of our SOF units, both the heavy and the light versions. You can find these facts regarding the SCAR on just about any military website concering weapons development.

    I have it on good faith from members of the SF and SOF community that many unit purchase have been made of the LWRC piston system rifles, with some Teams. The H&K 416 was even pulled from 1st BATT 1st SFG (A) in Japan.

    Just because this article mentions that soldiers where killed in Minat does not mean that the M4 5.56 rilfe was the culprit of their deaths on the battlefield. More information regarding those deaths would be needed to assess the reasons and what weapons or explosives they died from. Snipers have been known to set up a sniper hide as close as 400 yards to entrenched positions. At that range I can use the iron sights and hit COM shots and draw in medics and take head shots pretty easily. Take one out of the fight and let the others come to his aid and pick off everyone of those also with iron sights, at that range.

    This seems to come up every year since the GWOT started with the M4 rifle. Maintain our rifle, keep extra parts kits with you, lube it properly and train the conventional white side of the military how to actually employ the weapon and it will get the job done without having to train already mediocre soldiers on a whole new unproven weapon system.

    Then there is thw subject of ammunition weight during dismounted patrols into the high mountainous territory. Try carrying 10 mags of .308 Nato versus 12 mags of 5.56. You'll see the difference.

    I'm no expert here but a nice choice would have been the 6.8 SPC, either Direct gas or piston system. Regardless of it's pitfalls, it beats the 5.56 any day of the week.

    Here is one short blurb explaining the recall of the SCAR-16: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...fn-scar-mk-16/

    Just my .02
    "When a government robs Peter to pay Paul it will alway's have the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    This thread is really interesting. I'm not sure if the 5.56 is such a "bad" round... but this is coming from somebody that's never been hit by one.

    I like the 6.8 though. I think it could be a good thing to use it. But, I'm unsure if it would be a "two-fold" improvement.

    In the firefights we normally get in, it's typically the VOLUME of fire we really want to put out there. B/c we normally don't have clear site pictures on individuals, so we want to put a lot of rounds down range in a hurry to "blanket" an area.

    I agree that the 5.56 was better served from the A2 20" barrel though.

    So, we'll see what the experts decide.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  7. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Rocky Mountain High
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by lukem View Post
    I just read this article about the Army, after 50 years, is now looking to replace the M4. Looks like they are going to pick it after an "industry day" on March 30 when they are going to be doing some testing. Definitely will be interesting to see what they pick.

    The article I read is here.
    They should replace it w/ an M14
    See, it's mumbo jumbo like that and skinny little lizards like you thinking they the last dragon that gives Kung Fu a bad name.
    http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/ Internet forum dedicated to second amendment

  8. #27
    Army Looking To Replace The M4-mk14modo.jpg




    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    They should replace it w/ an M14
    Lot's of M14's are being used as DMR rifles and semi auto sniper systems.

    One of the main M14 replacement platforms is the M14 EBR with the chasis system from SAGE.

    Don't know if you can see that photo good enough or not but he has the M14EBR with the SAGE chasis system with a Loopy dedicated variable scope and Harris bi-pod.
    "When a government robs Peter to pay Paul it will alway's have the support of Paul" George Bernard Shaw

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    They should replace it w/ an M14
    I'm not military but my father was Vietnam-era Army (9th Infantry). He did not like the M14 at all. His biggest issue was the cam roller on the bolt - one grain of sand on that thing and the rifle was done, and one thing a military weapon has to do is eat dirt. He felt the M16 was a much superior weapon (he carried one the whole time he was in Vietnam). I'm not saying there isn't better stuff out there now than the M16/M4 though.

  10. #29
    They are not exactly going back to the M14 as a standard issue battle rifle. They use it as so called "marksman" rifle, an in between the normal M4 rifle and the more specialized sniper rifles. Basically something with more reach than a standard M4 that does more damage at longer reaches.

    But honestly, I am fairly sure whatever they will end up going with is gonna be a piston design, by now there are some very good AR variations out there that use it. They run cooler and are more reliable.

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    5,115
    Quote Originally Posted by SC Tiger View Post
    I'm not military but my father was Vietnam-era Army (9th Infantry). He did not like the M14 at all. His biggest issue was the cam roller on the bolt - one grain of sand on that thing and the rifle was done, and one thing a military weapon has to do is eat dirt. He felt the M16 was a much superior weapon (he carried one the whole time he was in Vietnam). I'm not saying there isn't better stuff out there now than the M16/M4 though.
    Wow, I've heard and read terrible things about the M16 but not the M14 in Vietnam... interesting insight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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