# Another war another rifle short coming?



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

What do you think?

Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in M4 carbine assault rifle - Washington Times

Has the popularity of the AR-15 by civilians made it more difficult for the military to move to a better system?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

The Army and Marines should have moved to a better system in 1967.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

PalmettoTree said:


> What do you think?
> 
> Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in M4 carbine assault rifle - Washington Times
> 
> Has the popularity of the AR-15 by civilians made it more difficult for the military to move to a better system?


I think that if you re-read the article you will see that the story was about some of the problems encountered when the M-4 was first fielded years ago before the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan.


----------



## wesley762 (Oct 23, 2012)

Part of the artical said that you will never find one that is afordable enought to make everyone happy. I think the closest thing you are going to come to perfection is the AK-47. Now I own both a AK and a AR, both are great rifles I just think the AK is going to take a better beating.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Separate the politics from fact. Some one wanted Colt cut back. This is not the first time this kind of thing happened.
The AK cant hit a building out side of short range.
Like most weapons when we moved from the M16 style 20 inch to the 16 inch M4 some issue came up time to time. Most in full auto fire. They were addressed. Another issue was single follower mags. Also fixed


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

I dunno honestly. It's a great weapon system in my eyes. I've had very few problems with any of my issued weapons. I zeroed them, and fired a few thousand rounds throughout the years and haven't really had any failures worth noting. Most of the issues come from lazy dudes not wanting to clean their rifles. Sad really when their lives depend on them. As a flight chief, it was like pulling teeth to get my troops to clean them. I had to threaten with paperwork n smoke sessions. It got old. Maintenance aside...

The one issue I will note is knock down power or lack of. In term of energy alone, we should be using at a minimum 6.8 SPC. But i would prefer a 7.62 in a fire fight. I don't really care for articles like that...they're usually written by folks that have never even seen one, let alone carried a rifle in battle. When they interview people, of course the troops will voice their displeasure with it...we all want the new hot rifle on the market to be standard issue. How do you do that? By bitching to the press every chance you get about the crappy US rifle. Hell, if it meant we could get the 7.62 SCAR or 6.8 ACR in our hands...I probably would too.

But overall, like the spec ops boys said. If you mod it...it works great. That's why it so popular in the civilian sector. There's more parts for the AR platform than any other. These government contract wars are exactly why. I would happily own my GOV issue M4, if they'd let me.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

I have owned four different AR style rifles. Three different bushmasters and one SIG M-400 enhanced. I have fired approx 15000 rounds through these four different riffles over the years. My first was purchased around 1998. I have always kept reasonable care of them and have had them very muddy and dirty out hunting ground hogs and coyotes in spring and winter. I can honestly say that I have had less than a half dozen jams likely four caused from magazines. Two were caused from filthy chambers from wolf ammo. I know you are going to say under adverse battle conditions etc. They malfunction more. My civilian experience tells me the new ones are pretty great. My father in law has nothing good to say about them and has not had one in his hand since 1972. Which I expect is the opinion formation from many Vietnam vets.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

Agreed...there is no comparison between a modern M4 and a Vietnam era M16A1. (And yes I have fire M16A1 in tech school back in 98 as there were still a few floating around) Completely different behaving rifles.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> If my memory serves me correctly...In 2009 Colt did not "Lose" the AR design...That was when by contract the USG got the unlimited distribution rights of the design and the ability to compete the bids. This was based on the initial selection and contracts made by the USG with Colt. in 2009 they renewed a 4 year IDIQ contract with Colt, which ended in 2013 and a new contract awarded to FN Herstal. (assumed it was because they were the lower bidder). This whole article seems like a lopsided rewrite of history. I know of no one who had a major malfunction of their AR during my 5 active duty tours, with the exception of some stoppages as a result of dust/dirt, which is expected and trained for (sports). My weapon, even when exposed to the desert elements, never failed me. Now that 9mm Beretta is a different animal altogether....but thats a different story.


 As for the Part about Colt you are correct. In a nut shell Colt owns the design however the US government now has the right to contract out the manufacturing for military use.
The current version M4 we have been using for some time has served well. We will always have the this or that when it comes to caliber.
Weight VS number of rounds that is always an issue.
Even the M16A1 turned out pretty good. Many of the issue it had were a result of ammo an not being cleaned correctly. The first ones were built to tight.
The Army had wanted a Gas-piston M4 it was testing a few different version some with a 20mm grenade launcher to replace the 2003. 
Pesky things like wars and elections got in the way and new weapons were tabled.
The early test on gas pistons looked good, there were a few issues with hot springs when fire non stop for 6000 rounds on full auto.
Read that again notice the dates, read between the lines. We have never had an issue weapon that someone was not pushing a different one.
Read about the fight with the M60 and the 240. Funny part is here we are all these years latter using the 240 and the proven M60 retired to the history books.
Carried the m16a1,2,3 and M16a4 they did just fine the M4 even better. Size and weight being a big thing .
Yes there was an M16a4 version it was the A3 out fitted with the rail system you now see on the m4. The Marine corp still likes the M16A4 an A3 versions for the longer barrels.


----------



## Tennessee (Feb 1, 2014)

I think the Marines are getting it right going with the HK 416 piston driven AR and M27


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Tennessee said:


> I think the Marines are getting it right going with the HK 416 piston driven AR and M27


 I have converted a few Colts to gas piston the work just fine. Converting an M4 to gas piston is simple to do.


----------



## shotlady (Aug 30, 2012)

I know my boys use the colt m4 in the usmc. that's a solid piece. id buy my boys the same thing after watching the rental guns at the range... those things just keep working. and id buy it for all their platoon if it meant my boys would have half a chance.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

shotlady said:


> I know my boys use the colt m4 in the usmc. that's a solid piece. id buy my boys the same thing after watching the rental guns at the range... those things just keep working. and id buy it for all their platoon if it meant my boys would have half a chance.


Damn lady...I'd love to buy you dinner for comments like that...


----------



## Scotty12 (Jan 5, 2013)

The only reason I don't like a Colt is the larger pins.


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

Spoke with my nephew about this. He was a captain in the army with two tours in Iraq. Many fire fights. He said he never, nor his team, had any problems. He said that two things caused problems... Over cleaning (he said a little carbon was good keeping the seals tight) and not cleaning the mags.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Scotty12 said:


> The only reason I don't like a Colt is the larger pins.


 I do be leave your are referring to an old fitting issue with rock island. Colt is they same pin size everyone one else uses.
If you like I will take a Colt and mix the parts with a few other AR's.

If you were around awhile back in 2000 the push was on for a new infantry issue weapon. The plane was to also have a 20mm grenade launcher attachment and some high tech sighting.
All of the ones being looked at were gas piston. The problems was War cost wise and all of the other issue involved it was not a good time to make a change. It was not being looked at because the M4 was a failure it was the next step .
Mark my words you will see a Gas piston issue weapon. And when Obama is gone be ready to see Colt back in the spot light.
The m4 platform born of the m16 is not done yet. They will keep building a better mouse trap.
Xm25 latter became the XM29 then evolved into the XM8


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> I do be leave your are referring to an old fitting issue with rock island. Colt is they same pin size everyone one else uses.
> If you like I will take a Colt and mix the parts with a few other AR's.
> 
> If you were around awhile back in 2000 the push was on for a new infantry issue weapon. The plane was to also have a 20mm grenade launcher attachment and some high tech sighting.
> ...


Colt used to use a trigger and hammer pin that was about .020 bigger on their commercial guns than the standard .154 pins, they are no longer doing it so unless your Colt AR is 20 years old it's not going to be a problem.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Don't really know what to make of this. You can go to any forum on whatever firearm and find regrets and adoration. All were made by humans, and we sometimes fall short. The lifespan of the AR speaks for itself. Why, if its so poorly designed, is it so often copied? my .02 The mil gave up on the fine 1911 to give us the 9mm. But, you hear reports the 223 is not sufficient. Wound one man, and it takes two to carry away. That's war. jmho.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

1skrewsloose said:


> Don't really know what to make of this. You can go to any forum on whatever firearm and find regrets and adoration. All were made by humans, and we sometimes fall short. The lifespan of the AR speaks for itself. Why, if its so poorly designed, is it so often copied? my .02 The mil gave up on the fine 1911 to give us the 9mm. But, you hear reports the 223 is not sufficient. Wound one man, and it takes two to carry away. That's war. jmho.


 We did not give up on the .45. We were order to go to the 9mm because of NATO. The 5.65 62 gr in current issue does a fine job of making the kills
It has not worked out as they expected and slowly behind the sense .45's have been slipping back in.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Smitty901 said:


> We did not give up on the .45. We were order to go to the 9mm because of NATO. The 5.65 62 gr in current issue does a fine job of making the kills
> It has not worked out as they expected and slowly behind the sense .45's have been slipping back in.


This bit about troops retrofitting arms is old news, they knew what worked and what didn't, but who would listen to a grunt? jmho. peace.


----------



## LunaticFringeInc (Nov 20, 2012)

I used it in three tours in the middle east and found it to be exactly what it was designed to be, a good solid general purpose fire arm...a Jack of all trades but a master of few. Not the best at penetrating barriers but its pretty effective on soft targets in the open at reasonable ranges, at least in my experience. My biggest complaints are the 14.5 inch barrel on the M4 while great when mounting and dismounting from a vehicle or having to fight from a vehicle when a gun fight initially starts sometimes makes it great in that instance but the 14.5 inch barrel does serious start to affect the rounds performance as the ranges get to be 200 yards plus. In an urban environment like we often faced in Iraq that wasn't a huge issue. In Stan, that was often not the case and the round would have preformed much better with a longer barrel. A combat arm is always going to be a compromise to one degree or another. Its just a reality of life. Yes in Stan I did "borrow" a couple of M-14's from the ships armory when I went TAD and they did prove brutally effective in the mountians of Stan, but for the added weight and larger more powerful round we lost ammo capacity and it was a bit slower between shots to get back on target especially as the ranges opened up. But the pay off was that at 300 plus yards it did much better putting them down and keeping them down. That doesn't make the M4 a bad gun. It does demonstrate that you need the right tool for the job at hand though!

The other issue I had with fire arms in the military is that most folks these days don't grow up shooting guns or have any skill. I call it the wussification of America. Very few folks on my ship could qual with a M-14. I don't know why as I don't find the recoil all that bad and don't understand why the average guy cant seem to handle it with some skill and a little practice. But it is what it is. When we traded most of out M-14's for M16A2's the rate of those that could qualify suddenly dramatically shot up. I attribute this to the significantly lighter recoil. More females were able to qualify and handle the lighter M16A2's more comfortably than the M-14's as well. But don't think for a second that the M-14's we kept didn't see a lot of hard use or were the last guns to be issued out!

I was never all that fond of the AR platform until I served in combat with one. Its not perfect but I don't find it all that lacking most of the time in most situations. Yes it does need a little more cleaning and maintenance compared to the AK platform. But its also a hell of a lot more accurate than the AK platform too! I would like to see it with more bullet weight and diameter with reasonable velocity and range. I own a few AR's now. In addition to one in 5.56, I also have one in 300 Whisper which is more of a novelty. I also have one in 6x45 which I absolutely love beyond words. Velocity is still pretty high, the mid 80 gr bullets seem to be a good balance of bullet weight and penetration and knock down power on Deer and Hogs I have shot.


----------



## ordnance21xx (Jan 29, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> The Army and Marines should have moved to a better system in 1967.


They had a good one, M14. nothing else to say.

MOLON LABE


----------



## rickkyw1720pf (Nov 17, 2012)

The m4 may not take the punishment that a 20 in barrel m16 can take because the system unlocks to soon do to where the gas tube is attached to the barrel, but in semi mode or an m14/ar15 you should not have a problem. But the m4 will take a decent amount of punishment.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

rickkyw1720pf said:


> The m4 may not take the punishment that a 20 in barrel m16 can take because the system unlocks to soon do to where the gas tube is attached to the barrel, but in semi mode or an m14/ar15 you should not have a problem. But the m4 will take a decent amount of punishment.


Thank you for posting that and finding the source of the .223 ammo shortage last year.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

ordnance21xx said:


> They had a good one, M14. nothing else to say.
> 
> MOLON LABE


 M14 was to long to heavy for what combat is today. We have plenty of ways to deal with long range targets. The M14 sucked for clearing building and long road marches.
The M14 is still placed in service for use by designated marksman. Because it is a fine weapon for the job and ,just far more of them still in inventory than the M24.


----------

