The US military needs something more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4

[jeremy]

My best friend is at MARSOC, they use M4's, with 77gr SMKs. 14.5" barrels Heavy M4 profile, free floated, and Surefire suppressors "they are nice guns". They have had SCARS drop mags out of there guns when they get hot I guess cause the lower. I really like the 77gr match kings War Legal to. Get rid of the green tip crap with the steel tip.

I like the Green Tip myself...
Kinda like a Hot Knife and butter on Armor...

 

[xmas_asn]

I like the Green Tip myself...
Kinda like a Hot Knife and butter on Armor...

Thats nice, I like cheese cake!

 

[jeremy]

Thats nice, I like cheese cake!

Mmmm...

Cheescake can I get that with Cherries and Cool Whip Please?!

 

[xmas_asn]

Mmmm...

Cheescake can I get that with Cherries and Cool Whip Please?!

OMG Get out! No way!

 

[jeremy]

OMG Get out! No way!

I oh most forgot the Graham Cracker Crumbs...

 

[DemolitionMan]

Would love to have an even semi creditable source for this...

And one of the 5.56x45 myths that just won't die pops up again. Can anybody actually cite a government source that states that the 5.56x45 was designed to wound, and not kill?

A "government source" (an ROTC instructor) told us that as part of our class work, and another one (a drill instructor) told us that at boot...so of course it must be true, right?

Personally I think this is a military version of an urban legend. Who knows where it got started, but it seems credible enough (unless you actually think about it for a minute) so people just repeat it as though it is fact.

 

[jeremy]

A "government source" (an ROTC instructor) told us that as part of our class work, and another one (a drill instructor) told us that at boot...so of course it must be true, right?

Personally I think this is a military version of an urban legend. Who knows where it got started, but it seems credible enough (unless you actually think about it for a minute) so people just repeat it as though it is fact.

Exactly...

One of the reasons I smoke the **** out of Soldiers whenever I hear that crap out of their pie holes. Just trying to do my part to stop the myth in my own little way...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Exactly...

One of the reasons I smoke the **** out of Soldiers whenever I hear that crap out of their pie holes. Just trying to do my part to stop the myth in my own little way...

I think one of the reasons you and others feel the way you do is because the US Military with the M-16/M-4 is all you have known. As I said, I don't know why all the NATO forces moved away from 30-ish caliber battle rifles to intermediate cartridges, but I'm certain there was a fair amount of skull sweat and research done to justify the changeover. One of those rationalizations was very likely the j"wounded man takes 3 people to care for him" theory. When I went through Basic Training, the M-16 was general issue and it was still plagued with problems - and some of the current weapons are experiencing the same sorts of problems, as testified to by various first-hand accounts from folks who've used them in combat. You can argue that those failures are caused by improper maintenance and it's never happened to you, but there have been enough complaints to justify a search for an improved weapon.

While I don't think the M-16/M-4 will be replaced anytime in the foreseeable future, that's more a matter of military inertia and funding issues rather than a testament to the efficacy of the M-16 weapons system.

 

[Shwaisey]

M4 Carbine Fares Poorly in Dust Test


Contest between the XM8, 416, and Masada

Most likely going to end up with a plastic toy like the G36.
Seems to be the current trend in Military carbines

 

[.452browning]

Really based on what information?!
Both those rifles are the reason we went to the M16/M4 Series of weapon systems chambered in 5.56. Both of those rifles are trash. Oh they are great range shooters, however in the realm of combat they are truly undeserving of mention. So try again...

I have to disagree with you on the M1 Garand. used for today's warfare, no. used in world war II i have to say that it was by far the best combat rifle on the battlefield. it was the first semi automatic rifle standard issue ever used in the world as far as i know. the cartridge was lethal and accurate. it held 8 rounds rather than the traditional 5 for most bolt rifles except for the enfield. having the ability to keep shooting and not have to cycle the bolt probably saved a lot of lives in world war II.

as for the M14. i love the rifle. do i believe it has a place in todays warfare, yes for now until newer weapons like the SCAR-H and others pick up more with the military then it will be pushed aside. and im not saying it should be a standard issue weapon, but a designated marksman rifle. say one rifle per squad or platoon

 

[.452browning]

Really based on what information?!
Both those rifles are the reason we went to the M16/M4 Series of weapon systems chambered in 5.56. Both of those rifles are trash. Oh they are great range shooters, however in the realm of combat they are truly undeserving of mention. So try again...

I have to disagree with you on the M1 Garand. used for today's warfare, no. used in world war II i have to say that it was by far the best combat rifle on the battlefield. it was the first semi automatic rifle standard issue ever used in the world as far as i know. the cartridge was lethal and accurate. it held 8 rounds rather than the traditional 5 for most bolt rifles except for the enfield. having the ability to keep shooting and not have to cycle the bolt probably saved a lot of lives in world war II.

did not read further before making post. later saw you were refering to todays warfare, not dogging the Garand from WW2...disregard post

as for the M14. i love the rifle. do i believe it has a place in todays warfare, yes for now until newer weapons like the SCAR-H and others pick up more with the military then it will be pushed aside. and im not saying it should be a standard issue weapon, but a designated marksman rifle. say one rifle per squad or platoon

did not read further before making post. later saw you were refering to todays warfare, not dogging the Garand from WW2...disregard post

 

[Rampdog]

M4 Carbine Fares Poorly in Dust Test


Contest between the XM8, 416, and Masada

Most likely going to end up with a plastic toy like the G36.
Seems to be the current trend in Military carbines

That article only tells a small part of the story. The writer (He wouldn't have been biased would he?) didn't report that the bolts failed on every XM8 in the test. The M4 had the least with one bolt failure out of ten guns entered. The writer also doesn't tell you that in an earlier spring test the M4 had about the same number of stoppages as the HK416.He also doesn't tell you that the testers were mystified why the M4 faired so poorly. All in all though the test wasn't biased, the reporting was.

 

[DocBoCook]

Not stupid at all. You are the reason the rest of us were out there. Anyone in the military that is not a grunt exists merely to support him. All else is BS.

I disagree, Us Corpsman were there to save their Knuckle-draggin lives!!!

 

[jordyman]

Im going with the guy a few posts before me. The M14 kicks the M4 in the ass. Heavy fire, shoots packed full of sand or dirt, doesnt just leave people wounded. I was always told if you pull the trigger dont do it to injure. That seems like the direction the M4 was moving in when it came out.

Just saying, weve not won a real war since we took it on. Maybe that has something to do with it.

 

[kedie]

I think we should go back to the Krag as a standard issue rifle.

 

[bigedp51]

The M16 was the first rifle "NOT" designed, tested and manufactured by the U.S. Military and it was shoved down our throats by civilians and greedy politicians. It was a piece of junk when it was first issued in Viet Nam and is still a crappy mouse gun caliber that dumps its cyclic gasses into the receiver to gum up the works.

The M16 is NOT a battle rifle, it is a rifle designed by civilians to maximize company profits. Springfield arsenal was closed down by civilian politicians and is now a museum.

The majority of military depots are closed down now and everything is being contracted out to the cheapest bidders. The crying shame is mostly non-vets working for our Government are making procurement decisions on subjects they know nothing about. Lobbing, money and corruption control what our servicemen are being issued in the field.

It took over two years for contracting out by our Government to review contracts and issue a contract before HUMVEE Armour got to our troops overseas that needed it.

Its not about what is best for our troops, it is about how much money is made by the industrial military complex and how much money is donated to our politicians by these greedy contractors.

The Rag Heads can shoot through mud hut walls with their AK-47s and our good ol' M-16/A4 bullets bounce off these same mud walls. What is so hard to understand about "There is no substitute for bullet weight".

On top of this our Government gave our troops new hats that were made in China.......................Hell of a way to win a war.

 

[Shooter1]

I think we should buy a new weapon system from China.......

 

[kedie]

I think we should buy a new weapon system from China.......

Chinese made Krags?

 

[melensdad]

I vote for an intermediate cartridge: 6.8 spc. If they're going to switch it up, do it big.

I thought the SCAR was going to replace the M-16. Totally different design there. The 5.56 is an accurate round, but lacks a little in horse power. I read some stuff on the 6.8x43mm, but don't think that is the answer either.

What of the 6.5 round? I read where it eats the lunch of the 6.8 and is a great short, medium and longer range round, plus, fits well into an AR platform. No "armchair soldier" here, just throwing out thoughts.

One of the problems our soldiers are reporting is the ranges in the Afghan theatre are out to 800 yards and the 5.56 is simply not up to the task of an 800 kill shot.

The 6.8, while MUCH better than the 5.56 at all ranges is still not a long range round and at 800 meters actually has lower velocity than the 5.56 military round and suffers from greater bullet drop. Clearly its not a long range round.

The 6.5, also MUCH better than the 5.56 at all ranges is capable of staying supersonic out past 1000 yards and is clearly a better choice for long ranges . . . but from the tactical standpoint is heavier to carry in quantity and magazines hold fewer round because the cases are fat.

I don't think either of these rounds is going to be chosen by the military. In fact the military does not even seem to be looking at a new round, but rather they only seem to be looking for a new rifle.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I never had to use my M16 to dispatch anyone. However, If you think the 5.56 lacks power, I say volunteer to take a round for science.