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

[xmas_asn]

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.

Im waiting...

 

[ihateiraq]

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.

im willing to let you take a crack at me from 1000m. if you miss though, i get to shoot back with a .308.

 

[HICKMAN]

I would probably just try to catch a ride, regardless of the weight of my gear.

Tank Driver in the making, lol.

 

[xmas_asn]

im willing to let you take a crack at me from 1000m. if you miss though, i get to shoot back with a .308.

Can I take the shot with my AR? We are testing the rounds not the rifle this time..

 

[HICKMAN]

Convince the rest of NATO to adopt it...

**** NATO....

 

[HICKMAN]

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

sadly, I heard the same crap in '86 at Fort Knox during Basic.

 

[ihateiraq]

Can I take the shot with my AR? We are testing the rounds not the rifle this time..

deal. one trigger squeeze for one trigger squeeze right?


my .308 is a 240b. just fyi.

i get to wear my armor too.

 

[edporch]

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?

Funny your should ask. :-)
I just had a friend over for a few beers and cigars tonight who cited a government source.

He told me when he was in US Army basic training in the late 1970's, he was taught that PART of the thinking behind the 5.56 NATO round was that the smaller bullet would increase the chance of wounding and not killing the enemy.
Thus tying up more resources of the enemy in dealing with the wounded.

So there was a time when this was taught.

 

[xmas_asn]

deal. one trigger squeeze for one trigger squeeze right?


my .308 is a 240b. just fyi.

i get to wear my armor too.

As long as my trigger squeeze is first.


Don't get me wrong, I love 7.62x51. Its the reason I built my Modernized M1A. I would take the 7.62 over 5.56 any day.

 

[ihateiraq]

As long as my trigger squeeze is first.


Don't get me wrong, I love 7.62x51. Its the reason I built my Modernized M1A. I would take the 7.62 over 5.56 any day.

ive done crazier things than let someone take a shot like that.

they both have their applications. i dont necessarily think everyone on the ground needs a 7.62, but its nice to have a couple of them handy, be it bravos or m14s. i dont necessarily mind trucking either one of them around either. jeremy is old. and a mechanic. thats why hes so worried about the weight.

 

[Sticky]

...
He told me when he was in US Army basic training in the late 1970's, he was taught that PART of the thinking behind the 5.56 NATO round was that the smaller bullet would increase the chance of wounding and not killing the enemy.
Thus tying up more resources of the enemy in dealing with the wounded.

So there was a time when this was taught.

I heard the same thing in the USMC, in 1970.

 

[xmas_asn]

I heard the same thing in the USMC, in 1970.

I was tough the same thing in 2006 for Infantry Basic..

 

[dom1104]

You realize, we are talking about small bullets, smaller bullets, and smallest bullets right? I mean, some of you make this sound like a .308 is like waffle iron flying thru the air.

Its amazing to me that threads like this last 14 pages.

The .mil will use whatever they decide to use, more power to them.

I am not sure the last few conflicts we have been in would have fared much differently no matter what round they were firing.

 

[gunowner930]

Funny your should ask. :-)
I just had a friend over for a few beers and cigars tonight who cited a government source.

He told me when he was in US Army basic training in the late 1970's, he was taught that PART of the thinking behind the 5.56 NATO round was that the smaller bullet would increase the chance of wounding and not killing the enemy.
Thus tying up more resources of the enemy in dealing with the wounded.

So there was a time when this was taught.

can you cite a report that states that? Whenever I hear about the 5.56x45 being designed to wound, or being designed to have a greater chance of wounding and not killing, thus tying up enemy resources it always comes from somebody who knows somebody and sometimes that knows somebody in the military.

If you show me proof from a reliable source and cite it, I'll believe that the 5.56x45 was in fact designed to wound, until then its a decades-old unsubstantiated rumor.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Even the .308 round has its limitations. The M4 was designed for CQC, house to house fighting. Who wants to clear buildings using a 20" barrel M16? I have done it, and it's not very fun. I agree that every platoon should have a dedicated marksman with an up to date M14. Fact is, the battlefield has changed since WWI,WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

 

[gunowner930]

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.

Every modern military has moved to intermediate cardridges as their primary cartridge. Russia uses the 5.45x39 and China has gone to a 5.8x42, in addition to their 7.62x39 (also intermediate).

"There is no substitute for bullet weight".

If this is always true, then you should be able to explain why a 62 g 5.56x45 will outpenetrate a 230 g .45 ACP. Velocity matters too.

 

[edporch]

can you cite a report that states that? Whenever I hear about the 5.56x45 being designed to wound, or being designed to have a greater chance of wounding and not killing, thus tying up enemy resources it always comes from somebody who knows somebody and sometimes that knows somebody in the military.

If you show me proof from a reliable source and cite it, I'll believe that the 5.56x45 was in fact designed to wound, until then its a decades-old unsubstantiated rumor.

You've seen reliable sources right here.
Or, are you saying when my friend and others here who say they were taught this in the United States military as a part of their training are just making it up?

At this point the burden is on you to prove that the US military lied to ALL the people here who say they were taught this.

I as well as the others here who say they were taught this I'm sure would be open to seeing your proof.

 

[cosermann]

Funny thread based on unwarranted conclusions drawn from the OP's originally posted article.

The AR system has been serving the U.S. military since 1963-ish. That's a pretty good service record. The design has been tweaked over the years such that it is an accurate, reliable, lethal, versatile, and cost effective weapon system. You will notice that all those terms are relative btw. The AR system has advantages, disadvantages, and limitations like any other system.

BUT, it has been a 48 year run. Things have changed. New technologies, materials, and cartridges have opened up new possibilities.

Back to the article in post #1 - the article the OP posted simply says, "The Pentagon may buy hundreds of thousands of the new carbine, which should be more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4 ..."

It does not follow that the AR system is junk. Forty-eight years of history have proved otherwise.

What did you expect the article to say? Do you expect the Pentagon to pick a successor that's less accurate, less reliable, less lethal, heavier, more expensive, etc? That would be idiotic (even for the military). A potential successor should offer significant, compelling improvements. Otherwise, why change?

If there are trials, the candidate firearms will be compared. The winner should offer the "most," i.e. the best package of features, effectiveness, etc. at the best price.

A successor to the AR system should be better. Otherwise there's no point in switching. That's all the article implies.

I'm looking forward to the results.

 

[gunowner930]

You've seen reliable sources right here.
Or, are you saying when my friend and others here who say they were taught this in the United States military as a part of their training are just making it up?

At this point the burden is on you to prove that the US military lied to ALL the people here who say they were taught this.

I as well as the others here who say they were taught this I'm sure would be open to seeing your proof.

I don't know when you were in the military or what branch you were in. This was not taught when I went to Marine boot camp and Marine Combat Training in 2004-05, It was not taught during any pre-deployment combat training I had either.

This whole thing was probably started by guys that were pissed that they had to give up their M14s for M16s during the Vietnam era, and the rumor just never fully died. It was passed down without any basis in fact. Just because somebody in the military claims that the 5.56x45 was designed to wound does not mean that military itself officially claims it to be so. Was the 5.56 is "designed to wound" ever a part of an official training manual, or was it just comments added by instructors?

I have yet to see any documentation from the US Government or military that states that the 5.56x45 was specifically designed to wound and not kill. I'd be thrilled if you or anybody else could provide it.

 

[xmas_asn]

Even the .308 round has its limitations. The M4 was designed for CQC, house to house fighting. Who wants to clear buildings using a 20" barrel M16? I have done it, and it's not very fun. I agree that every platoon should have a dedicated marksman with an up to date M14. Fact is, the battlefield has changed since WWI,WWII, Korea, and Vietnam.

When I was In with 3rd Brigade "Rakkasans" 101st in 06-09 every squad had a SDM with a M14 Sage EBR mounted with a Leupold Mk4. Those individuals all went threw a course called LRM. Long Range Marksmanship, there I learned to hit "Crazy Ivan" Targets at 700m with a M4 and ACOG and 1000m with a M14.

Here are 2 Videos I made for fun in Iraq that happens to have one of our SDMs and his M14 in it.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raaq8WMBqkE[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ezt57Tt3zE&NR=1[/ame]

Yes, We know his Butt Pad is hanging.. The screw fell out and he got tiered of taping it back in place..

PS. Thats not me, I was filming.

You realize, we are talking about small bullets, smaller bullets, and smallest bullets right? I mean, some of you make this sound like a .308 is like waffle iron flying thru the air.

Its amazing to me that threads like this last 14 pages.

The .mil will use whatever they decide to use, more power to them.

I am not sure the last few conflicts we have been in would have fared much differently no matter what round they were firing.

I'm going to have to quote that!