The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Modern Military Rifles Is the U.S. military going to replace the M4?Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Is the U.S. military going to replace the M4? | Login/Join |
| one of us |
I doubt it -- even though in an Army-sponsored reliability test recently the M4 finished dead last in reliability to all it's competition. The problem lies in the old direct impingement gas system, vs. the more reliable gas piston system in the newer AR-style rifles the competition is pushing (the AK-47 is gas piston and one of the reason's it's the most reliable combat rifle ever made). Also, the military brass is divided on whether any new combat rifle should remain 5.56 or switch to 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel. Seems we have about a billion rounds of 5.56 in inventory and are set up to manufacture another billion rounds every year. Never mind that the 5.56 round sucks at long range in the windy mountains of Afghanistan, changing is just too expensive. Here's and article that gives a background on the ongoing controversy: http://www.defenseindustrydail...e-controversy-03289/ | ||
|
| one of us |
I beg to differ. The Mauser is the most reliable combat rifle ever made.  | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have to agree w/ B E.The M98 is just that. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agree re the M98 although the SMLE 303 wouldn't be far behind it. Previously 500N with many thousands of posts ! | |||
|
| one of us |
Ok, Ok -- How about I change it to "most reliable assault rifle in combat today?" Maybe if we were to adopt the 98 Mauser as our primary infantry weapon, the number of rounds fired per enemy killed would be less than it currently is. I just read the following estimates: Civil War --- 1,300 rounds per casualty WWI --- 15,000 rounds per casualty WWII --- 30,000 rounds per casualty Viet Nam --- 180,000 rounds per casualty Afghanistan -- 250,000 rounds per casualty In fact, according to an article in an Irish newspaper, the U.S. is burning up ammo so fast in Afghanistan that we were forced into an emergency purchase of 5.56mm ammo from Isreal in order to keep from running out. I have no Idea if that is true or not, but given the present political leadership, I don't doubt it. | |||
|
| One of Us |
At one stage when Iraq was in full swing and Afghan just starting, ammo being made in the US was being shipped direct to major units. The warehouse and reserve in the US was empty they were going through that many rounds. . Previously 500N with many thousands of posts ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
We were even contracting out to Isreal to make some of our ammo....We couldn't keep up. | |||
|
| one of us |
I shot a lot of 5.56 ammo in Winchester white boxes, with no internal divider box, with IMI headstamps. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| One of Us |
I for one believe that a combat rifle that operates by blowing hot gas a crap all over the internal working parts, is a design dying to be rethought. But I don't make a living selling these to our service men and women, so what do I know. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Makes logical sense considering it's easier to ship from Israel to Iraq than US to Iraq. And the US probably used up their billion dollars worth of equipment that is stores in Israel. Previously 500N with many thousands of posts ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agree. That document is a very good read and shows that what can work for years with a few known problems all of a sudden becomes a major issue with a change of environment. . Previously 500N with many thousands of posts ! | |||
|
| one of us |
Some thoughts, in no particular order. 1. The term "direct impingement", however colloquial, is neither descriptive nor technically correct. Stoner's design works by way of an inline piston. The bolt tail happens to be the piston - and it is not moved by gas at all. Gas moves the carrier (the cylinder); carrier momentum unlocks, then moves, the bolt. Examples of "DI" are Hakim, Ljungman, and (to a degree) the HK roller system that utilize gas impinging on cases via chamber flutes to assist reliable extraction. Blowback is direct impingment, not that we refer to our 10/22s as such. 2. If Stoner's design is so problematic why did .gov just adopt the M-110 (an AR10) for 7.62 rather than the M-14? No eccentric op-rod? Seems like it would have been a perfect opportunity to correct a major design flaw. 3. Dick Culver's oft-referenced rant (on Jouster) resonates with the sentimentally inclined. But his criticisms accurately relate only to the M16's early growing pains. They fall hollow when considering the vast bulk of the M16's later service history. If you want to blame someone for those early problems, blame McNamara's boys - not Stoner. Stoner didn't want .gov to go cheap on propellant. And he never suggested the M16 didn't need to be cleaned. 3. That puff of gas in the action? Notice those venting holes on the side of the bolt facing the ejection port. These work to blow debris away from the action just before opening. Actions are most vulnerable to debris when they are open. Does the M16 have more issues in sand than AK47s? Yes, but blame tolerances, ie., alot of what makes M16s so accurate. The US did not want a 8-10 MOA blaster that is the typical AK47. There are no free lunches, it would seem. Sam | |||
|
| One of Us |
Tolerances. Now their is a word that cropped up with the Steyr and Water ops. Sometimes the better manufacturing and tighter tolerances isn't that good in the field. . Previously 500N with many thousands of posts ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I hope they change to a weapon system that always goes bang, is accurate enough and easily maintained by the average private serving his/her country. I wouldn't object to them using the AK as a benchmark. John Browning did not fix his designs by adding a forward assist. | |||
|
one of us |
I suspect that removing the full auto feature on most M-4s and leaving the full auto to the Squad auto, the problem with jamming and such would disappear. Not to mention the ammo count would drop dramatically. Jim "Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas Jefferson | |||
|
| One of Us |
I wonder what the round count would be for the "bad guys"/casualty?? Stoner's rifle/carbine is the longest serving military rifle in U.S. history and it may indeed be replaced in the future, but compared to the original offering there has been significant changes/mods to the firearm making it more suitable for combat. One of the most flexible platforms available, convertible to about any situation that arises. Other than the "fun switch" civilians can closely duplicate about any mods offered. As to the caliber being changed from current to something else, I don't see that happening on a large scale in the near future. Military is working night and day on highest technology levels to lessen the exposure of both ground troops and air forces to harms way and budgets tight as they are would prevent any major switch to all new caliber I think. If it takes more ammo to rid the world of the "vermin" we are dealing with, my attitude would be "get more ammo and NOW!!" | |||
|
| One of Us |
Agree, I really don't care what it takes to kill the scum. My choice would be the Neutron bomb as it leave infastruture basically intact. The Jews have well over 100 and lots of IRBMs to carry them. Eventually the intelligent free countries (three ?) will have to deal with them. It will probably take a cargo ship with a 20 meg nuke going off in NY harbor to get us really p.o.ed but then, Islam will become a historical footnote. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Samuel described the action of direct impingement the best here. He's dead on. It doesn't blow gas all over the insides of the receiver. Seems many bulk at the word "maintain". Well you know what that goes for all equipment and in addition the solders body itself. There is no wonder rifle that you don't ever have to clean or maintain. Those who think the M4 is fragile or prone to a little dirt need to take a look at Daniel Defense's film where they subjected their M4 to a grueling test must harsher then anything the DOD or military does and it came through with flying colors. If the AK was so good why didn't the U.S. copy it? They copied a lot of other things in the past...the 98 Mauser (with their 03 Springfield) and the MG42 (the M60) to name just a few. I'm a cast bullet shooter. I build an AR 10 that I shoot cast from. That's a bullet way less hard then jacketed and has bullet lube in grooves that shooting in an AR makes quite a mess...or so one would thing. I have over 600 rounds of it through that rifle and it's still going. Does that sound like direct impingement is that horrible? That stuff being sold in the article in the first post is a sales pitch. | |||
|
| One of Us |
That stuff being sold in the article in the first post is a sales pitch. I reckon most articles are part of a sales pitch ! It would be interesting to see what the SAS have to say as they use M4's and various other things a fair bit and have now spent 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . Previously 500N with many thousands of posts ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
I know a gentleman that was involved in the testing when they were looking for a SCAR. He said although the M4 didn't finish first it sure finish far from last. I think it was back in the 70's he Army asked Colt for a piston driven M16. Colt made it, but then the Army changed it's mines. If the rifle/system was as horrible as it's said to be then why are we still using it and why is it our longest used rifle? | |||
|
| One of Us |
SmokinJ Agree. Our Gov't does change it's mind all the time !!! It's actually a part of defence that seems to bugger it up a lot. Even when we went to Steyr's, I was in an SF unit that did a lot of water ops and we and the SAS had to go back to M16's and M4's. The thing is, every gun has it's pros and cons and some are better than others but just outside the budget range for a whole Army. And as you say, we all still use them, partly I think because we have so much invested in attachments etc. . Previously 500N with many thousands of posts ! | |||
|
| One of Us |
The gov. Isn't just looking for the best general issue battle rifle of any present military. There are all kinds of more important points. And for changing to a new one, they hate to admit a mistake when it's easier to ship more body bags. It's harsh but true. For example, look at the history of the Sherman Tank. A piece of crap from day one, but it was easier to push forward with it, less embarrasing, cheaper etc., and send more bags, which is exactly as was done. I just want the best rifle for our troops. But that is not the total measure in the real world. I hope the stars line up and a better weapon gets sent out. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The military sure didn't hold onto the 30-40 Krag for very long before going to the 1903 30-06. Then in the early part of WWII it didn't take them long to make the M1 Garand their main battle rifle. I disagree with you. In the two examples above that is admitting a mistake. They also admitted their mistake in Vietnam that the M 16 wasn't a wonder rifle that didn't ever need to be cleaned and started issuing cleaning supplies and cleaning manuals. If there is no faith in your government/military at all how do we expect it's soldiers to fight their best for it? | |||
|
| One of Us |
What military followed us into using the M16? | |||
|
| one of us |
Approximately 80 nations use the M-16 in at least some capacity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle Some adopting nations are no surprise - Israel, Denmark, and Canada, for eg.. But Thailand, Iran, and Lebanon use it as a primary rifle platform. Sam | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yeah Israels Galil was supposed to be a combination of the great features from a few rifles (AK47, Valmet, and M16 come to mind) and put together as the best. Well they field both that and M16. Way the Swedish Ljungman, the Egyptian Hakim, and the French MAS 49 and 49/56 were direct impingement. I believe the Dutch used Stoner's first rifle, the AR10, for a while. Right now the AR's just about rule every market from para military, to target shooting, varmint hunting, and big game hunting. By big game I'm not talking the big stuff like in African or the great bears. I know friends that have taken Elk, at distance, with the little 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 Rem. | |||
|
One of Us |
I have some experience with an M4 and everyone I know with similar experience shares my view that it is the best assault rifle in the world. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Well if some country's use it as home guard fodder then by all means its a fine design and we should definitely stick with it. I was wrong. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I agree. I wonder why the military didn't take a hard look at the 6x45. This would only require a barrel change. I think it's a better round then the 5.56 for their purpose. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I'd have to disagree. When it debuted in the Western Desert in 1942 it was, arguably, the best tank in its class in he world. Bar none. Even the EARLY models of the T34 tanks. However, when it entered Western Europe in 1944 it was outclassed and outgunned by nearly everything and anything that the Germans had. In fact it was CRIMINAL that brave men were so equipped with such tanks in 1944 and one of the worst offenders, in his opinion of the M4 as adequate, was George Patton. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The Sherman was not initially a great tank. But it was simple to build, easy to run, faster than almost all Axis tanks and we built so many we could overwhelm the Axis forces. Combined with 100% air superiority, Axis armor was almost completely destroyed by 1945. General Grant was said to be a murderer because of his tactics as well. Both the Allies in WW II and Grant played their strong hands. In both cases it was the massive manpower and production resources that beat the enemy. Today it is called the Powell doctrine. We also sent pilots out on P 40s and Wildcats against superior Axis planes. We lost a lot but we could afford the losses, the Axis could not. It is terrible to lose good men but in the end winning is all that counts. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Andrew, you are dead on. I've always belived that 6mm was about the optimum sized bullet for a military individual weapons platform. | |||
|
| One of Us |
The US doctrine never planned to have tanks fighting tanks. The intention was to have tank destroyers called when there was significant resistance. For this role there was the M10, M18 and M36. The doctrine didn't alway work out. The German had some superior tanks but only in small numbers. The Allies had air superiority and much larger numbers of tanks. The Brits had a version of the Sherman called the Firefly with a 17 pound gun originally designed as an anti tank gun. In the larger scheme of things the Sherman M4 had a better high explosive round than the German tanks. This round was more suitable for assaulting buildings and fixed infantry positions. I think the German tank superiority is over rated when you compare tanks one-on-one. The war was not won one-on-one or by playing fair. The Germans got beat down in the east by the T-34/76 and the later T-34/85 but the Soviets had other heavier tanks too. The Allied tanks often had P-47, Typhoon or Sturmovik forces over head to destroy tanks in defensive positions. | |||
|
| one of us |
Andrew makes a good point. I think going to the 14" barrel for general issue is a bad idea. I used AR/M16's as a work rifles for over 23 years. I used 20" 16" 14" and the Commando which is @11". I have used all for entry and outdoor work. While the 14 and 11" were the handiest for entry, and worked good for outdoor use, we hardly ever were over 100 yards from the threat, I would not want to carry one of those as a regular soldier. If I was Spec Ops doing a lot of indoor work I would want a 14". Regular troops should have at least a 16" or better yet a 20" barrel, IMHO. With accurate ammo, a good optical sight like an ACOG, and the rifle properly sighted in hits on chest sized targets to 600 yards are no problem. Just a few days ago I was shooting an AR15, with 55 gr Winchester Ballistic Silvertip, out of a 14.7" barrel using an EO Tech sight with the standard one dot and 65 moa ring at a 16" steel gong at 400 yards. I fired 5 shots at the gong and hit it every time. The rifle is properly sighted in, and I know how high to hold, but still in open country fighting I would want a 20" barrel and a scope with some magnification, at least 3.5x. DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| one of us |
Arguments about whether 7.62x51 or some 6.7mm ought to replace 5.56x45 miss something. We ought to hope .mil approaches differing situations with appropriate weapons. Well, they do. Not everyone carries an M4. Not everyone carries a 11.5" Commando. Not everyone has a Barrett .50 or a M-14 (now an M-110). This is as it should be. Ammo keeps getting better, as Andrew describes. Maybe this partly accounts for a 6.7mm round not yet having replaced 5.56. The short-bbl 16s have a place - well, they are taking the place of pistol rounds from subguns. Fragmentation ranges generally correlate with effectiveness of M193 and M855. Even with the slower M-855 fired from a shorty, there is adequate effectiveness for indoor work (to around 75 yds). The TAP rounds are supposed to be even better from a shorty. This has turned into a good discussion. Sam | |||
|
| one of us |
I do not think that the 5.56 will be replaced by any other calibre, for a General Issue US Military rifle for the next 20 years. I just do not think the money will be there, or the logistics, to equip our Military Forces with a new calibre or even a new rifle... Spec Ops troops, and maybe even some regular forces sent to support them in certain theatres/missions, might be equipped with other rifles, but I think the 5.56, and even the M16 is here to stay... IMHO of course. For General Issue, 16 to 20" barrels, with good ammo, and good optics, and BETTER MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING, with proper gun cleaning, and proper lube, would go a long way to letting the M16/5.56 be the best Combat Rifle it can be... DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| one of us |
Taking these numbers as being anywhere near accurate, IF I was in charge of the US Military the first thing I would do is try to reduce the 250,000 rounds per casualty to something like, say 100 rounds per casualty, ie BETTER MARKSMANSHIP TRAINING... OK, 100 rounds might be a little unrealistic as I under stand the concept of "cover fire"... But... After all, it does NOT MATTER WHAT CALIBRE Rifle you are shooting, if it takes you 250,000 rounds to cause one casualty... DOUBLE RIFLE SHOOTERS SOCIETY | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yep, at that rate we might as well give them all .22lr's. Personally, I don't believe those numbers. Just think about it. EVERY GUY IN AN ENTIRE INFANTRY BATALLION SHOOT HIS ENTIRE BASIC LOAD...AND THEN SOME....AND IN TOTAL, THEY ONLY HITS ONE BAD GUY???  | |||
|
| one of us |
It's not hard to believe if you go on you tube and look at some of the videos of forward operating bases in Afghanistan after they have taken small arms fire. In those videos you see everybody on the base laying down full-auto suppression fire at the surrounding mountains, with no one, and I do mean no one, having a clue where the original fire came from. In addition to small arms ammo impacting the mountain sides, dozens of 81mm mortar rounds are fired into likely looking places, and a few 105mm and 155mm Howitzer thrown in for good measure. I have no doubt that tens-of-thousands of rounds are fired in one of these exchanges. And according to my son, who just got back, seldom are any enemy ever hit! And this does not count the ammo expended by air support, some firing mini-guns at a rate of fire exceeding 4000 rounds per minute. My son was an infantry platoon leader in the eastern mountains on the Pakistan border. He and his platoon were ambushed on almost every patrol. In these skirmishes, his guys almost never knew where fire was emanating from, but it didn't keep them from them from shooting thousands of rounds at likely looking rocks. In one year, he said he can't say for sure if they ever hit a single Taliban attacker. The only way they knew if an enemy combatant had been killed was when they intercepted radio messages announcing to other Taliban that "Ahmed has gone to live with Allah!" I've looked at hundreds of videos of these exchanges, and the amount of ammo expended is just plain obscene! | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Rifles Modern Military Rifles Is the U.S. military going to replace the M4?
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |