Fix the M4 carbine now, and speed competition

[CommunityEditor]

The Army wants to take the M4 of every soldier and make six fixes — everything from a heavier barrel to an improved trigger pull.

The proposed overhaul would be a stopgap measure to address M4 shortcomings until a competition can be held to find and field a more reliable carbine.

The one soldiers carry today has proven prone to jamming because of dust and overheating.

After the deadly firefight at Wanat, Afghanistan, in the summer of 2008, in which nine troops were killed, some soldiers complained their M4s jammed.

That problem had already been well-documented and the subject of a 2007 congressional inquiry, which ultimately led to the requirement for a competition.

Astoundingly, though, that competition has yet to be held and best estimates are that it could be four years until they select a replacement — and several years more before a better weapon is fielded.

With nearly 150,000 soldiers at war on two fronts, that is unconscionable. If any one initiative should be expedited, this is it.

The Colt-made M4 does have its defenders, and the Army cites an approval rating of more than 90 percent. Yet the M4 finished dead last in dust tests against three other carbines. Delta Force members and spec ops forces, who can choose their own weapons, have indeed opted for others they view as more reliable.

Fix the M4 now, but don’t let that serve as an excuse to further delay or cancel a carbine competition. And lawmakers and service leaders owe it to the troops to expedite that competition.

[Michaep]

no need to waste money to modify the M4.....theyve already received the rights to change the M4 and have already performed tests on other weapons. Purchase the better qualified weapons already...

[MCGYVER]

I'd be happy if most Soldiers could use the current M4 (M16 for reservists) properly. I highly doubt making improvements to the weapon itself would pay as much dividends as an improved training program and spending more money on ammunition while dedicating training (range) time. The weapon is fine. The only people truly pushing for changes are those that stand to make money from new procurements and their friends. Just my humble opinion.

btw, those "elite" forces that can choose whatever weapons they want are no different than anyone else with an unlimited budget, they will pick the fanciest items with the fanciest names and the highest price tag EVERY SINGLE TIME. Why would you expect anything else? You can put a 16 year old with his fresh drivers license behind the wheel of a Lamborghini or a VW beetle and they will be equally inept at driving (or likely to wreck) either one.

[chucksnee]

They need to refine the gas tube system on the M-4 and go with the same type as the m-60/m240..

When you have a semi o.k. weapon does not matter how good of a shot you are....

[MCGYVER]

The bottom line up front on this is that we don't lose many Soldiers to gunfights, we lose most of them to IEDs. The cost-benefit analysis on this one makes it seem like a REALLY stupid venture. I think you'd have to do a hell of a lot of digging to find even a single case in the last 20 years where a U.S. service member died as a result of an inferior weapon. Good luck.

[chucksnee]

Well we can start off with Jessica Lynch....In her own words...She may not have died.....but....

They said I went down guns blazing, like Rambo—but I never fired a shot, because my rifle had jammed

http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2007/06/jessica-lynch

Was that the weapon or was it her fault? We will never know....

However, I dare you to take a M-4 and throw it in the dirt and try to fire it....

Then do the same thing with an AK-47.....

The M4 may fire a few rounds until it gets dirt into the firing mechanism, but the AK will continue to fire.....

[MCGYVER]

chucksnee, it just so happens that my current duties are nothing but running ranges for reservists and NG that are preparing for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. I see M4's and M16s covered in dirt/mud/sand every day and the only malfunctions are operator headspace and timing. In the last week I've run ranges where we've fired a total of almost 10,000 rounds and not one misfire due to dirt. You might could say that on this particular subject I am somewhat of an expert. Or, I guess, depending on your level of intelligence (or lack thereof) you might not. I would bet a dollar to a donut that Ms. Lynch's weapon no more misfired or jammed than Pat Tillmans did. She was likely so flustered and nervous that she never got it off "safe" (if it was even loaded).

[chucksnee]

Well then....I guess you are right....you've seen it all....

I've never run a range, I also have never done any testing of the M4/M16.....at Picatinny....Oh wait maybe I have...I was stationed at ATTC.

The point is, head space and timing....no matter what...should not matter...the gun should shoot if the trigger is pulled....that is what the M4/M16 lack.

There was a reason that we picked up AK's in 90 and 91....

There are better systems out there, that can easily replace that system....There is also a reason that when people buy an AR's now a days...they stay clear of that particular type of gas system...it sucks...plain and simple....

[MSMUROTC]

MCGYVER - wait a minute, you want to give enlisted soldiers more money just to go get a degree, but you DON'T want to put more money into a better weapon? Huh?

[chucksnee]

I see M4's and M16s covered in dirt/mud/sand every day and the only malfunctions are operator headspace and timing.

Re-reading....with that statement, you have lost all credibility...not once there was a malfunction becasue of dirt...mud or sand....I call BS....I maybe retired, but that statement....BS...

[MCGYVER]

chucksnee, call B.S. all you want but it is what it is. The truth is the truth and since the closest thing to "evidence" you can come up with to support your claim is the sorry saga of jessica lynch your credibility is less than nil. I know what I know and you know ...... oh, yeah, whatever you can remember from working in a lab at piccatiny before you retired. I deal with the stuff every day (now). The weapon is not perfect but it's not getting anyone killed due to it being poorly designed. It's more than sufficient for the task.

[MCGYVER]

MSM, we could invest a ton of money into all our weapons systems, it wouldn't save any Soldiers lives. They are being killed by IEDs, not because they don't have firepower.

[chucksnee]

I was in the field...not a lab as you suggest...

A man with your intelligence (or lack of) should know that 10,000 rounds in a week is a very slow week...you saying that shows which intelligence bracket you fall in...

I'll break it down for you...

40 rounds to qualify x 260 people is a little over 10,000 rounds....

That is if they do not sight there M16/M4 in....

So, in 1 week you qualified 260 people...that is something to brag about...

Have a good day...Continue to brag that your an expert, the M16/M4 is old and not as good as it can be...many, many weapons are out there and better...

Take care...

[MCGYVER]

chucksnee, I am not "suggesting", you posted "I've never run a range, I also have never done any testing of the M4/M16.....at Picatinny....Oh wait maybe I have...I was stationed at ATTC.". Not sure where the "field" would be located at Test Command but pretty sure they have hot and cold running water and internet access there, LOL. FYI, I was just running the zero ranges this week and most Soldiers were merely confirming zeroes. Do the math on that one cupcake. You are simply not in my league on this particular subject but I'm sure there are some that you know more than me about. 10,000 rounds a week may not seem like much to a Rambo, lab rat such as yourself but when grown folk talk (honestly) it's quite a lot week after week. You can continue to rant all you like. I'm done conversing with a brick wall.

[Boss Hog]

Duh, Mac--

The deficiencies of the gas-piston-blowback AR15/M16 mechanism in less-than-pristine environments have been well documented for the past 50 years. Don't even try to blame dust/dirt/crud-enduced stoppages on the poor shooter(s) whose lives depend on this flawed mechanism to maintain their life signs in a combat environment.

The same individuals who try to defend this POS design as suitable for combat are undoubtedly the same misguided individuals who thought the solution to overheating and combat ammunition expenditure problems was to remove the "full auto" and replace it with the gay "3-round-burst" selection.

These same misguided individuals often espouse "more range time" (punching holes in paper) as the solution to the stoppage/malfunction problems of a deficient POS meant for combat, but not well designed for that purpose.
:(

[MCGYVER]

Boss Hog, as I've already stated, the weapon is not perfect but it's definitely good enough to get the job done. If not you'd have at least anecdotal evidence (there is NONE) that the flawed weapon has led to deaths of friendly troops. Go sell that story to someone who's buying, we're all stocked up on crazy here. The best weapon in the world does you absolutely no good if you don't know how to properly employ it. If I put my 14 year old in a Lamborghini or a VW the results will be the same in short order.

[MSMUROTC]

Fine, then advocate that the money goes to better training or armor or something like that. It's not like college degrees save people from IED's either.

[chucksnee]

Here is another great article....


http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

[MCGYVER]

This will be my last post on this particular forum.

You provide a bunch of unsubstantiated cut and pasted claims as "evidence". How about a link to a reputable source? Wow! I've had similar "discussions" with others on other subjects and they use similar tactics; avoidance, obfuscation, misdirection and camouflaging the truth. The link that MSM provided is from an obviously biased site that has a vested financial interest in seeing new weapons procured. Show me the PROOF that Soldiers have died due to the weapons fallibility or just STFU. Whatever congress did in 1967 has no effect on the M-4 as we didn't have them back then so it's irrelevant.

[frisk]

ok, for those who have deployed, the m4 does have some issues. but to me, instead of trying to fix the m4 issue, why not ensure that all active duty units have m4s first. if not everyone, at least the NCOs/officers. for i know my company still has m16s that the company had from oif II. i know from my last deployment, oif 07-09, my m16 had some pretty bad faults. the biggest was that a magazine, brand new with three rounds at a range, would just fall out, was noticed and i reported to my armorer, and two and a half years later, the issue still exists. before someone says that as a bearer of a m16 i didnt go "outside" the wire, i was convoy commander running at least two convoys a day. so, for those who are making petty arguments on how many ranges you run or what ever, look at the larger picure that the army is still sending troops into combat with broke equipment.

and to the poster that said that 40 round times 260 firers is over 10000 round with no jams, i say that if 260 people fire 40 rounds each, the odds that a weapon will jam are low. just a lil bit of insight. hope my mindless rambling makes snse and sorry that i didnt use caps, i am tired and cant sleep at the moment

[MCGYVER]

frisk, I fully concur with all you wrote. No Soldier ever died because his M-4 had a faulty gas piston tube or any other design flaw. Many have died because they choked under pressure and failed to employ their weapons though. Some people would rather overlook the trees for the forest and focus on their pet peeves instead of common denominators though. Additionally, some are stuck in the past and that's why they can't move forward. Any Soldier that is forced to use an M-16 in todays army is being treated like a second class citizen and not a "Warrior" at all. Just my humble opinion (that some geezer will probably totally disagree with, LOL).

[chucksnee]

frisk, I do agree with you on some point...but if you will go back and read all comments in this post..you will see that I posted to the fact that HE (MCGYVER) said that he NEVER had a misfire do to mud or anything like that, his only misfires were do to "head space and timing." I called BS...

Remember we are talking to an expert....


You might could say that on this particular subject I am somewhat of an expert.


I see M4's and M16s covered in dirt/mud/sand every day and the only malfunctions are operator headspace and timing.

Why don't YOU (MCGYVER) provide some links thats prove you are correct then....We have LOST NOBODY becasue of the M4 gas tube... (BTW it a gas tube not a gas PISTON tube)....


You provide a bunch of unsubstantiated cut and pasted claims as "evidence". How about a link to a reputable source? Wow! I've had similar "discussions" with others on other subjects and they use similar tactics; avoidance, obfuscation, misdirection and camouflaging the truth.

You as a support personnel, running a range....no matter HOW many rounds you fire, are NOT the same as COMBAT..you really want us to take your word for it....after the dribble you have posted here....


Whatever congress did in 1967 has no effect on the M-4 as we didn't have them back then so it's irrelevant.

So these guys are still firing M16's.....I hope you realize with yours smarts (or lack of being smart) you would realize that the M4 was made from the M16.....so it does matter....

So MCGYVER, until you can show me something (besides saying "I run ranges" and I'm an expert at this, in your own words) then STFU.....

[chucksnee]

The M4 carbine, the weapon soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent “extreme dust test” to demonstrate the M4’s reliability compared to three newer carbines.
Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC’s M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.
When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4 performed “significantly worse” than the other three weapons, sources told Army Times.
Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:
• XM8: 127 stoppages.
• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
• 416: 233 stoppages.
• M4: 882 stoppages.


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/

[EUJAMES]

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?Look stop already and save your breath for your death-bed. Look ever since 1965 when the M16 was introduced to the Soldiers of Vietnam the Army has been modifying the (what is now) 45 year old weapons technology. Sure this time they through it in the dryer, shrunk it, and renamed it the M4. Then kicked in the mind games; saying we’ve made it smaller and lighter. But, wait here is enough crap for the rail system to make it weight as much as a M60 Machine gun. IT’S STILL 45 YEAR OLD WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY!!!!
So, every once in awhile the Armed forces says we’re testing its new replacement….Look that’s pure Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels propaganda. I remember the first time I heard that, was 1987 at Fort Benning. My Father (a retired Vietnam Combat Infantryman) was actually involved in those tests. Most recently the XM8 was shot down for some trumped up reason, I believe it failed the ultimate test, the politician checkbook test.
But wait I here they have no problem buying a upgrade to the F22 “I haven’t seen combat” Raptor or the “why in the hell do we need a freakin’” stealth 7th fleet. Niether of which are needed for the door-to-door war we are fighting at the moment. So save your breath the foot Soldier looses on both sides. Look it took a Soldier in Iraq standing up and embarrassing our Government to get Armor to the troops….Again save your breath….

[MCGYVER]

All the testing in the world won't change the fact that if Soldiers were dying due to faulty weapons it would have been front page news on every fricking newspaper out there. Quit yer bellyaching and get back to work you slackers. :)

[Hawk Driver]

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS?Look stop already and save your breath for your death-bed. Look ever since 1965 when the M16 was introduced to the Soldiers of Vietnam the Army has been modifying the (what is now) 45 year old weapons technology. Sure this time they through it in the dryer, shrunk it, and renamed it the M4. Then kicked in the mind games; saying we’ve made it smaller and lighter. But, wait here is enough crap for the rail system to make it weight as much as a M60 Machine gun. IT’S STILL 45 YEAR OLD WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY!!!!
So, every once in awhile the Armed forces says we’re testing its new replacement….Look that’s pure Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels propaganda. I remember the first time I heard that, was 1987 at Fort Benning. My Father (a retired Vietnam Combat Infantryman) was actually involved in those tests. Most recently the XM8 was shot down for some trumped up reason, I believe it failed the ultimate test, the politician checkbook test.
But wait I here they have no problem buying a upgrade to the F22 “I haven’t seen combat” Raptor or the “why in the hell do we need a freakin’” stealth 7th fleet. Niether of which are needed for the door-to-door war we are fighting at the moment. So save your breath the foot Soldier looses on both sides. Look it took a Soldier in Iraq standing up and embarrassing our Government to get Armor to the troops….Again save your breath….

The M2 .50 Cal machine gun is nearly 100 years old, does that mean it needs to be replaced?

[Hawk Driver]

Well we can start off with Jessica Lynch....In her own words...She may not have died.....but....

They said I went down guns blazing, like Rambo—but I never fired a shot, because my rifle had jammed

http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2007/06/jessica-lynch

Was that the weapon or was it her fault? We will never know....

However, I dare you to take a M-4 and throw it in the dirt and try to fire it....

Then do the same thing with an AK-47.....

The M4 may fire a few rounds until it gets dirt into the firing mechanism, but the AK will continue to fire.....

Check this out, an AK jams after being buried in the sand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5WhVvtYak

And an AR-15 under the same conditions functions better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o

[chucksnee]

Check this out, an AK jams after being buried in the sand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo5WhVvtYak

And an AR-15 under the same conditions functions better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8SSQ_wIG4o

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/board4/messages/2213.html

Now check out my link...that is NOT a true AK47, it is an AK SAR 5.56.... just like the M-4...


Now, before we get started on this again....becasue certain people will...that AR rifle he is shooting in your second video is NOT a standard issue rifle...the newer versions that can be bought on the economy are made completely different.

I would take ANY AR rifle (like the one he is shooting) that is made on the economy over the issued M-4 any day....

[MCGYVER]

Jessica Lynch probably choked under pressure and never even got a magazine in her weapon. Using her as an example of ANYTHING is totally retarded. Incidentally, I cannot provide evidence of something that did not happen (Soldiers deaths from M-4 malfunctions/design). A lack of evidence on my part doesn't prove anything on your part. Hopefully you can get this through your thick head but I doubt it.

[chucksnee]

Jessica Lynch probably choked under pressure and never even got a magazine in her weapon. Using her as an example of ANYTHING is totally retarded. Incidentally, I cannot provide evidence of something that did not happen (Soldiers deaths from M-4 malfunctions/design). A lack of evidence on my part doesn't prove anything on your part. Hopefully you can get this through your thick head but I doubt it.

So you saying it makes it the truth? Because you did say that....or you lied? AN EXPERT lied????


No Soldier ever died because his M-4 had a faulty gas piston tube or any other design flaw.

However, I have brought to this forum numerous articles against the M-4/M16...

The only thing you have said is that you are an "expert" becasue you run/have run a range....Not exactly sure how that makes you an expert...


You might could say that on this particular subject I am somewhat of an expert.

[MCGYVER]

There is always room for improvement and you will never get perfection. Do the cost benefit analysis (oh, wait, they already did that) and tell me if it's a. necessary? or b. worth the money it would cost?

[chucksnee]

It's amazing how some people will not answer a question that is asked of them.....

Yes, there is always room for improvement, I Agree with that....

What about all the other cost analysis that also have been completed on all those other weapons out there that have stomped the M-4.....

All the testing that has been completed we could have fileded the entire Army with new and better weapons...

Unless you can come up with something besides "i'm an expert" or "I run ranges all the time" then we will never agree....

[MCGYVER]

okay chucksnee, here's the deal. I've used the M-4 and M-16 in combat. I never had a problem with it. My men never had a problem with it. NOBODY I ever met had a problem with it. There are no documented cases of ANYONE ever having a problem with it. You point to these "studies" that show it to be inferior to other weapons available. SO WHAT! It is plenty good for what we need it to do. You cannot logically justify spending ten billion dollars to outfit everyone with the latest and greatest weapons available when the ones that we have perform just fine. It would be like replacing all Hummers with a newer version that got 2 miles more per gallon. RIDICULOUS!

[Hawk Driver]

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/board4/messages/2213.html

Now check out my link...that is NOT a true AK47, it is an AK SAR 5.56.... just like the M-4...


Now, before we get started on this again....becasue certain people will...that AR rifle he is shooting in your second video is NOT a standard issue rifle...the newer versions that can be bought on the economy are made completely different.

I would take ANY AR rifle (like the one he is shooting) that is made on the economy over the issued M-4 any day....

The SAR is the same aside from the round used. 7.62 vs 5.56 doesn't change the fact that dirt and dust can easily get into an AK and jam the trigger mechanism.

And I've built an AR-15. Had a used M16A1 upper and barrel, and an aftermarket lower. I've fired M4's, M16's, and my AR and have seen no difference, other than the burst mode on the issued weapons. There aren't any special high speed parts that make a built on the economy M4 better than an issued one, unless you're talking about a piston kit.

For the Army to justify switching from the M4, what replaces it must be an order of magnitude better to justify the cost. There are a lot of rifles that are slightly better, but as long as the M4 gets the job done, why replace it?

[chucksnee]

okay chucksnee, here's the deal. I've used the M-4 and M-16 in combat. I never had a problem with it. My men never had a problem with it. NOBODY I ever met had a problem with it. There are no documented cases of ANYONE ever having a problem with it. You point to these "studies" that show it to be inferior to other weapons available. SO WHAT! It is plenty good for what we need it to do. You cannot logically justify spending ten billion dollars to outfit everyone with the latest and greatest weapons available when the ones that we have perform just fine. It would be like replacing all Hummers with a newer version that got 2 miles more per gallon. RIDICULOUS!


I bet you still have the old Atari also....

It's been documented...numerous times...just google it....

Good bye...have fun...

[chucksnee]

The SAR is the same aside from the round used. 7.62 vs 5.56 doesn't change the fact that dirt and dust can easily get into an AK and jam the trigger mechanism.

And I've built an AR-15. Had a used M16A1 upper and barrel, and an aftermarket lower. I've fired M4's, M16's, and my AR and have seen no difference, other than the burst mode on the issued weapons. There aren't any special high speed parts that make a built on the economy M4 better than an issued one, unless you're talking about a piston kit.

For the Army to justify switching from the M4, what replaces it must be an order of magnitude better to justify the cost. There are a lot of rifles that are slightly better, but as long as the M4 gets the job done, why replace it?

I have never seen an AK that you just pull the top off of like that? So there is more than just the caliber difference...

The whole gas tube/piston thing completely changes the aspect of the rifle...

Done with this....

[Hawk Driver]

I have never seen an AK that you just pull the top off of like that? So there is more than just the caliber difference...

The whole gas tube/piston thing completely changes the aspect of the rifle...

Done with this....

That's the dust cover. The one that's the same on every AK ever made.

http://content.imagesocket.com/thumbs/AKNomenclaturee99.jpg (http://imagesocket.com/view/AKNomenclaturee99.jpg)

[MCGYVER]

Hawk Driver, chucksnee has worked at testcomm (testicle command) so he knows way better than simple folk like you and I. I thought he already told you but I must be mistaken. :)

[chucksnee]

Hawk Driver, chucksnee has worked at testcomm (testicle command) so he knows way better than simple folk like you and I. I thought he already told you but I must be mistaken. :)

Hey MCGYVER.....your the only proclaimed expert on this board....


You might could say that on this particular subject I am somewhat of an expert.

Just incase you forgot....

Don't be jelous MCGYVER that I worked at ATEC....When I tested weapons I put them through more than any range that you ever have.

Oh wait....thats right, (a range dude where you the left or right saftey?)a range is SO much like comabt....your always jumping around, in the mud...yea I remember those ranges...

Get your panties out of a wad....I've called you on everything you have said in this thread....and the only thing you can say is "i'm an expert." I have given you numerous links to says that you are wrong....yet you refuse to answer any question that is asked of you....show it and prove it....I have....until then, go load some more magazines and clear right/ clear left....

[MCGYVER]

chucksnee,

obviously you missed the part where I mentioned that I've taken both the M-16 and the M-4 into combat. Yeah, not jealous of your sham time at ATEC where you got to do cool "experiments". Not interested in your links that point to more "experiments". I know what I know and I learned it on the streets of Mosul and Baghdad which is far more than I can say for pencil pushing, pocket protector wearing nerds in a damn laboratory. You see, before I got this nice job training N.G. and Reserve Soldiers I was a regular combat Soldier. You've probably seen some movies so you might know what I'm talking about.

If this were a technical discussion forum you'd probably have me but it's not, it's merely an opinion forum so your high fallutin attitude doesn't carry as much weight here as it does inside your little head. Others have pointed out the flaws in your logic (Hawk Driver for one) so it saves me the work. Besides, I'm not into arguing technicalities when I can point to real world events that I've personally experienced.

Have a nice day cupcake. :)

[chucksnee]

chucksnee,

obviously you missed the part where I mentioned that I've taken both the M-16 and the M-4 into combat. Yeah, not jealous of your sham time at ATEC where you got to do cool "experiments". Not interested in your links that point to more "experiments". I know what I know and I learned it on the streets of Mosul and Baghdad which is far more than I can say for pencil pushing, pocket protector wearing nerds in a damn laboratory. You see, before I got this nice job training N.G. and Reserve Soldiers I was a regular combat Soldier. You've probably seen some movies so you might know what I'm talking about.

If this were a technical discussion forum you'd probably have me but it's not, it's merely an opinion forum so your high fallutin attitude doesn't carry as much weight here as it does inside your little head. Others have pointed out the flaws in your logic (Hawk Driver for one) so it saves me the work. Besides, I'm not into arguing technicalities when I can point to real world events that I've personally experienced.

Have a nice day cupcake. :)

As much as you like cupcakes...there must be a reason you are training the National Guard...or your gay and like calling other guys "cupcake"

It's obvious that you could not handle a technical discussion....Since you will not answer any questions that are asked of you...this might be the reason that you were helping with a range. Just like in Aviation... cannot do your job so put them in the tool room or make them do the range full time

Just like most people that are in the Army....he can do it so why should I....

Oh and buy the way....just in case you have not read this entire thread....Hawk Driver is the ONLY person in this thread that agrees with you.....so your useless (as always) points still do not hold up with the comment you made...

Others have pointed out the flaws in your logic (Hawk Driver for one)

What others?? Again HAWK is the only one that agrees with you...

The links I have given you are not "experiments" as your one track mind suggests, some were completed at picatinny arsenal (just in case you don't understand that, this is were most all weapons are tested for the Army).

SO again, until you can back up what you say.....with something besides your useless puke from your mouth...just stop....

The only thing you can achieve here is "how much more stupid can i be"

But i'm sure you will have to say something like "i'm an expert" or I've been to war....or I've been in charge of ranges or what ever you will say...Because you continue to say that...no matter what....

And just in case you have forgotten...I am retired....I just want want what is best for the Soldier...and the M4 is not it....

[MCGYVER]

chucksnee, I thought I explained the cupcake thing. I call you that because if we were to be having this discussion face to face and you got mouthy like you do on here I would promptly bitch slap you and put you in your place. Talk all the smack you like, your opinion is simply that. Nobody cares if you worked in a lab at picatinny, rock island or any other place, it has nothing to do with reality. I think I'm doing my current job because the Army said "hey, who better to train troops that are getting ready to deploy than someone who just got done with a couple combat tours?" but what do I know. You are simply a retired, washed up, has been that longs for the days of yore when he ran something besides his mouth. Some day I'll be retired but I'll never be a bitter, holier than though piece of sh(* like you. Have a nice day cupcake. :)

[chucksnee]

chucksnee, I thought I explained the cupcake thing. I call you that because if we were to be having this discussion face to face and you got mouthy like you do on here I would promptly bitch slap you and put you in your place. Talk all the smack you like, your opinion is simply that. Nobody cares if you worked in a lab at picatinny, rock island or any other place, it has nothing to do with reality. I think I'm doing my current job because the Army said "hey, who better to train troops that are getting ready to deploy than someone who just got done with a couple combat tours?" but what do I know. You are simply a retired, washed up, has been that longs for the days of yore when he ran something besides his mouth. Some day I'll be retired but I'll never be a bitter, holier than though piece of sh(* like you. Have a nice day cupcake. :)


Your funny...MCGYVER, the only thing you would bitch slap is yourself. I still think you like men...your cupcake attitude is why you work on a range....becasue thats all the Army will let you do...

Hey wait OPINION....your OPINION is also yours....but you had to bring up that your a EXPERT at this...
Which I still do not understand how running a range makes you an expert becasue you clear left and right.

Keep thinking that you are doing your current job becasue the Army said so...you obviously could not do the job you signed up to do so the Army said...What is the easiest thing we can use this useless Soldier for, hummmmmmmmmm let him clear left and right on a range....thats easy....

I'm retired....yep...I'm 39 making more money than you at my current job than you make in the Army. Plus I have my retirement on top of that. I'm not bitter nor am I old....I'll bet I'm younger than you are.

The only reaso nwe are even having this stupid discussion is because you think that your an EXPERT...and 1 other person agrees with you.....

Maybe you shuold go read some of your other replies in the other threads and see who is the old grumpy guy...

[MCGYVER]

chucksnee, yeah, you're 39 allright, LOL. Maybe 10-15 years ago. You crack me up. I think you're bitter that you've always been a lab rat and never an operator. No combat patch, or other badges for your REMF ass huh? Awww, that's so sad. You are pitiful, truly pitiful. Didn't get hugged enough as a kid? Yeah, I'm really buying the "making more money" story too. Besides, what in the hell would that have to do with ANYTHING? You are constantly trying to impress people with your anecdotal evidence but nobody (at least in this forum) really cares nor agrees with you and that gets your goat more than anything. You are a pathetic excuse for a man and I pity your wife and kids (if you have any) for having to put up with you.

[chucksnee]

chucksnee, yeah, you're 39 allright, LOL. Maybe 10-15 years ago. You crack me up. I think you're bitter that you've always been a lab rat and never an operator. No combat patch, or other badges for your REMF ass huh? Awww, that's so sad. You are pitiful, truly pitiful. Didn't get hugged enough as a kid? Yeah, I'm really buying the "making more money" story too. Besides, what in the hell would that have to do with ANYTHING? You are constantly trying to impress people with your anecdotal evidence but nobody (at least in this forum) really cares nor agrees with you and that gets your goat more than anything. You are a pathetic excuse for a man and I pity your wife and kids (if you have any) for having to put up with you.

I'm willing to give ANYONE my real name..as long as I can confirm they are in the military and I can confirm them through AKO.....(I will give them my FULL AKO address and phone number) I'm sorry that a youngster is calling you out and you cannot stand it....

Are you willing to do that? If ANYONE is in the Huntsville Alabama area that is on this board and is willing to confirm me I will meet with you.

So sad for a person, that when he is called out...he will not answer any questions....related directly to him...and just says I'm an expert....

The reason I brought up money is because you said I'm old and bitter, I'm 39 as I have stated, I will prove it....I believe you are bitter becasue you are older and making less money than I...and your pissed that I make more money than you...and I'm younger...Oh and I'm not an E-2 that you can bully around...

See all that stuff I said about you...you will not answer it...I wonder why?

So what your saying about all MILITARY MEMBERS that have been associated with any testing what so ever (ATEC) are useless and so is the testing they have completed? That's a bold statement for the entire military....

I have a combat patch, does that upset you?

I'm trying to impress people? Your the person who said "I'm an expert", I said nothing like that...I was voicing my opinion...You do realize that YOU are the only person I have a disagreement with right? Or do you lack the intelligence to realize that? Maybe that is the reason you are part of a full time range detail? Maybe you should look into a mirror...you may see a HUGE CUPCAKE....

The things that I have brought to your attention about the M4 are nothing more than what I can find with a quick internet search....

What have you brought to the table to denounce what I have? And please don't say your an expert...we already know that....Just know that in your mind...you are....

[MCGYVER]

Chuck, I really couldn't care less about how much money you make (or don't, LOL), it has absolutely no bearing on the conversation and the only one that seems to think it important is you. You got punked and now you are irritated and going out in left field looking for ways to get under my skin. Not gonna happen. You just have far too large an ego and way too much time on your hands (retired). So do yourself a favor and chill before you have a heart attack at 39 (yeah, right). I don't care how old you are, how much money you make, you're still a punk bitch with a chip on his shoulder that thinks his shit don't stink. Go tell the stories to someone who might be impressed, nobody here is buddy. Yeah, you're a classic cupcake, you know it and that bothers you more than anything. Later.

[chucksnee]

You must be a fat piece of Sh!t as much as you like cupcakes....or you are a fat cupcake?

Why will you not answer a question? Man...I bet you really know how to train people on the range...DO IT MY WAY CUPCAKE....I know....I've been to war!!!!! I'm great at what I do.....( i cannot do my Army job) but I can be part of a zero range....


Chuck, I really couldn't care less about how much money you make (or don't, LOL), it has absolutely no bearing on the conversation and the only one that seems to think it important is you. You got punked and now you are irritated and going out in left field looking for ways to get under my skin. Not gonna happen. You just have far too large an ego and way too much time on your hands (retired). So do yourself a favor and chill before you have a heart attack at 39 (yeah, right). I don't care how old you are, how much money you make, you're still a punk bitch with a chip on his shoulder that thinks his shit don't stink. Go tell the stories to someone who might be impressed, nobody here is buddy. Yeah, you're a classic cupcake, you know it and that bothers you more than anything. Later.

The only person here getting punked is you, you cannot stand to be called out....I have given you ample credible information and all you can say is...I'M AN EXPERT....

I brought up my age and what I make because you said I'm old and bitter..You cannot stand that....and it pisses you off...I'm younger and make more money....I brought up the money to get under your skin and it's obvious it does....

Lets see...who has the larger ego...

I think you'd have to do a hell of a lot of digging to find even a single case in the last 20 years where a U.S. service member died as a result of an inferior weapon. Good luck.

Given you MANY links to very creatable sources....But then again you are an expert....so even the people who made the gun do not know what they are talking about...


chucksnee, it just so happens that my current duties are nothing but running ranges for reservists and NG that are preparing for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. I see M4's and M16s covered in dirt/mud/sand every day and the only malfunctions are operator headspace and timing. In the last week I've run ranges where we've fired a total of almost 10,000 rounds and not one misfire due to dirt. You might could say that on this particular subject I am somewhat of an expert. Or, I guess, depending on your level of intelligence (or lack thereof) you might not. I would bet a dollar to a donut that Ms. Lynch's weapon no more misfired or jammed than Pat Tillmans did. She was likely so flustered and nervous that she never got it off "safe" (if it was even loaded).

EXPERT, EXPERT, EXPERT, EXPERT......Yea....and EXPERT.....


chucksnee, I am not "suggesting", you posted "I've never run a range, I also have never done any testing of the M4/M16.....at Picatinny....Oh wait maybe I have...I was stationed at ATTC.". Not sure where the "field" would be located at Test Command but pretty sure they have hot and cold running water and internet access there, LOL. FYI, I was just running the zero ranges this week and most Soldiers were merely confirming zeroes. Do the math on that one cupcake. You are simply not in my league on this particular subject but I'm sure there are some that you know more than me about. 10,000 rounds a week may not seem like much to a Rambo, lab rat such as yourself but when grown folk talk (honestly) it's quite a lot week after week. You can continue to rant all you like. I'm done conversing with a brick wall.

You are part of a RANGE detail for a reason....Not becasue you are good....but becasue you suck.....


Boss Hog, as I've already stated, the weapon is not perfect but it's definitely good enough to get the job done. If not you'd have at least anecdotal evidence (there is NONE) that the flawed weapon has led to deaths of friendly troops. Go sell that story to someone who's buying, we're all stocked up on crazy here. The best weapon in the world does you absolutely no good if you don't know how to properly employ it. If I put my 14 year old in a Lamborghini or a VW the results will be the same in short order.

Again given you many link that say your wrong....but then again your an EXPERT....


This will be my last post on this particular forum.

You provide a bunch of unsubstantiated cut and pasted claims as "evidence". How about a link to a reputable source? Wow! I've had similar "discussions" with others on other subjects and they use similar tactics; avoidance, obfuscation, misdirection and camouflaging the truth. The link that MSM provided is from an obviously biased site that has a vested financial interest in seeing new weapons procured. Show me the PROOF that Soldiers have died due to the weapons fallibility or just STFU. Whatever congress did in 1967 has no effect on the M-4 as we didn't have them back then so it's irrelevant.

MANY, MANY LINK........What have you given us? Your word? HA HA.....that's as laughable as this stupid thread....


okay chucksnee, here's the deal. I've used the M-4 and M-16 in combat. I never had a problem with it. My men never had a problem with it. NOBODY I ever met had a problem with it. There are no documented cases of ANYONE ever having a problem with it. You point to these "studies" that show it to be inferior to other weapons available. SO WHAT! It is plenty good for what we need it to do. You cannot logically justify spending ten billion dollars to outfit everyone with the latest and greatest weapons available when the ones that we have perform just fine. It would be like replacing all Hummers with a newer version that got 2 miles more per gallon. RIDICULOUS!

Many documented cases....becasue you say they are not...means nothing...just like you...you mean nothing...

[MCGYVER]

LOL, yeah, sure looks like you got me flustered. You pathetic loser.

[chucksnee]

LOL, yeah, sure looks like you got me flustered. You pathetic loser.

Way to answer the questions big guy....is that how you are in the Army? Never answer a question....

Once again, until you can give me something else besides "your an expert" then keep your useless C@ck holster closed.....your opinions mean nothing....I have given you proof....

So, don't answer anymore questions...wait, you still have not answered one....

Ah well...at least everyone knows your an expert....at something.....

[CORNELIUSSEON]

The Army wants to take the M4 of every soldier and make six fixes — everything from a heavier barrel to an improved trigger pull.

The proposed overhaul would be a stopgap measure to address M4 shortcomings until a competition can be held to find and field a more reliable carbine.

The one soldiers carry today has proven prone to jamming because of dust and overheating.

After the deadly firefight at Wanat, Afghanistan, in the summer of 2008, in which nine troops were killed, some soldiers complained their M4s jammed.

That problem had already been well-documented and the subject of a 2007 congressional inquiry, which ultimately led to the requirement for a competition.

Astoundingly, though, that competition has yet to be held and best estimates are that it could be four years until they select a replacement — and several years more before a better weapon is fielded.

With nearly 150,000 soldiers at war on two fronts, that is unconscionable. If any one initiative should be expedited, this is it.

The Colt-made M4 does have its defenders, and the Army cites an approval rating of more than 90 percent. Yet the M4 finished dead last in dust tests against three other carbines. Delta Force members and spec ops forces, who can choose their own weapons, have indeed opted for others they view as more reliable.

Fix the M4 now, but don’t let that serve as an excuse to further delay or cancel a carbine competition. And lawmakers and service leaders owe it to the troops to expedite that competition.

It seems that we keep on re-inventing the wheel when it comes to new Rifles. I joined the Regular Army in 1967 when the M-16 was replacing the M-14 in the field. Indeed, I took my Basic Training with the M-14, and completed my Deployment to Vietnam with the M-14. I didn't get my hands on an M-16 until I DEROSed, and was issued one at Fort Eustis. I got one of the last of the original M-16s - the one with the open Flash Suppressor - and was told to make sure it was cleaned on a continual basis because of its proclivity to jam. My M-16 was soon replaced by the M-16A1 - the first one with the Closed Flash Suppressor. I progressed to the M-16A2, and I retired after receiving the M-16-A3. The point is that the Army once followed the dictum "Never let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good!" In terms of the M-4, that means that we should field the M-4, and IMPROVE it in stages until it can't be improved or it becomes seriously obsolete. Actually, we don't want a "Perfect" rifle. Why? because what is "perfect" for one kind of shooter is "Average" for another, and "Mediocre" for yet another.

When I joined, I hated the M-14 because it was too long, too heavy, was too hard to clean, was too easy to get hung up on branches, was too noisy, and too rust prone. I liked the original M-16, but understood what everyone who used it in Vietnam were complaining about, and so didn't complain when it was replaced by the M-16A1. The A-2 and A-3 improvements were under the skin, so again I didn't complain because they didn't affect the rifle's usefulness. My point here is this debate about the M-4 that is being held from top to bottom is a waste of breath because it is focusing on the wrong subject. The M-4 is the rifle we have in hand at present, and THERE IS NOTHING SUBSTANTIALLY WRONG WITH IT. The M-4 is going to go through the same cycle of development that the M-16 did, because EVERYTHING the military has fielded since the Revolution has needed improvement, and has benefited from improvement.

[MCGYVER]

Uh oh, now you did it! LOL

[chucksnee]

Uh oh, now you did it! LOL

Yep, your still an id1ot.....

CORNELIUSSEON...

I do agree with you, it needs to be improved...but there are other platform out there that are better and more reliable...take the .458 SOCOM...all you have to do is replace the upper reciever and mags....thats it...


because EVERYTHING the military has fielded since the Revolution has needed improvement, and has benefited from improvement

This makes no sence....with that thinking then why do we have the Hummer? We should still be using the Cuc-V (yea I know it's not sellped right, but you know what i'm talking about) or maybe the old jeep... and just keep upgradnig it right? Or why not stick with the old .38 special revolver...

[Seasons]

For the love of God you two, just lay 'em out and measure already.

[MCGYVER]

5.75 is what I got

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Yep, your still an id1ot.....

CORNELIUSSEON...

I do agree with you, it needs to be improved...but there are other platform out there that are better and more reliable...take the .458 SOCOM...all you have to do is replace the upper reciever and mags....thats it...



This makes no sence....with that thinking then why do we have the Hummer? We should still be using the Cuc-V (yea I know it's not sellped right, but you know what i'm talking about) or maybe the old jeep... and just keep upgradnig it right? Or why not stick with the old .38 special revolver...

Actually, we DO still have the .38 Caliber Revolver - sorta. The 0.38 Caliber has a round that is 0.38 Inches in diameter which is - wait for it - 9.65 milimeters in Metric size. The 9 Millimeter round is 0.354 inches in English measurement. SO, what we have done is to go to a SMALLER round. What we could have done was improve the 0.38 along the lines of the 9 mm, keeping the 0.38 sized round. We might have done that with the old M-14 as well, keeping its 0.30 Caliber round, which is exactly 7.62mm in size, but we didn't. We moved to 5.56 mm, which is 0.219 Inches in size, and therefore 0.219 Caliber. We have gained with the smaller round because we can carry more ammo in the same sized ammo pouch, and we have gained by forgetting the old Daniel Boone mentality where we expect to fire at the Enemy when he is 300 Meters away. I quickly learned in Vietnam that that was rarely true, and Iraq and Afghanistan confirms that point.

[chucksnee]

Actually, we DO still have the .38 Caliber Revolver - sorta. The 0.38 Caliber has a round that is 0.38 Inches in diameter which is - wait for it - 9.65 milimeters in Metric size. The 9 Millimeter round is 0.354 inches in English measurement. SO, what we have done is to go to a SMALLER round. What we could have done was improve the 0.38 along the lines of the 9 mm, keeping the 0.38 sized round. We might have done that with the old M-14 as well, keeping its 0.30 Caliber round, which is exactly 7.62mm in size, but we didn't. We moved to 5.56 mm, which is 0.219 Inches in size, and therefore 0.219 Caliber. We have gained with the smaller round because we can carry more ammo in the same sized ammo pouch, and we have gained by forgetting the old Daniel Boone mentality where we expect to fire at the Enemy when he is 300 Meters away. I quickly learned in Vietnam that that was rarely true, and Iraq and Afghanistan confirms that point.

Come on man....sorta...you can give me all the "what if's" you would like and give me your theories about what should have happened...

SO with your theory, we should actually be shooting .22 caliber rifles....more ammo....can be shot at ranges of more than 100 yards...wait...what about the .22 magnum....longer range....more power....you know the .22 in mm is 5.58....bigger bullet....more ammo....range...who needs it right....

So let me hear your theories on the hummer and things like that....or are you like someone else on this board...only answers what they want to answer....

either way the Army may have seen the light....

http://kitup.military.com/2010/03/army-secretary-sees-new-carbine-to-replace-m4.html#axzz0kGv7Er6F

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Come on man....sorta...you can give me all the "what if's" you would like and give me your theories about what should have happened...

SO with your theory, we should actually be shooting .22 caliber rifles....more ammo....can be shot at ranges of more than 100 yards...wait...what about the .22 magnum....longer range....more power....you know the .22 in mm is 5.58....bigger bullet....more ammo....range...who needs it right....

So let me hear your theories on the hummer and things like that....or are you like someone else on this board...only answers what they want to answer....

either way the Army may have seen the light....

http://kitup.military.com/2010/03/army-secretary-sees-new-carbine-to-replace-m4.html#axzz0kGv7Er6F

Actually, I remember when the Hummer first arrived. My unit traded in all its vehicles smaller than 2½ Tons for Hummers, and we thought that the Army was getting rooked at the time because of the fact that the Hummers weren’t any better protected than the trucks we turned in. We liked the better Four Wheel Drive and Transmission, and the Multifuel Engine, and we liked the mix-and-match format which meant that we could reconfigure all our Hummers as we saw fit for the specific mission, but then the Big Bad Regular Army came along and swapped out all our Hummers because they needed them more than we did. It was just as well because when we arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1990, the folly of the Hummer had already surfaced. The best configuration for the Hummer is as a Mobile Gun Platform, and I’m talking about Mortars, Recoiless Rifles, Anti-Tank Weapons, and M-2 Machineguns. Next, they make great Ambulances, and reasonable Small Troop Carriers, but they otherwise have little place on the Frontline. They don’t do the Jeep’s job better, nor do they beat the ¾ or the 5/4. They ARE better than the GOER and the Gamma Goat, but the M-551 and M-113 combinations beat the Hummer all to hell, and that’s not saying much since the M-113 also had to be hardened against boobytraps. That – by the way – seems to be a major fault of American military wheeled vehicles and light tracked vehicles. None of them are protected properly from below. The Jeep could be configured to Swim, and the M-113/114/577/578 Family were designed to Swim. The Hummer was designed to Ford deep streams, which again required a light-weight frame.

Are you aware of WHY the Hummer is designed specifically the way it is? You will laugh when you read this. The Hummer has its specific size and shape because that is the largest vehicle that can fit in ANY European Railroad Tunnel, both on its own wheels or on Flatcars. That’s right, the Hummer was designed for NATO distribution during the Cold War. One of its specific uses was to be a Scout Vehicle, and one that was to be expendable on the European Battlefield. In other words, it was to be an up-rated Jeep. You guys are apparently using it for purposes for which it was never expected to perform – which is not surprising since that is exactly what we did with the Jeep over the years – but we knew enough to be careful with the Jeep because any vehicle four soldiers could pick up off the ground, and was rated for 500 Pounds of cargo, was obviously too light to do much fighting. Whose idea was it to put a Gun Turret on it? Sure, it is wide enough and long enough to be a decent Gun Platform, but NOT when the turret is mounted along the roof line. Nope, you won’t get me to defend the Hummer, it was an abortion for the Army, and the Street version is an abortion as well. You practically need to own your own Oil Well and Oil Refinery in order to keep one on the road.

[chucksnee]

Actually, I remember when the Hummer first arrived. My unit traded in all its vehicles smaller than 2½ Tons for Hummers, and we thought that the Army was getting rooked at the time because of the fact that the Hummers weren’t any better protected than the trucks we turned in. We liked the better Four Wheel Drive and Transmission, and the Multifuel Engine, and we liked the mix-and-match format which meant that we could reconfigure all our Hummers as we saw fit for the specific mission, but then the Big Bad Regular Army came along and swapped out all our Hummers because they needed them more than we did. It was just as well because when we arrived in Saudi Arabia in 1990, the folly of the Hummer had already surfaced. The best configuration for the Hummer is as a Mobile Gun Platform, and I’m talking about Mortars, Recoiless Rifles, Anti-Tank Weapons, and M-2 Machineguns. Next, they make great Ambulances, and reasonable Small Troop Carriers, but they otherwise have little place on the Frontline. They don’t do the Jeep’s job better, nor do they beat the ¾ or the 5/4. They ARE better than the GOER and the Gamma Goat, but the M-551 and M-113 combinations beat the Hummer all to hell, and that’s not saying much since the M-113 also had to be hardened against boobytraps. That – by the way – seems to be a major fault of American military wheeled vehicles and light tracked vehicles. None of them are protected properly from below. The Jeep could be configured to Swim, and the M-113/114/577/578 Family were designed to Swim. The Hummer was designed to Ford deep streams, which again required a light-weight frame.

Are you aware of WHY the Hummer is designed specifically the way it is? You will laugh when you read this. The Hummer has its specific size and shape because that is the largest vehicle that can fit in ANY European Railroad Tunnel, both on its own wheels or on Flatcars. That’s right, the Hummer was designed for NATO distribution during the Cold War. One of its specific uses was to be a Scout Vehicle, and one that was to be expendable on the European Battlefield. In other words, it was to be an up-rated Jeep. You guys are apparently using it for purposes for which it was never expected to perform – which is not surprising since that is exactly what we did with the Jeep over the years – but we knew enough to be careful with the Jeep because any vehicle four soldiers could pick up off the ground, and was rated for 500 Pounds of cargo, was obviously too light to do much fighting. Whose idea was it to put a Gun Turret on it? Sure, it is wide enough and long enough to be a decent Gun Platform, but NOT when the turret is mounted along the roof line. Nope, you won’t get me to defend the Hummer, it was an abortion for the Army, and the Street version is an abortion as well. You practically need to own your own Oil Well and Oil Refinery in order to keep one on the road.

Well, holy crap.....great reply....enjoyed the read...

[Gunner007]

chucksnee, it just so happens that my current duties are nothing but running ranges for reservists and NG that are preparing for deployment to Afghanistan and Iraq. I see M4's and M16s covered in dirt/mud/sand every day and the only malfunctions are operator headspace and timing. In the last week I've run ranges where we've fired a total of almost 10,000 rounds and not one misfire due to dirt. You might could say that on this particular subject I am somewhat of an expert. Or, I guess, depending on your level of intelligence (or lack thereof) you might not. I would bet a dollar to a donut that Ms. Lynch's weapon no more misfired or jammed than Pat Tillmans did. She was likely so flustered and nervous that she never got it off "safe" (if it was even loaded).

Yep, i run our units armory and conduct our pro-fire courses and we fire thousands of rounds. If the weapon has been properly maintained by the shooter it seems to work fine, but the guys who like to only clean their weapons just before they return from a deployment (yes we have a few of those folks) are the ones who's weapon seems to always jam up and give them problems. The DoD discovered this problem when they sent that first shipment of M-16's to Vietnam about 40 years ago with no cleaning kits! Clean the weapon and maintain it properly and it works great! I probably personally fired over a 1,000 rounds last year (perk of the job) and the only jams i had were from using the standard GI issue magazine, when i use the DSG mag with the H&K follower i dont seem to have any issues. Seems the biggest problem i see is guys not properly maintaining the weapon and a fancier weapon doesnt resolve that.

[Gunner007]

...my m16 had some pretty bad faults. the biggest was that a magazine, brand new with three rounds at a range, would just fall out, was noticed and i reported to my armorer, and two and a half years later, the issue still exists. before someone says that as a bearer of a m16 i didnt go "outside" the wire, i was convoy commander running at least two convoys a day. so, for those who are making petty arguments on how many ranges you run or what ever, look at the larger picure that the army is still sending troops into combat with broke equipment.
...

If your weapon still has that problem and you are interested in knowing how to fix it let me know. Would take you no money and probably 2 minutes of your time, literally! Sounds to me like you have a less than motivated armorer!

[Gunner007]

frisk, I do agree with you on some point...but if you will go back and read all comments in this post..you will see that I posted to the fact that HE (MCGYVER) said that he NEVER had a misfire do to mud or anything like that, his only misfires were do to "head space and timing." I called BS....

I am not sure why headspace would be a problem on the M-4 either, once the bolt and bolt carrier are assembled together they are gauged and if they pass, so long as the bolt is not swapped out then they should be good. M-4 has a fixed headspace, the barrel isnt adjustable, that did seem odd to me now that you mention it.


...So these guys are still firing M16's.....I hope you realize with yours smarts (or lack of being smart) you would realize that the M4 was made from the M16.....so it does matter...

Might i inject that the testing from the 1960 did identify shortcomings. The M16 was then modified a couple of different ways which led to the eventually M16A2 designation. When the M-4 was fielded the M16A2 modifications were rolled into the baseline M4. Now my unit has M4A1 not the M4A2 but the difference with the M4's isnt so much fixes to problems but whether they are full auto or 3 rounds burst. So as i think Mcgyvers point was that the study identifying the original problems from the late 60's didnt apply because those problems were fixed through modifications over the last 40+ years.

[Gunner007]

The M2 .50 Cal machine gun is nearly 100 years old, does that mean it needs to be replaced?

HELL YES! The GAU-18 or XM218, however you name it is nothing but problems! Thats why we have the M3 or GAU-21 (whichever name you prefer) replacing it! Of course its worth noting that back when it was a purely mechanical weapon, before the AF installed a POS selonoid on it and gave it the ability to fire 600rds worth of ammo in one go, it worked pretty decent, but leave it to the AF to screw up what was until that point a decently reliable weapon!

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Yep, i run our units armory and conduct our pro-fire courses and we fire thousands of rounds. If the weapon has been properly maintained by the shooter it seems to work fine, but the guys who like to only clean their weapons just before they return from a deployment (yes we have a few of those folks) are the ones who's weapon seems to always jam up and give them problems. The DoD discovered this problem when they sent that first shipment of M-16's to Vietnam about 40 years ago with no cleaning kits! Clean the weapon and maintain it properly and it works great! I probably personally fired over a 1,000 rounds last year (perk of the job) and the only jams i had were from using the standard GI issue magazine, when i use the DSG mag with the H&K follower i dont seem to have any issues. Seems the biggest problem i see is guys not properly maintaining the weapon and a fancier weapon doesnt resolve that.

Speaking as a Retired Guardman who served first in the Regular Army before transferring over during the 1975 RIF, You are totally correct about the M-16. I am one of those troops who started with the M-14, and transitioned over to the M-16, and those who kept both rifles clean had no problems. I did my time in Vietnam with the M-14, and used the M-16 in Desert Storm. One trick we used in Nam that we used again in Desert Shield/Desert Storm was to keep a pocket full of Condums, with one of them mounted over the Flash Suppressor when not in a fire situation, thus keeping dirt and moisture out of the barrel. The beauty of Condums was that if we were ambushed, we just raised our rifles and fired, with the bullets coming out of the barrel with no hassles. When we were done firing, we just let the barrel cool, then slapped another Condum over the Flash Suppressor, and bingo – a clean barrel that was ready for more fire. Of course, we started any patrol by cleaning the weapon before we left the compound, and cleaning the Barrel again when we stopped over for any appreciable amount of time. The point – which my sainted Drill Sergeant said to us time and again – is that if you keep your rifle clean, and keep dirt and moisture out of the works, it will work properly for you when you need it most.

[Gunner007]

Actually, we DO still have the .38 Caliber Revolver - sorta. The 0.38 Caliber has a round that is 0.38 Inches in diameter which is - wait for it - 9.65 milimeters in Metric size. The 9 Millimeter round is 0.354 inches in English measurement. SO, what we have done is to go to a SMALLER round. What we could have done was improve the 0.38 along the lines of the 9 mm, keeping the 0.38 sized round. We might have done that with the old M-14 as well, keeping its 0.30 Caliber round, which is exactly 7.62mm in size, but we didn't. We moved to 5.56 mm, which is 0.219 Inches in size, and therefore 0.219 Caliber. We have gained with the smaller round because we can carry more ammo in the same sized ammo pouch, and we have gained by forgetting the old Daniel Boone mentality where we expect to fire at the Enemy when he is 300 Meters away. I quickly learned in Vietnam that that was rarely true, and Iraq and Afghanistan confirms that point.

Stoners AR-10 would be much better than the M-16 series. I have both AR-15 and AR-10's at home and my 10 is a dream! There are so many things about larger projectiles that make them more capable in combat than the little 5.56 and 9mm rounds. At home i can load a mag of hollow points or pre-serrated jacketed frangibles and amplify the damage that smaller round can do but Geneva wont let us carry anything but ball. So if the wound cavitation is going to rely on ball ammo then we need more ft. lbs. of energy to increase the size of the wound cavitation which means more projectile BC. Much the reason the "new" SOCOM and Marine round is about 10gr heavier than the M855. Its increased killing potential is delivered not through velocity so much as by the added energy the heavier mass is delivering to the target.

So yeah someone thought carrying more ammo is so fabulous, maybe if your a third world army whos people tend to spray and pray it is, but in a country with the greatest riflemen in the world serving in her military we want deadly precise employment not spray and pray. That means if i have a 7.62 round in an AR-10 or EBR i may not be able to carry as much but i dont need as much. When a guy take a burst from a SAW like in Somalia and gets up that tells me something in the weapons employment of terminal ballistics isnt working right! Same reason the M9 sucks and people like the 1911, because hollow points arent allowed so we need something that delivers an extra 400 or 500ft lbs of energy to really tear hajis ass open and that heavier 230gr ball will do it more effectively.

I know the M-4 has its problems but it could be easily modernized with a piston kit upper and one or two changes to make its terminal ballistics more desirable, either tighter twist with heavier projectile or swapping the upper to something like the 6.8SPC. But more ammo by itself wont solve anything.

[Gunner007]

Speaking as a Retired Guardman who served first in the Regular Army before transferring over during the 1975 RIF, You are totally correct about the M-16. I am one of those troops who started with the M-14, and transitioned over to the M-16, and those who kept both rifles clean had no problems. I did my time in Vietnam with the M-14, and used the M-16 in Desert Storm. One trick we used in Nam that we used again in Desert Shield/Desert Storm was to keep a pocket full of Condums, with one of them mounted over the Flash Suppressor when not in a fire situation, thus keeping dirt and moisture out of the barrel. The beauty of Condums was that if we were ambushed, we just raised our rifles and fired, with the bullets coming out of the barrel with no hassles. When we were done firing, we just let the barrel cool, then slapped another Condum over the Flash Suppressor, and bingo – a clean barrel that was ready for more fire. Of course, we started any patrol by cleaning the weapon before we left the compound, and cleaning the Barrel again when we stopped over for any appreciable amount of time. The point – which my sainted Drill Sergeant said to us time and again – is that if you keep your rifle clean, and keep dirt and moisture out of the works, it will work properly for you when you need it most.

Too funny, now days we use a foamy ear plug in the muzzle end of the barrel to keep the dirt out, seems some simply technology never goes away does it?

[chucksnee]

I am not sure why headspace would be a problem on the M-4 either, once the bolt and bolt carrier are assembled together they are gauged and if they pass, so long as the bolt is not swapped out then they should be good. M-4 has a fixed headspace, the barrel isnt adjustable, that did seem odd to me now that you mention it.

He is saying the people are not smart enough to use the weapon...

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Stoners AR-10 would be much better than the M-16 series. I have both AR-15 and AR-10's at home and my 10 is a dream! There are so many things about larger projectiles that make them more capable in combat than the little 5.56 and 9mm rounds. At home i can load a mag of hollow points or pre-serrated jacketed frangibles and amplify the damage that smaller round can do but Geneva wont let us carry anything but ball. So if the wound cavitation is going to rely on ball ammo then we need more ft. lbs. of energy to increase the size of the wound cavitation which means more projectile BC. Much the reason the "new" SOCOM and Marine round is about 10gr heavier than the M855. Its increased killing potential is delivered not through velocity so much as by the added energy the heavier mass is delivering to the target.

So yeah someone thought carrying more ammo is so fabulous, maybe if your a third world army whos people tend to spray and pray it is, but in a country with the greatest riflemen in the world serving in her military we want deadly precise employment not spray and pray. That means if i have a 7.62 round in an AR-10 or EBR i may not be able to carry as much but i dont need as much. When a guy take a burst from a SAW like in Somalia and gets up that tells me something in the weapons employment of terminal ballistics isnt working right! Same reason the M9 sucks and people like the 1911, because hollow points arent allowed so we need something that delivers an extra 400 or 500ft lbs of energy to really tear hajis ass open and that heavier 230gr ball will do it more effectively.

I know the M-4 has its problems but it could be easily modernized with a piston kit upper and one or two changes to make its terminal ballistics more desirable, either tighter twist with heavier projectile or swapping the upper to something like the 6.8SPC. But more ammo by itself wont solve anything.


I carried the M-14 in Vietnam, although I did get Transition Training on the M-16 in Basic, and got told that I would get one or the other or both while in Nam. I didn’t get to fire another M-16 until I returned to CONUS and was issued one in my next unit. I used a pure M-16 in Basic, and was issued an A1 when I returned from Nam. When I was Rif’ed in 1975, I got another A1 in my Guard unit, and moved up to the A2, which I carried in Desert Storm. I got an A3 when I returned in 1991, but transferred to the Retired Reserve in 1994, so got little experience with the A3. In Vietnam, when I did fire my rifle, my target was never more than100 Meters away, so the marksmanship accuracy of the M-14 was wasted. At the same time, there was a lot of “Spray and Pray” in the American ranks in Nam, so the M-16’s Selector Switch was a godsend. It was true that it was more important that lots of hot lead went down range than if you could see your target because the VC and NVA used auto fire all the time, and the time involved in selecting and aiming at your target lengthened the time period where you and your buddies were vulnerable to the incoming hot lead.

I agree about the M-1911A1. I learned on one in basic, and found it to be even easier to strip and assemble than either the M-14 or M-16. I never had to carry one full time, but the occasions came and went when I had to fire one. I appreciated the 0.45 ACP Caliber round, which is 11.43 mm by the way, and the fact that it was one American Military weapon that never needed serious upgrade. By the way, the term “Ball Ammo” has NOTHING to do with the bullet itself, but with the powder in the shell. The American Military fires what is known as a “Full Metal Jacket” bullet, which is a type of round not always seen in civilian weapons. The term refers to the Copper cladding on the bullet. The M-1911A1 and the companion 0.38 Revolver that Pilots tended to carry, used both FMJ and Unclad lead bullets. The problem with Ball Ammo is the fact that Ball Powder has a bad habit of clinging to the interior of the weapon, making it harder to clean, taking away from the powder’s usefulness.

[MCGYVER]

Yep, i run our units armory and conduct our pro-fire courses and we fire thousands of rounds. If the weapon has been properly maintained by the shooter it seems to work fine, but the guys who like to only clean their weapons just before they return from a deployment (yes we have a few of those folks) are the ones who's weapon seems to always jam up and give them problems. The DoD discovered this problem when they sent that first shipment of M-16's to Vietnam about 40 years ago with no cleaning kits! Clean the weapon and maintain it properly and it works great! I probably personally fired over a 1,000 rounds last year (perk of the job) and the only jams i had were from using the standard GI issue magazine, when i use the DSG mag with the H&K follower i dont seem to have any issues. Seems the biggest problem i see is guys not properly maintaining the weapon and a fancier weapon doesnt resolve that.

Exactly! In the last 9 months I've seen hundreds of thousands of rounds put through M16/M4 barrels without one single fault due to anything except keeping the weapon clean. Some people simply won't believe that though. Oh well.

[Gunner007]

....
I agree about the M-1911A1. I learned on one in basic, and found it to be even easier to strip and assemble than either the M-14 or M-16. I never had to carry one full time, but the occasions came and went when I had to fire one. I appreciated the 0.45 ACP Caliber round, which is 11.43 mm by the way, and the fact that it was one American Military weapon that never needed serious upgrade. By the way, the term “Ball Ammo” has NOTHING to do with the bullet itself, but with the powder in the shell. The American Military fires what is known as a “Full Metal Jacket” bullet, which is a type of round not always seen in civilian weapons. The term refers to the Copper cladding on the bullet. The M-1911A1 and the companion 0.38 Revolver that Pilots tended to carry, used both FMJ and Unclad lead bullets. The problem with Ball Ammo is the fact that Ball Powder has a bad habit of clinging to the interior of the weapon, making it harder to clean, taking away from the powder’s usefulness.

Well i can say i learned something today. While i have always heard standard round nosed projectiles referred to as ball, (even though yes they are FMJ) i had assumed it was a slang, or military vernacular used to describe the rounded shape the early military ammunitions shared. I did some poking around on the net just a minute ago and found pretty much everyone referring to FMJ as ball but the reference to the different type of powder was interesting. I am always intrigued about how some acronyms and vernacular the military uses evolved from something or someplace, i think it would be a really neat project is someday someone put together i psuedo dictionary that listed the varying military'isms and their original meaning. We have guys today who came up in the modern era for instance who have no idea what 5x5 means in the context of communications. Good poop though thanks.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

He is saying the people are not smart enough to use the weapon...

Actually, one of the good things about earlier rifles that seems to have been lost is that the subject of "Headspace" and other such technical terms were NOT the province of the Firer. In my day, only the Armorer needed to know about Headspace.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

HELL YES! The GAU-18 or XM218, however you name it is nothing but problems! Thats why we have the M3 or GAU-21 (whichever name you prefer) replacing it! Of course its worth noting that back when it was a purely mechanical weapon, before the AF installed a POS selonoid on it and gave it the ability to fire 600rds worth of ammo in one go, it worked pretty decent, but leave it to the AF to screw up what was until that point a decently reliable weapon!

The Browning 0.50 (12.7 mm) Caliber Machinegun came with a single Receiver that could be assembled with any set of parts to form Three Types and several Versions and Variants. This Receiver can be assembled for Right- or Left-hand Feed. The solenoid mentioned was originally used by the Army Air Corps in World War Two, but it was also used in Quad Mounted Antiaircraft Guns. The Solenoid itself is not part of the basic weapon, but an accessory. Indeed, the M-2 came with dozens of accessories so that it could be used almost anywhere on the battlefield.

Now, what may be the real problem is the improper rate of fire that many people use with the M-2. The way I was trained, The first burst shouldn’t be longer than 75 Rounds. Once this first burst is fired, a minimum of One Minute of rest should be observed before firing again unless under fire, and then firing of subsequent bursts should be of one 20 Round Burst per Minute. If you exceed 75 Rounds in 5 Second Bursts, you will overheat the barrel, and if repeated without pause, may cause stoppages or “Cooked-off” Rounds. The normal Belt only has 110 Rounds, and longer belts are achieved by linking standard belts together, so your 600 Round belt is really 660 Rounds. At that length, you should fire not more than 75 Rounds in the first burst, followed – after rest – with 20 Round bursts with 60 Seconds rest between until the belt is expended. If you fire 600 rounds in one burst, don’t be surprised that you have problems.

[Gunner007]

....
Now, what may be the real problem is the improper rate of fire that many people use with the M-2. The way I was trained, The first burst shouldn’t be longer than 75 Rounds. Once this first burst is fired, a minimum of One Minute of rest should be observed before firing again unless under fire, and then firing of subsequent bursts should be of one 20 Round Burst per Minute. If you exceed 75 Rounds in 5 Second Bursts, you will overheat the barrel, and if repeated without pause, may cause stoppages or “Cooked-off” Rounds. The normal Belt only has 110 Rounds, and longer belts are achieved by linking standard belts together, so your 600 Round belt is really 660 Rounds. At that length, you should fire not more than 75 Rounds in the first burst, followed – after rest – with 20 Round bursts with 60 Seconds rest between until the belt is expended. If you fire 600 rounds in one burst, don’t be surprised that you have problems.

Our helo modified the 50 with the selonoid and added an external ammo can that holds 600rds. Our bursts for training are usually 10-15 rounds due to firing fan limits and cook-offs so we dont usually get to really go crazy during training. With the GAU-21 being open bolt though it cuts the cook off issue to almost nil so its definitely going to help our cause. All the electric crap, the booster motor, ECU, trigger assembly... All that crap does is introduce problems.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

Our helo modified the 50 with the selonoid and added an external ammo can that holds 600rds. Our bursts for training are usually 10-15 rounds due to firing fan limits and cook-offs so we dont usually get to really go crazy during training. With the GAU-21 being open bolt though it cuts the cook off issue to almost nil so its definitely going to help our cause. All the electric crap, the booster motor, ECU, trigger assembly... All that crap does is introduce problems.

You just confused me with the word "helo". In my day, that was shorthand for Helicopter. Are you with a Gunship unit? If so, are you flying UH-1s, UH-60s, or AH-64s?

[Gunner007]

You just confused me with the word "helo". In my day, that was shorthand for Helicopter. Are you with a Gunship unit? If so, are you flying UH-1s, UH-60s, or AH-64s?

LOL, yes, i am a helo gunner on HH-60G's. One of the loathed Air Force guys. I just found the M-4 thread and it piqued my interest. I guess i have to go back to the AF pages now.

[CORNELIUSSEON]

LOL, yes, i am a helo gunner on HH-60G's. One of the loathed Air Force guys. I just found the M-4 thread and it piqued my interest. I guess i have to go back to the AF pages now.

Fine. Are you firing a pintle mounted gun, or is it a synchronized gun that must be fired electrically? If it is Pintle mounted, then why can't it be fired Manually using Recoil?

[Gunner007]

Fine. Are you firing a pintle mounted gun, or is it a synchronized gun that must be fired electrically? If it is Pintle mounted, then why can't it be fired Manually using Recoil?

The backplate with the "butterfly" triggers is removed and replaced with a backplate that has a selonoid and a "GCU" gun control unit that has stupid little electric triggers on it. The selonoid has to be timed to the gun after the gun is headspaced and timed. Operators pulls trigger, signal goes to selonoid, it activates a little flapper that pushes up on the trigger bar and starts the normal firing sequence from there. Also when the trigger is pulled it activates a signal to the booster motor on the ammo can that begins pushing ammo from the can to the gun.

It all sounds great on paper but in practice... lets just say back in the good ole days when our 50's were floor mounted in the cabin and used the E13 adapter and no electrical add-on crap, they fired just fine. You start firing 300rds through a weapon that is used to only firing 100rds at a go and it causes problems. Add electric crap to an older design like the M2 and you create even more problems. The M3/GAU-21 will resolve pretty much all the issue though!

[Gunner007]

I am in a unit where we have unique requirements for our weapons. Mostly because we need something more compact, versatile, and low signature than a guy who has 100 guys with him for help. I think one of the biggest pains in the ass with the M-4 i am dealing with right now is trying to get specialized components approved for use! Its ridiculous! I am not sure how it is in the Army but the AF needs to pull its head from its ass when it comes to small arms. For instance, as a helo gunner, i am expected to know my weapon inside and out and be able to affect repairs in flight to keep the defensive system working. I am an instructor gunner, and have at some point been qualified on the M240, GAU-2C, & GAU-18 for flight. We dont use the 240's anymore. I can teach you to shoot it in flight but i am not qualified to teach you to shoot it on the ground? HUH? The other is, with the M-4 for example, the AF doesnt allow its trigger puller to fix their weapon. They dont instruct on small fixes and things that can go wrong in the field either. They teach us to take it apart for cleaning and a very limited inspection criteria BUT, while i can inspect say, the firing pin and see its bent i am not allowed legally to replace the firing pin with a new one! WTF? I can inspect gas rings but not replace them if i find one broke? It takes literally 5 seconds to replace a gas ring! Obviously as i gunner i am not carrying a weapon i dont know how to fix but others seem quite content to just lemming along!

Maybe, if they gave people a malfunction chart, like we give our gunner students for the helo's weapons, and taught them some basic field maintenance, people could keep the M-4 working? We have guys who dont even realize that something as minor as swapping the buffer with their buddies during mass cleaning can cause the weapon not to fire full auto! No one teaches in the qualification that the H1, H2, and H3 buffers are different and if you screw up and grab your buddies your weapon may not fire on auto! Just little shit like this that to me everyone should know and be taught they dont teach! Like the guy who's magazines would lock in on this thread, push the mag release and turn the adjustment arm on the other side until the mag locks in! Its not hard and it doesnt require special tools but they fail to teach it and people think the weapon is faulty because something minor wasnt done right!

Maybe the biggest problem, at least AF wise, for the M4 is knowledge! Not sure how deeply you guys delve into troubleshooting a weapon but in the AF the training is substandard and pitiful! Thank God we have a proficiency fire program in this job!

[CORNELIUSSEON]

The backplate with the "butterfly" triggers is removed and replaced with a backplate that has a selonoid and a "GCU" gun control unit that has stupid little electric triggers on it. The selonoid has to be timed to the gun after the gun is headspaced and timed. Operators pulls trigger, signal goes to selonoid, it activates a little flapper that pushes up on the trigger bar and starts the normal firing sequence from there. Also when the trigger is pulled it activates a signal to the booster motor on the ammo can that begins pushing ammo from the can to the gun.

It all sounds great on paper but in practice... lets just say back in the good ole days when our 50's were floor mounted in the cabin and used the E13 adapter and no electrical add-on crap, they fired just fine. You start firing 300rds through a weapon that is used to only firing 100rds at a go and it causes problems. Add electric crap to an older design like the M2 and you create even more problems. The M3/GAU-21 will resolve pretty much all the issue though!

What you are saying is that someone insisted on “Reinventing the wheel” with the M-2. The M-2 came into this world as the first Machine Gun with a whole warehouse full of accessories designed to make it fit the bill of whatever system this unit or that unit needed in order to do their job. Would it surprise you to know that the M-2, when it was upgraded for modern aircraft use in 1930, was given three different remote activators for aircraft, all three of which took advantage of the M-2’s advantages and disadvantages. This included a Solenoid attached to the Receiver that – in essence – replaced the hand of a firer. In other words, you pushed or pulled the button on the Stick, which completed the circuit that activated the Solenoid attached to the Receiver, which activated the standard Trigger. As for using a motorized feed, that was tried back then as well, but was found to be more trouble than it was worth. The Disintegrating Link Belt with a pull feed still works fine.