It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in rifle

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The M4 is a great range weapon in my opinion, but have never felt comfortable carrying it into combat. I always modified mine during deployments, different upper and trigger mech, springs, etc. Then put the crap parts back in after the deployment was over. But I always wanted a M21 instead. Fewer rounds, but they rarely jam and are next to idiot proof.




posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
There sure seems to be quite a it of FUD in this thread.

First off why would anyone take the colossal step backwards to the 7.62x51 m80 round?

Quite frankly there are rounds that can duplicate the terminal effects of .308 beyond 300 meters and are superior at ranges beyond 500 meters while maintaining the same overall length and not a whole bunch more total weight than the 5.56 round.

as far as DI guns being terrible horrible evil things... I own DI, short stroke piston, and long stroke piston guns all of which have their pluses and minuses but the histrionics people seem to go into whenever they discuss it really is amusing.

I mean is the 5.56 m4 combination anywhere close to ideal? Absolutely not!

Does it provide pretty substantial overmatch versus akm wielding foes? Definitely!

What we really need is a GPC cartridge most likely using polymer cases to compensate somewhat for increased projectile weight while keeping total round weight as close to or just above that of nato 5.56 loadings.

What we should NOT do is take the COLOSSAL step backwards to the m14 7.62 nato m80 ball pairing!

I cannot stress that enough! the M80 ball round was a crap round from day 1 and it has only become even more laughable with time. Meanwhile the m14 itself.... well what can I say .... just TRY to shoot a modern thousand round plus 3 day carbine course with an m14 or m1a! You will not only beat yourself half to death trying to do so but you will also beat your gun into scrap! M14 type weapons only SEEM more reliable because for the most part they are being used as DMR and other specialty weapons that are babied quite extensively. The reality is the m14 is a good gun as long as you can take it apart and switch out springs and other parts fairly often. However if you try to run it like an m4 you'll end up throwing it down in disgust in short order.

Personally my go to gun is a full length DI gas system HBAR AR 15 with a ti-6 6 position stock. If something goes bump in the night it's what I'm most likely to pick up because i know it'll work every time! Not only that but I know that if the first round doesn't make whatever I'm shooting at drop I've got 29 more tries before I have to think about reloading. As a civilian you really don't need more than that in most instances short of complete societal breakdown.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Now you're talking finances. Something the DoD is trying to par down right now. And that is one of the points of this thread,

Biggest bang, for the cheapest buck.

Will the M21/M1A bruise the living crap out of my shoulder...hell yes. But as a overall, ALL terrain BATTLE rifle, I would carry it in a heartbeat. The M4 encourages the spray and pray mentality. I've seen it.

The M4 does have a place in let's say law enforcement, if even that. But not in our Armed forces.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
in this era of technology and quality production, why not make a better round if this is the argument?

9.3x62 is one heck of a great round. and far better than anything the us has pre- .416 barrett.

why not a spitzer type 9.3?

dont even get me started on why we still use lead. steel rounds are way better, who knows how superior an alloy would perform.

In skeet shooting, the steel shot is far superior.

And many steel pistol rounds are outlawed in civilian use for being too good at penetration.

Point being, why in this time are we not using something space age? 6.8 isn't all that great either.

Amd on the spray and pray aspect, it IS true. How can spraying 30 rounds be more cost effective than a more expensive round sprayed only 15 times?


edit on 25-2-2014 by HanzHenry because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


I don't think the argument is how much a Soldier can carry...though that has merit as well.

But the weapon itself.

The round you propose can be configured to any weapon these days. How that round performs in that configuration is another story.

I like the tried and true.

Call me old school if that's the case.



posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by HanzHenry
 


Current US military 556 bullets use an alloy. Think this topic was about the M4.

The M4s crappy performance stems from cheap bullets designed to be optimal in an M16 platform. Military is trying to fix this issue at the least cost possible.

The 556 is good enough, but not good enough on the long distance encounters that they experience in Afghanistan.

The M4 has a short barrel where a short barrel isn't warranted in Afghanistan. A shorter barrel is desired in a PDW, but not in open mountains.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
the m855a1 round supposedly cures the loss of lethality from the 14.5 inch barrels of the m4's however it does so at a truly frightful cost. It quite literally HALVES or worse the life of EVERY part of the gun using it! THis is why every single entry into the advanced carbine competition FAILED the reliability tests!

The reality is there are solutions out there. But unfortunately they're too cheap and not nearly gee whiz enough for our gold plated DOD to take an interest.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Thank you!

Thank you!

Thank you!



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
The simple truth is that the 5.56 is a round that is very reliant on barrel length to take it to a decent velocity. Minimum barrel length for M855/SS109 is 16"+. The round relies on velocity for reliable temporary cavitation and fragmentation which for this round needs to be over 2700fps.

The M4 has a 14.5" barrel which is sub optimal and reduces the effective range to



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   


A video were an Colt M4 explodes after passing only seconds in water..frightening to think this weapon is still issued.

The HK416 appears far superior.

However, the guy enter the water with the M4 and a welders mask on.....i think he knows it's about to explode.
edit on AM4Thu20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PaddyInf
 


The 556 was designed for a 20 inch barrel.

The m4 is too short. Bullets have been modernized for the shorter barrel.

Even the original m16 was approved with superior bullets that the military decided a bullet was a bullet. They went with cheap crap that caused mucho issues.

Sure the m4 went through similar. No way an M16A2 bullet would perform in an M4 platform as is. Bet the testing was done with optimized M4 rounds.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


I can post videos of an M9 vs a glock with definitive results pro M9.

But why do most current LEO carry glocks?

A video doesn't prove anything...but that some people have more money than common sense.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   

ChuckNasty
reply to post by andy1972
 


I can post videos of an M9 vs a glock with definitive results pro M9.

But why do most current LEO carry glocks?

A video doesn't prove anything...but that some people have more money than common sense.


The theme of this thread is the M4 is a liability in the field...everyone knows is, but swetheart contracts are done deals, so the guys will receive the # until HK greases more palms in congress...
edit on AM5Fri20141972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


Yer right about that. My point about videos is that anyone can find flaws in one way or another.

As long as the weapons passes strict testing, the cheap one is usually selected.



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1972
 


I know you aren't promoting that rifle, but a 10 inch barrel?! Really?

The M4's newer bullet took a few years to implement. The logistics alone, to get a new bullet for American forces, are mind bottling!



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The 5.56mm (a hot .223 Win roughly) is a good target round. Is it a good battle or soldiers weapon? I don't believe so. Personally, (although) I wouldn't want to get hit by a .22 short or long. I've served in the US. Army and placed this round into someone only once. I do not believe it did what i figured it to do. If the situation was different, I'm not sure it would have been a game changer other than, it was from a M249 and more than one round, struck home. Not sure it would have put "them" out of action If it was from a M-4. But, just by the situation it ended well for us. If it was me, (I can only speak for myself) I'd be using a rifle/carbine in 7.62X39. DARN good round! I wouldn't reinvent the wheel..



posted on Mar, 7 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by murphy22
 


I think that if it were fired from an A2 or A3 instead of an M4 the round would have more stopping power. the shorter barrel length really screws you unless its CQB. But for any distance shooting it's just not going to work out for you. I hated my A2 but I'd still take it over the M4 any day.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


You are on to something. I WQ'd with the A1 and had warm fuzzies about it then, seems like a lifetime ago. But I was young and hadn't even taken my first deer at that time. It is really simple though.. mass, moves mass. It is hard for my simple, redneck mind to see it in a "scientific" point of view. Having seen the big and small used on a living being and the end results... Don't get me wrong. I'll put to use what I have at hand to get a job done. I could do wonders with a fork. But i wouldn't, if I had a choice..



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   
IF I had a choice, it would be an FG42 firing 7.92X57 (type G) or MP44 firing 7.92X33, FG 42's are damn rare, so not much chance, but it seems from recent reports, there are are a lot of MP44 in the middle east, and ammo.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Why would everyone on this forum take the monumental step backwards it would be to go to a full power rifle cartridge or a 7.92x33/7.62x39?

The world is moving on, and technology for darn sure has moved on since then! It's now possible to package the same lethality out to 800 meters in a DMR and better than a klick from a GPMG with something in a package with a total weight not much more than a 5.56 m855 round!

Now when you factor in that body armor is becoming basically ubiquitous and extraordinarily cheap even bought one set at a time, and you are in a situation where NOTHING currently on the market or that was used before will really be adequate for the situations we face tomorrow.

This is one thing I've never understood about the firearms and military technology world... the bizarre clinging to technology that was past it's prime when our GRANDFATHERS used it 4 wars ago!

The solutions are out there. And to be honest they aren't all that difficult, radical, or complicated enough to justify the seeming willingness to do ANYTHING other than accept that the world has changed and our tools need to change with it.

The recursiveness and clinging to nostalgic weapons of yore is part of why we see the current crop of western firearms which are pretty obviously getting less and less effective, reliable, and lightweight with every passing year.

Meanwhile the Russians have moved on! They can build a truly man portable 1000 meter plus beaten zone GPMG with a service life of better than 50 thousand rounds without resorting to titanium receivers or weapons that require thousands of milling operations and build techniques borrowed from the damn space program!

We need to take a step back and truly LOOK at where things are going and what we need to be the top dog when they get there! because if we don't we're going to be in serious trouble! As of right now we're already in serious trouble in the small arms field! Plainly put both the russians and chinese and can put out a squad or platoon weapon set that out distances us, out throw weights us, weighs a FRACTION of what our kit weighs, and does all this while costing less than a QUARTER of what it costs us to outfit a platoon with guns!

I believe I have some of the solutions at least somewhat figured out, but I"m just one guy trying to find solutions out of my own pocket while trying to finish my engineering degree at the same time. The solutions are out there though, they aren't hard, they're cheaper than what we're doing now, and we could have them ready to field in under 18 months if anyone was interested.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join