The outdated M4 carbine and M-16 why is our military still using them?

a reply to: Erno86

With good ammo the 7.62x39 is definitely a degree of not horrible that will note than outperform a large percentage of people's physical shooting abilities...

For someone who knows what they're doing they're downright good even.

That said, my 14.5" bbl AR with 1-8x lpvo on top and ammo which is cheaper and far more available will absolutely eat a tabuk for lunch simply because of the ballistic advantages 5.56 gives me past 300 meters.

Now, do up a pseudo tabuk in 5.45x39, throw on a similar LPVO, and feed this gun with ammunition of equivalent quality to the 77 grain imi razor core I primarily shoot in my AR and things get a lot more contentious past 300 meters really quick!

Here's the rub though, I'm gonna be able to build 3+ 5.56 AR's and buy at least 2 rounds of GOOD practice ammo for every one you can.

That's the sorta quantitative and qualitative differences that are extremely telling and important.

As a secondary note, gunsmithing AK's yourself is at least an order of magnitude higher difficulty, learning curve, and even tooling requirements wise than doing the same for AR's!

Smithing AK's is not user friendly in the slightest. Replacing an AK bolt isn't just a matter of ordering a new one and dropping the sucker in like you can (but still really shouldn't do) with AR's.

There's very critical hand fitting and other fun tasks involved at every step.

As someone who builds and shoots both systems I have no problem whatsoever accepting that the AR is just plain better in every truly significant way without it ruining my enjoyment of the AK platform.

a reply to: 38181

The exact same reason the Army went from .38 in handguns to .45...

Because guys weren't going down during fighting in the Philippines.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Not to mention the issues it had cutting through foliage on the way down range.

Guys with extensive combat time with the m16/m4 have opinions that go both ways. Great gun. Bad gun. I think it's a roughly 50/50 split.

my limited experience at the range for the USAF we need bulk ammo loads because the average airmen can barely hit dirt falling down outside.

that said I dont mind the M-4 hated the 16, but I am old fashioned I would prefer a round that says F you, and the guy behind you.

Or F your cover and you... either way kinda works for me.

a reply to: seagull

One thing I will say is good ammo makes a helluva difference.

Also there's some key small changes/parts swaps that vary from the literal m4 / m4a1 technical data package which make things better but even bone stock off the rack without those changes they're phenomenal guns.

The criticisms etc levied against them in this thread are for the most part just plain wrong, ridiculously unfair, and or apply to an even greater degree to anything else out there that can rightly be considered a competitor.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You Yanks should switch to the Steyr AUG..!!

It's been the main AU assault rife since the late 70's.

Not as beefy as the M16, much easier to lug around.

Also has a inbuilt scope and slightly better ordinance, better stability and slightly better min and Max effective ranges.

Much better suited all round for bushland warfare.

Only drawback it doesn't have a grenade launcher..

I know you Americans love your BooM..!!

originally posted by: Ironclad1964
a reply to: Zaphod58

You Yanks should switch to the Steyr AUG..!!

It's been the main AU assault rife since the late 70's.

Not as beefy as the M16, much easier to lug around.

Also has a inbuilt scope and slightly better ordinance, better stability and slightly better min and Max effective ranges.

Much better suited all round for bushland warfare.

Only drawback it doesn't have a grenade launcher..

I know you Americans love your BooM..!!

The AUG uses exactly the same "ordinance" as the M4/M16 (5.56×45 NATO). It has the same range etc as the M16.

The integral scope on the AUG is nothing to write home about. You can put a rail on top to change it, but the same can be said about most rifles. Its shorter than the M16 but no lighter. The US Army now use the M4 which is actually shorter with the stick collapsed.

It doesn't really do anything that the M4/M16 doesn't.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
AK is garbage. Very inaccurate. M4 is accurate super versatile. Can be used long range, close quarters, ability to modify with scopes, grenade launchers. I retired with 20 years. I know that weapon like the back of my hand. It's a great general purpose weapon. Anybody who thinks an AK is better does not know weapons. It's more powerful but that's about the extent of it.

That's great, so long as you can afford to give everybody an M4.

If you're a small African, South American, or Easter European country it's a matter of affordability. It's why the National guard are still flying F-18 when the F-22 and F-35 are available.

You have to choose between getting the best gun, and giving everybody a gun.

a reply to: PaddyInf

It's also heavier lol. But they can keep dreaming.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Ermmm

You do know that m4's are some of the cheapest to mass produce modern military rifles on earth right?

The US government pays substantially less for a new manufacture m4/m4a1 than the Russians do for ANY of their modernized ak variants by a very significant amount!

That's the funny thing really, the m4/m16 is not only better than anything anyone else has... It's also pretty massively cheaper than all but one or two.

The future... Two words

Smart bullets...

That's the funny thing really, the m4/m16 is not only better than anything anyone else has... It's also pretty massively cheaper than all but one or two.

a reply to: roguetechie

First off just because AR's are cheap to make and have a simple operating system does not make them good rifles, AR-15s are good rifles for the range for target shooting they have low recoil and very high velocity somewhere upwards of 3000fps which makes these rifles very easy to shoot coupled with the Direct impingement operating system which has almost no moving parts short of the bolt itself, making this rifle in controlled conditions very very attractive.

But saying the M4/M16 is better than anything anyone else has is just flat out wrong , its cheaper yes its simpler yes , but better hell know there are rifles that are far and away in a whole other class of quality and reliability that the M4 cant even touch.

Pure and simple the M4 cabine in prolonged combat conditions will fail it will fail , the government knows it and the soldiers using it know it. "UHUH not if you maintain it correctly says the civilian fan boy", I'm not sure how many firefights you have been in but there is not much time to stop and clean then oil your damn M4 becuase of all the carbon build up from the ULTRA simple direct impingement system .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Well then it's a good thing you really don't have to do that then isn't it? (Stop to clean and oil it)

The biggest issues with the military issue guns have to do with uncle sugar not changing the technical data package by replacing the few really stupid and limiting things the civvie world has long since figured out are the wrong way to do things.

Unfortunately what the military gets in no way represents the best of what the platform can do.

Some examples are the non free float and comparatively heavy RIS 2, not installing the sopmod volt upgrade kit fleet wide, and probably most important of all not going to midlength gas system on 14.5" barrel guns!

Doing a sopmod type bolt kit and going to middy gas solve reliability issues pretty completely to a point where you can fire them consistently until the gas tube overheats and bursts with nothing but a good CLP douche beforehand!

Whatever problems there once were have long since been ironed out for everyone but the US DOD who refuses to actually adopt the solutions.

Even without these solutions though the platform is still one of the best lightest platforms in the world even with the unholy stupidity the DOD insists on engaging in.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Id say cost , and that if it aint broke dont fix it ?

it still kills people right ?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Faith.

This was an interesting read. The viewpoints of people who are bench shooters versus people who have used the weapons in combat were very interesting. I've fired the M-16 only a few times and was not impressed. I was an M-14 fan, but, they were phasing those out. The few times that I was in a shooting situation I used either a M79 grenade launcher or a pintal mounted M-60. I do some target shooting and reloading. I just retired a .303 British Enfield Mk IV in favor of a Remington 7mm. I retired the Enfield due to old age. My Father brought it back from the Korean War. I have no idea of how many rounds went through it before I got it, but, I know how many I put through it.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Read it?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've read pretty much everything that John has written.

a reply to: JIMC5499

For sheer enjoyment, I prefer The Last Centurion (And the Nepos were just sitting there). But that was an interesting take on the whole zombie idea. His comments on the 5.56 vs 7.62 debate were rather amusing.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Well, now that you told us how you feel.

What's your solution?
Which weapon system/s is/are less obsolete that can replace the tens of thousands of rifles already in armories and service?

I'm also very familiar with the 5.56 carbine system, having qualified expert with my rifle and having been deployed in 2007, I've never had a failure after two active duty enlistments.

Sure it's old, so are all power propellant firearms. Technically anything using gunpowder/cordite is obsolete by your statement and standards.

Kinetic energy transfer and cavitation may not be as lethal as larger caliber's, but shot placement is more important.

Carrying 700 5.56 versus 700 7.62 is why we use the smaller caliber's. Also wounding an opponent versus killing them, is a more effective way of removing more bodies from the Battle.

1 Kia or 1 wounded and two others to secure and treat...

Every perspective of the argument has its pros and cons.

But I'm still waiting for a viable replacement, as we all have been for decades now.

A muzzleloader is obsolete in comparison to todays modern firearms, but it is still available, functional and lethal.

Times change, as do the ways we fight. But some things never change because why fix what's not broken.