Comments on: M4 Debate Fires Up

By: Bobby

Bobby — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 07:50:30 +0000

I think the M6A2 and the Glock 22 need to be introduced to the U.S. military.
It’s about damn time we get an upgrade.
The M4A1 is a great weapon. But there are better.
The M92? I think it’s garbage IMO.
Glock 17 or Glock 22 are in need.

By: taurus1911jd411

taurus1911jd411 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:48:25 +0000

I heard from a friend of mine that the M4 jams way to much in a desert enviorment and it doesnt have a long enough barrel to have the muzzle velocity of the M-16

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 10:16:05 +0000

The M4/M16 series and the AK series each has their strength's and weaknesses. The M4 is lighter, very ergonomical and accurate. It can also host a wide range of accessories to tailor fit the user. However, due to its shorter barrel and its direct gas inpingment action a large amount of fouling and hot gases gets blown into the bolt and receiver (the beating heart of the weapon). The fouling increases friction on the working parts, lowering their effectiveness, and the heat increases the effects of wear and evaporates the lubricating oil on the parts. It's like having your car engines pistons without the seals to keep the grime and other muck out of the gears and other parts. Now, I've never been in combat, looking to deploy though, but I do know from friends who have been and also historical accounts, that the battlefield is a VERY dirty environment. Yes, the M4 works beautifully, my family has a semi-auto one for varmint hunting, but only if it is kept religiously clean and lubricated 24/7. But, in combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan it's not neccesarily easy to clean with all that fine dust and dirt everywhere even in their quarters. Heck, after just shooting 30 rounds through our M4 the bolt is filthy. I can't imagine having to clean several magazines worth plus any dust and other grime in Afghanistan or Iraq. As for gas pistons, the Army's own testing of the M4 and other rifles in an extreme dust environment shows how much it can improve reliability. The HK416, basically an M4 with a piston installed, had over 3 times more rounds between stoppages than the base M4. The 5.56mm round was originally based on the .222 round (a varmint round) good for creautures up to a large coyote. Nothing close to that of a human. It is accurate but can't penetrate light cover (plants) with much success. It has good wounding potential. But when your facing a fanatical enemy hell bent on KILLING you, someone who might not be phased or 'taken out of the fight' by merely being wounded, your best bet is to kill him first. Yes, when properly cleaned and serviced the M4 is a good weapon. But is it really "good enough"? The AK fires a larger, slower round that has more kinetic energy (7.62x39mm). It's ability to take use and abuse without falter is legendary due to its robust short-stroke gas piston operating system. It's round penetrates light cover easily but lacks the range of the 5.56 NATO. The AK is not the most ergonomic weapon. The safety/selector lever is in an odd place. Rapid magazine changes/failure drills are not as fluid as with the M4. The length of pull between the stock and grip is shorter than most westerners are comfortable with. And it doesn't have the range, accuracy or controlability on automatic as the M4. Also, unlike the M4, it cannot readily mount many accesories without major modifications to the furniture. But it is a rugged weapon that has seen use in virtually every war since 1947 (a sixty year lifespan) and it will be beating strong for years to come. To me, conventional wisdom points to the conclusion of taking the best from these weapons and merging them into one weapon that doesn't have the weaknesses of either. A weapon such as LWRC's M6A2 in 6.8mm, or Barrett's M468. And their not alone, many other manufacturers are building M4 type rifles with a gas piston, or firing a more effective round closer to that of the 7.62x39mm or both. Not to bash the military brass who adore fancy digital weapons systems and other futuristic weapons. But it seems that they've forgotten that its the grunt on the ground who kicks in the doors and clears the rooms. Next generation technology does make the job easier. But, they have to be able to rely on their old standby (the rifle) to keep them alive in the worst case scenario. Their weapon may work perfectly in a clean, controlled environment but it also should function with super reliability in a doomsday situation like a dust storm or other battlefield condition involving very dirty and potentially problematic crap flying around. Science-fiction-like gear is a welcome lifesaver and very cool, but when we're putting millions and even billions of taxpayer money into super fighters (F22 & F35), super vehicles (Osprey & Stryker) and other systems shouldn't we devote similar resources to the one thing the guys on the ground depend on most? Their rifle? And create the next shoulder arm to be as legendary as the M1 Garand which General Patton called "the greatest battle implement ever devised"? A rifleman without a rifle is just a man. And a rifleman without the best rifle is just an ordianry rifleman. Our guys are the best thanks to training and support. Why not make them even better? Our men and women on the ground don't deserve ANY equipment that's rated by the brass as 'good enough'. They deserve the BEST in everything. Armored vehicles, air support, medical support, veteran benefits, communications, body armor and small arms. Because their lives depend on it. Rob US Navy

By: trooper

trooper — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:21:05 +0000

The right tool for the job: The right weapon for the situation… I’ve accepted the 5.56 is not going away; But we do have .308 ammo in spades… The best solution for this is:
1. Update all M4 platforms to gas-piston (HK416, Colt, POF, Bushmaster — Whatever) That alone would be a major blessing.
2. Stop trying to find a perfect round and rifle — The QCB guys would be happy with updated M1911’s and gas-piston M4’s. The support personnel can have the M9’s and M16’s. The basic riflemen should have access to updated M14’s and AR-10’s if their individual task warrants it.
3. Accept the fact that nobody seems to have an issue with the M16-series lower receivers. For a common-use, standard rifle platform; This lower receiver brings a lot of versatility to the services.
4. Not every soldier and marine is clearing buildings, in fact — most don’t. Issue the RIGHT weapon for the application, period. As a requirement, I was issued a 1911A1 and M3 grease-gun; Then later, an M16A1, then an M16A2 and M9. I can say from experience that the M16 sucked, even the A2. The M9 was no better. I’m willing accept the fact that the M4 Carbine has some design improvements — But I pissed myself when my M16 failed. If a gas-piston would have prevented that, but most important– prevented dead soldiers who didn’t have the same luck i did — Why the hell hasn’t this been done?!
I think the government should maximize the investment in M16/M4 uppers and issue them to non-combat guard and training units — But update and issue piston-driven M4/M16’s to combat units, based on their mission requirements. Everyone seems to forget (or maybe my experience was unique) — that combined arms wins fights. You need riflemen, you need machinegunners, you need some 4.2 mortar guys — and the list goes on… The proper equipment for the individual task. Issuing M-14’s to everyone would be a disaster; Issuing some M-14’s to compliment the tactical units would make a whole lot more sense. And so would issuing 1911’s to the QCB personnel, in addition to an updated M4 Carbine.

By: Sullivan

Sullivan — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:49:55 +0000

I agree w/ everything SSG MILLER had to say. However I think a few minor changes are in order, mainly a switch from a gas tube to a gas piston. I think that ergonomically the M16/M4 platform is fine, but colt is an inferior designer, the HK416 D10RS, or the Barrett M468, would be a welcome change.

By: master blaster

master blaster — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:10:06 +0000

This is in response to Semper fi’s comments.
I agree that the barrels should be longer, at 20 inches. But even at short range the 223 is still garbage. They just had a guy take 4 or 5 rounds in the chest and still keep coming.
As to shot placement, I couldn’t agreemore. But that can be tough while in “the fog of war”. A poorly placed shot with a 223 is almost useless whereas a poorly placed shot with a 308 will be far more incapacating. And ANY hit with 00 buckshot or a rifled slug will end it right now.
A friend of mine in Vietnam shot a VC 6 times in the chest at 30 yards and the VC shot him in the lung with his AK-47. The VC went into the bush and my friend was down immediately and then helicoptered out and almost died from one AK hit. If 6 chest shots at short range on a 130 pound human isn’t proof enough of what crap the 223 is, I do not know what else to say.
He went to a 12 guge pump and a 45 sidearm. Said the pump worked great. Used 00 generally, but used rifled slugs for distance or penetrating wooden structures.

By: master blaster

master blaster — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:18:57 +0000

A 223 is a varmint cartridge. Squirrel to prairie dog size animals. People are far larger. MAny of my friends that served in Vietnam called the M-16 the “jamomatic”. They also told me that people shot with them didn’t go down. That the cartridge was crap. Some of them went to Ithaca mopdel 37 pump guns with 00 buckshot and rifled slugs (ever notice how many Blackwater Security people are carrying shotguns in Iraq, not M4s?).
Now we are 40 years in the future and we are still using the same crappy round. People argue that the M4 is lighter and you can carry far more ammo. What difference does that make when you have to shoot the enemy 5 times as many times?
We have a great battle rifle. It’s called an M-14. At short range or long range it puts them down. I took mine one day and shot ten one gallon paint cans at 400 yards with ten shots. The shock wave blew the lids off (the cans were filled with water) It’s a great rifle and our troops deserve them.
DUMP THE 223 FOREVER!!!!

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:47:49 +0000

I need some help
My son called from Iraq and wants H&K 30 round clip magazines for his M-4
I called H&K and they say they r out of stock
Can anyone here verify these magazines fit an M-4 and do you have a part #„,i want to send them to Iraq

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:14:01 +0000

ps I forgot to mention the fact .308 is twice as heavy. You will be carrying half the ammo. Again it just depends on your specific role in what you want more out of a rifle.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:10:54 +0000

Well first off the people that state-“Better then any of the ar style crap” must realize there are many junk versions of AR type weapons out there no military would ever consider.
I’ve owned many rifles from sks-fn fal-ak varients, AR, and I now own a Bushmaster. The only problems I had using my bushy are the old mags without the updated followers. That 28th shot bolt over. Easily cured.
I have abused the hell out of my Bushys before I sold of My Bulgarian ak and I love them. As for the round. That 62 grain ss-109 is a tricky slug. If the penetrator is off balance it will not yaw correctly. It also don’t break up as much as the old 55 grain shredders (M193). 62 grain also does not yaw as early as m193 55 grain.
If you remember correctly they got rid of the m193 because it was inhumain in how it fragments. It’s a nasty little round in flesh and I have seen this first hand. The effects are also a accident. They didn’t even realize what it was doing until the 1980’s
As for 308 vs 5.56, well it depends on what you personally want. 308 has more range, more long range stopping power. More penitration.
5.56 m193 is very nasty in flesh. I have seen someone die from getting shot in the leg because the fragments shot up through his lungs. Your not picking the slug out of a wound. I have seen some better then rumored penitration. It’s also very accurate and VERY quick target aquisition rapid firing.
M-16 of today is not to be catagorized with it’s introduction in Vietnam. When they first were fielded it was WITHOUT chromelined barrels in a climate that would rust them before 1 shot was fired. THE WRONG POWDER WAS USED in the ammo. It caused the rifle to cycle WAY TOO FAST, and burn dirty.
When you use a QUALITY m-16 type, not some cast copy garbage, use the correct ammo, correct mags, this rifle has never let me down.
Bushmaster is the only civilian AR I would buy as colt ruins it with the screw replacing the front pushpin. Armalites just don’t have the beefy barrel chamber profile real NATO HBAR’s do. The others are sub-par for the most part.
As for blackhawk down pencil wounds. Realize this is from the fact a 14.5 inch barrel keeps 62 grain ammo to it’s fragmenting speed for only about 20 meters yes only twenty. The shortest barrel I would suggest is 16 inch which is the same overall length if you drop the flash hider.