Comments on: M4 Comes in Last Place in Dust Test

By: bob

bob — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:58:20 +0000

It is rare to have a ‘forward thinker’ buying rifles for the USA.
That goes back to the civil war, and before.
“Why would anyone need a repeating rifle? muzzleloaders are fine.“
And when they pick a rifle, they must be cheerleaders for it.
But, that said, very little changes fast. On this level.
bob

By: rlp

rlp — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:06:00 +0000

Actually the Ruskies are on the AK-10x series now. And they’re reliable AND accurate. Not to mention the better ballistics of the 7.62x39.

By: Cavscout

Cavscout — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:37:22 +0000

How about this folks? Lets get the hell away from the poodle-shooter .556X45 caliber round that we all know (those of us who have had to use it in combat) is ineffective as a fighting round to start with. Next lets have a competition for a new piston driven rifle of 6.8mm caliber @ the LEAST. The sons-of-bitches who send us and our children into harms way carrying the current weapon are no better than those whom we oppose. There are 3 very capable commercial calibers available that would do the job very well. 6.8Rem SPC, .7.62X51(.308Win), and, ready for this?… 6mm(.243Win).
Now before you start screaming I’m nuts just think about it for a moment. The .308 win is a proven combat round in use in our current GPMG and sniper modes. I know, too much recoil and ammo to heavy for mamma’s little darlins’. If thats the case then you don’t belong in uniform.
6.8 SPC. Meets all requirements for a combat effective round, 80% of the .308Win strength with half the recoil and alot lighter to tote. NOW. the .243Win or, 6mm. Here we have a missed round that is perfect for combat use. It is a .308Win case necked down to take a 6mm bullet. The 6mm bullet is one of the most ballisticaly efficient rounds on the planet, not to mention it has a great sectional density which equals exceptional killing power. Recoil is hardly more than the current .556 poodle shooter that is in current service and weight is not a factor as far as carrying a standard combat load. With an 100 grain bullet @ 3000FPS it is also effective out to 1000 yards in competent hands. It’s time for a secretary of defense with some balls to do like macnamara did with the M-16. Just tell the ordnance department “you will field this rifle in this caliber and thats that” Betcha it’ll never happen. Those in power just don’t care, and I do mean the Military Brass as well as the Politicians. None are innocent.
ScoutOut

By: Devin

Devin — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:15:29 +0000

First of all, whoever keeps saying the Russians don’t use an AK is dead wrong. Their current standard weapon is the AK-74, an AK-47 in 5.45mm. Second, to that guy who said that soldiers should be given $900 for a personal 5.56mm weapon, as in the G-36, Steyr AUG, SIG 551, etc. obviously dosn’t know all that much abotu the pricing of guns. Even the civilian semi-auto variants of these guns can’t be had for that price. With $900, soldiers could at best afford a semi-auto M-4 with absolutely no accesories. That solves nothing. That being said, this is absolute B.S. that the military is stuck with these P.O.S’s. The DOD wouldnt even have to buy a new gun, just get the HK 416 upper and throw it on an M-4 lower. It would work a hell of a lot better then the M-4. Maybe thats why several SF units arre latching onto the 416, because it works!! And to whoever was questioning how an AK would stack up against an M-4 reliability wise, I have put thousands of rounds through my cheap ass Romanian AK. I occasionally clean it with a few patches down the barrel, but not regularly. This weapon has yet to jam on me once! In a reliability test, I would wager on an AK over virtually any other assault rifle. This is the reliability we need in the sands of Iraq.

By: SGTPPR

SGTPPR — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:49:53 +0000

How about this?
Let market decide which 5.56mm NATO standard rifle is good. Give to solders 900$ allowance to buy shoulder arms of their choice (can be 416, SCAR, G-36, Styer, Tavor,SIG etc)
I think their live are worth more, than pity 800 bucks. Also let them have Dragon skin vest (

By: duffy

duffy — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 21:59:13 +0000

Way back in 1890 or so,our future thinking Govt.
armourors,stated that our troops don’t need a rifle holding more than 1 rnd. Then in 2 years,decided that we’d go with an inferior rifle used by Denmark.Still clinging to the “One” shot idea and hold four in reserve . Our old 30 US. Krag. Meanwile Most of the worlds armies were using a proven Mauser design that blew our troops away in Cuba.Only in the 1930’s did Uncle Sam make a ‘mistake’ and arm our guys with one of the best rifles ever, The Garand. IT too was shunned by the bolt action crowd.
We need someone in our country to quit cow-towing to these “Fat Gen’s on the take” and get rid of them with NO pension. We need a new shoulder weapon– NOW!

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:13:27 +0000

Forget about the shortcomings of the AR system and current 5.56 caliber but the sheer fact that the services are switching to even a lesser lethal rifle (M4) carbine than the full M16A2/4 rifle is pathetic. The carbine as a lower lethal range (tumbling) due to the shorter length barrel and velocity.
And I agree with one of the previous posters in why is that the service cannot look to a domestic solution (Robinson Arms XCR for example) because their getting greased by HK and FAL that’s why.

By: Mang

Mang — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:07:32 +0000

(including me)

By: Mang

Mang — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:55:07 +0000

Fact: the “POF” rifle and the Masada are going nowhere. They will be purchased mainly by civilian enthusiasts.
A lot of half-baked observations are constantly made by people who like guns. It’s the same with football fans.

By: Lugo

Lugo — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:46:45 +0000

Congratulations to Roy Smith for his series of what are the most spectacularly stupid comments I have yet to see on this site. His comments here have been abysmal even by the extremely low standard of comparison with his other inane comments regarding other stories! You go, Roy.