My good friend Matt Cox over at Army Times has done it again.
In what might be the best military weapons story of the year so far, Matt got his hands on a brief that shows the Army is seriously looking at major improvements to the current M4, including a heavier barrel, a new round counter and potentially moving to a gas-piston operating system.
The improvements, if implemented, would address most of the major criticisms of the current M4 configuration and would also answer the mail on a study of the 2008 Wanat battle that seemed to indicate that some weapons had a high incidence of stoppages when fired at high cyclic rates.
Army weapons officials say they want to give soldiers something better, sooner. While there is no set timeline, the hope is “to have this nailed by [early] January,” said Col. Doug Tamilio, the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons.
“As we move down this carbine competition path, let’s continue to make substantial improvements to the M4,” Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller said Oct. 27. Fuller commands Program Executive Office Soldier, the command responsible for soldier weapons development.
The Army has made 62 changes to the M4 since it began fielding the weapon in the mid 1990s, weapons officials maintain. The changes have ranged from improved extractor springs to high-tech optics to a more reliable magazine.
But soldiers’ criticisms of the M4’s performance have continued.
The fixes were outlined in a briefing from PEO Gen. Pete Fuller to lawmakers who’ve been pushing the Army to modernize the M4 in substantial ways. Matt’s story jibes with what the Army has been saying all along that it would continue to improve the M4 even as it searches for a so-called “improved carbine” which might night land in Joes’ hands until 2013.
Be sure to read the entire story, but by the looks of it, the work that Matt’s done (and we’ve done here) might be moving the geologic entity that is the institutional Army on one of its most fundamental programs.
– Christian
{ 76 comments… read them below or add one }
When will it stop…….the stupidity……on and on and on. Just do it right the first time and move on to the next problem.
Get a new rifle with some flexibility in terms of being able to be used in different circumstances, as a carbine, squad marksmen and full size battle rifle, even a short version for SOF and crewmen/drivers. Quick change barrel so they can easily change it into different configurations. The weapon that would fit that description is already in service, the SCAR. I guess it’s not getting rave reviews. So how about the Masada or whatever Remington calls it now? Or keep working on the Scar until any issues are fixed.
But the key is to make it in 6.8mm which is designed for a 16″ barrel and has much more hitting/killing ability than the 5.56mm and especially with the shorter barrels. Then we can borrow the design of the Ultimax100 for a Squad auto in 6.8mm using many of the new rifles parts. Now you have a hard hitting weapon with flexibility that solves all the issues of the M-16 family. It also reduces the need for the 7.62mm weapon in many situations. But that’s just too easy so forget it.
Sounds a lot like the XM-8 to me, with some differences. I almost would like to see a bullpup design come out, but those tend to be more expensive and not enough improvement.
if only the U.S. could find a way of creating an AK gas blow back system in an M4 carbine assault rifle. I like the idea of having the three varients but there needs to be an internal system similar to the AK collections to produce a reliable weapons system
I don't think that an AK runs on a gas blowback system.
The M16 however does.
So what are you saying?
The AK-47 is gas operated.
The AK system uses an operating rod to operate the action. The operating rod is gas powered.
The M16 system is a gas blow back, your term not mine, system.
The M16 operates by gas pressure on the bolt carrier, the AK system has a rod, which is gas powered, that operates the action.
You don't know what you are talking about.
I didn't say that the AK wasn't gas powered, I said that it didn't operate on a gas blowback system.
End.
you don't know what direct impingement is do you?
The AK system works by gas operating a piston that then operates the rifles action. The AK system works very well.
The M 16 system uses no operating piston rod but instead uses only gas pressure to operate the bolt carrier / action. The M-16 system works very well.
You just lost the argument.
Ciao.
there is, its the magpul masada..you can swap parts and literally build ur own 7.62 "short"..lighter and as reliable as the AK..bushmaster has teamed with magpul..i would like to see the "fruits"of thier labor…
1st things first. The US Army is using a carbine in a rifle role. I don't know how to say this nicely but that's F&%k'ed Up. You don't do that. If you're a leader that will be using his weapon intermittently then fine. If you're air crew or vehicle crew…no complaint from me…but you can't expect a carbine to perform the role of a battle rifle.
That's why the M1 carbine was not used as the main weapon by US Soldiers during WW2.
The requested improvements will in essence bring us a new weapon. Might I suggest that instead of reworking all of these improvements into the M4 that we might take a serious look at the TAVOR-21? Its a bullpup design, so its compact. It has a full length barrel…so accuracy is good. Plus it has integrated optics out the box.
Well said. The fielding of a carbine in the rifle role is the problem.
Why aren't we hearing about the Marines having similar problems? Is it because they are still using rifles in the role of rifles?
The Marines still mostly stick with the M16. I haven't seen to many Marines carry M4s (unless that's changed in the last year).
The M4 and M16 fire the same round, but the shorter barrel on the m4 means lack of velocity and accuracy at distant ranges. Most fights in iraq occured within 200 meters. In Afghanistan the opposite is true.
makes sense. Most people also forget the M-16 is much more reliable than the m-4 as well.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-c...
marine corps test found the m-4 jammed 3x more than the m-16
There's a reason the m-16 weights 2.5lbs more: more robust internals = more reliability and less jams
well its prolly because the m1 carbine fired a mutch smaller round than its big brother,
the m4 fires the same round that the m16 fires with only a slight loss in ballistic performance in a smaller lighter pakage. if they do what they say then the m4 should be a highly reliable wepon.
Why make another stupid descision by adopting the 6.8? The 6.5 Grendel is a far superior cartridge.
Wes the 6.5mm Grendel is made for a longer barrel. The tests show that yes it does out perform the 6.8mm but from a 24" barrel. The 6.8mm was designed for a short barrel. It has to do with the powder used among other things. The 6.8mm was designed by military personnel. It will work with a 10" barrel something I do not think the grendel can do. The bottom line is the 5.56mm round needs at least a 16" barrel and preferably a 20" to work well. The 14.5" barrel degrades whatever the 5.56mm rounds effectiveness is considerably, not so with the 6.8mm.
Not exactly. The 6.5G was designed by Bill Alexander for use in a 16" barrel specifically.
Additionally, I don't exactly know what you mean by the 6.8 "out performing" the 6.5. Are you talking about velocity, ME, or accuracy? True, in some loadings a typical 6.8 will have higher muzzle velocity than a 6.5, but due to a superior ballistic coefficient, the 6.5 will be showing tail-lights at 100 meters. At around 300 meters, it beats the pants off 7.62×51 and keeps doing so all the way out past 1k.
The entire premise of the Grendel's design was "Start Slow, End Fast". A slower initial MV keeps recoil & barrel wear low, while the BC that 6.5's are famous for (6.5×55 Swede anyone?) keeps it steaming along at range.
Sorry Charlie, 6.5G is the way to go.
We might as well hope for new rocks to throw…or watch the Hoover Dam concrete dry as see a near term replacement for the M-16/ M-4. In the end it truly is all about money…it would cost too much to start over and Barry needs the money to pay the Chinese debt.
I prefer the 6.5 Grendel because of its superior ballistics at long ranges making it a superior round not just for an assault rifle role, but also for the SAW and DMR/Sniper roles, thereby solving simplifying logistics problems. However, there are still some questions that need to be answered:
1. How reliable is its feeding system. (I heard it won't feed properly in a magazine)
2. Can it be used on a belt fed system (for use in the SAW)
3. Can it perforate cement blocks (which the 7.62 can) thereby replacing GPMG's and some Coax machine guns
4. How does the Grendel being a proprietary round affect logistics?
5. Will it cause barrels to overheat faster?
If someone can answer these questions, it'd be much appreciated.
I can't answer most of your questions but IIRC the 6.8 round is a necked up 5.56 cartridge which can go in existing magazines, while the Grendel cart cannot. In theory upgrading the arsenal to 6.8 would require little more than a barrel change. But I could be wrong. Anyway either option would be preferable to using 5.56 at muzzle velocities far below what was intended.
I'd also add a question:
6. How much more does the 6.8 or Grendel cartridge weigh compared to the 5.56? Since the whole point of moving to the lower cal was to increase rounds carried.
The 5.56mm ranges from 3.95-5.18g (4.1g iirc is the weight of the nato round)
The 6.5mm grendel ranges from 5.8-8.4g
The 6.8mm spc is 7.45g
Just for comparison: 7.62 Nato is 9.33g, 7.62×39 is 8-10g, and the 5.45mm is 3.2-3.68g
the weight is measured in grains
Ok, where is the M-14 in all of this? Ol’ Reliable, and the vast number of modifications since it’s introduction back in the 50′s. Tried and true, it STILL packs a helluva punch, and gets the job done. You wanted an answer, and now you got one. Long live Springfield Armory.
In use as a marksman and sniper rifle, which is exactly what it is suited for.
Doesn't the M14 and 100 rounds of 7.62 weigh about 3000 pounds? In the mountainous high altitude terrain of Afghanistan? I exaggerate to make a point. Admittedly M4s are an even sillier choice as a battle rifle.
The M4 issue is a very complex one and is charged with emotion. I read the reports on the Wanat Valley incident; it was a sad situation, but faulting the M4 without further analysis is not the way to go. There are a great many questions that need answers.
1. Maintenance history of the weapons that failed.
2. What exactly failed.
3. Where there magazine issues.
4. Failures at high cyclic rates? was it panic fire?
The list goes on
I think the Army is taking the right approach, they are being methodical. Candidly, I don't think that a gas piston system will change things. Gas piston designs are a must when the M4 is operated suppressed and at high cyclic rates, but is that the norm? Probably not.
Until the Army has a tool that keeps track of maintenance and rounds fired it won't have a real handle on the salient issues. Thankfully, FN just recently announced a black box at MILIPOL in Paris that will do just that.
Another steely eyed killer, with a bright white face and bright yellow , Oh so macho!, shooting glasses, replete with moto-cross gloves, looks over a rock.
What a hero he will be when he comes home with two holes through his head.
Jealous are we? Yes, people like this guy kill many enemy, who shoot horribly, stand in the middle of streets and fire, blow them selves up with there own mortars, charge our positions only to get cut down, get snipped at night trying to lay an IED, cower in houses only for us to blow it up with many enemy inside! Good stuff, believe me, you don't want to face this Army.
The US Military on the other hand are different?
The US shoots horribly, cowers in defensive positions, blow themselves up in helicopters, get shot at from above, abandons their positions, are afraid to go outside after dark, and are getting eaten alive by a rag tag bunch of donkey powered peasants with antiquated equipment.
I agree it would be very difficult to face the US Army. As it is far easier to ass them.
Since it is impossible to face an Army that is running away, what other target does one have, other than well camouflaged asses?
The answer to this essential question is a different sort of camouflage?
Should the US have faces printed on the seats of their trousers?
Ciao.
Zandor, you're such a stud! I wish i had you on my team during the invasion of Panama! I'm sure you have SOOO much experiance in combat, that it would make all of us vets sit back in awe of your deeds!
STFU, punk.
Dear ProjectThor;
Wow! You were involved in the invasion of Panama.
That invasion ranks right up there with Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Normandy in the annals of blood shed and heroism.
Congratulations.
As a matter of fact I do have quite a bit of combat experience, 18 months worth of it, and that is why I rant against the US sending its soldiers on hopeless worthless missions.
I have been there and done that a long time ago.
5th SFG SOA CCC
Kontum RVN
APO 96499
I have seen it right up front and personal, and it isn't a happy sight.
These soldiers aren't playing paint ball games, they are playing the ultimate game!
Ciao.
Afraid to go outside after dark? Are you kidding me? Cower in defensive positions? Shoots horribly? Are you kidding me? Hopefully so, or your helplessly misguided.
In lieu of new aircraft, we shall upgrade the fourth generation of the F-86 Sabre. If the air force operated under this logic the USAF would get chewed up. Or the Navy continuing to use Essexes to bomb Iraq for Gulf War 1.
USMC is issuing the M4 to all SNCOs and officers, MPs, most vehicle drivers, and any other billet where the length of the weapon is an issue. I had my best rifle expert score ever with an M4 and carried one in Iraq without any problems.
I'm guessing that you also took proper care of your weapon, which is always important. They should not be abused, but the AK family can put up with a lot more than the M16 family.
They are very accurate, and reliable if properly cared for. The problem is that a little sand, mud, or grime can gum them up in a heartbeat because the machining tolerances are so tight. No bueno when your AO includes places like Haiti, Liberia, Iraq, and Afghanistan… that's just during my time as a 2111 (USMC Small Arms Repairer)
Giving the dedicated trigger-pullers the longer barrel is a good idea. If I'm putting rounds out from the armory, we have bigger problems than a slight loss of accuracy.
Good Evening Folks,
It may be to little to late for Colt and the M-4′s. The Army is already buying the FN Herstal Mk.-16 5.56mmx 45 mm NATO, the Mk.-17 7.62x51mm NATO and the Mk. 13 Enhanced 40mm grenade launcher.
The Mk.-16′s and Mk-17′s comes in three variations: a standard model, a close-quarters-combat version and a long barrel version.
The 5.56 mm Mk-16′s barrel lengths are 10″, 14″ and 18″ the 7.62 mm Mk-17′s barrel lengths are 13″, 16″ and 20″. The Mt’13 fits all variants.
The Army has already I’ve been told has taken delivery of 1,800 of these weapons and the first to receive them are Spec. Ops.Units, Mk.16′s and Mk-17′s are currently deployed.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
What is with this continued wank over the following:
"seemed to indi cate that some weapons had a high inci dence of stop pages when fired at high cyclic rates."
These weapons are not designed to shoot at high cyclic rates. You should expect stoppages doing that. What an absurd criticism. Simply absurd.
I still think the M4 gets more crap than it deserves. From listening to people that don't like it, you would think that it jams on every magazine, the bullets bounce off of light clothings, and the accuracy is measured in circular area of probability instead of minute of angle. Is it the greatest rifle ever made? That's completely a matter of perspective. Is it pretty effective? Yeah. Any worse than the British L86, or the FAMAS, or the G-36? I doubt it. How many other countries use those rifles?
The two biggest areas of possible improvement are the gas system, and a different round. A different round is hard to do, seeing as how you have to consult and get the rest of the NATO countries on board too. But different bullet weights and twists are doable, and they have already worked on that. And they have just said they are considering a piston system, which is very positive. The army moves too slow, to be sure, but it's not criminally so.
Almost every guy and gal that I have talked to that actually deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan with an M4 had zero complaints. It's all the internet generals that are ready to trade it in for AK47s on our soldiers behalf.
How many saw combat? Everyone I talked to hates it. One NCO carries the M-16, he has a choice because it's him who makes those decisions.
Colt again playing grease the military machine play ,the only reason M16/M4 is still around. If you want a better gun just buy the X-8 or even G36 that is a developed system ,highly reliable and are is quite a cheap compared to modern M16 variant with gas piston.
LOL I heard some of them are just as smart as a chickenhawk….remembering Fort Hood….
"Army weapons officials say they want to give soldiers something better, sooner."
So they will make imporvements to the weapon instead of going with something off the shelf that already is a better weapon? Did Colt replace the brains of our guys in procurement with a gas operated design too? And whats with the round counter? Yeah I bet in the middle of a fire fight a soldier is gonna think to himself, hmm, I wonder how many rounds I fired. No! they are gonna go "I need another mag!" Our Infantry should get M-16s and now. When your Special Forces have replaced the M-4 with a new weapon, thats a tip that the weapon isn't up to snuff anymore. Better yet, give them the M-16s that have all the special bells and whistles the M-4s have been hooked up with, the special stock, the picatinny rails, the optics and the rest. Now they have a battle rifle again.
Every new weapon has teething issues, no matter how sexy it seems at first. Even the German G36 has weaknesses, and the German military’s operational tempo is so much lower than ours it may be a while before they are all corrected. The basic M16/M4 design has been in intensive service for 45 years now and most of the major kinks have been worked out. I think a product improved M4 could very probably work as well as or better than most of the alternatives suggested above.
While I have never personally favored the M16, I have qualified as a rifle expert twice using the A2 version. Admittedly, I can live with its flaws – all except one: we need a larger caliber projectile, regardless of other nations in NATO (realistically, the United States is footing over 90 percent of the operational costs of NATO). IPSC handgunners have successfully necked-up the 5.56 NATO case (223 Rem.) all the way up to 7mm. This would also maintain the full 30-round capacity of the M16-series/M4 magazines. We need more knockdown. Period.
The main problem with what you are asking for is that NATO is using 5.56 because the US forced them to. And we did that after forcing NATO to adopt our .30-06/7.62 instead of the 7.9mm short round that they wanted. In otherwords, the Euros wanted to use almost exactly the ammo you like, and we told them to stuff it.
Going back fourty years later and saying we made an 'oops' ain't likely to happen.
you mean 7.62 nato not 30-06 which 7.62 Nato replaced. secondly there is no such thing as knockdown read Fackler and learn about terminal ballistics.
Unfortunately, changing calibre is not going to happen anytime soon. Due to the way STANAGs work within NATO, it would take years before a new calibre was approved.
However, that doesnt mean that the 5.56 cant be made more lethal. Adjustments in bullet design, metal composition & propellants can increase lethality.
Also, the best way to increase lethality is to increase your probability of hitting the target in vulnerable areas. Better sights, better guns, better training can all help to increase lethality, without affecting the ammunition.
In addition to that i must ask you the following:
Please never use the phrase "knockdown power" when talking to someone who knows ballistics, its such a stupid phrase that any ballistics people who hear you using it will instantly be turned off. It's nothing personal against you, its just one of those terms (which has nothing to do with real terminal ballistics) coined by gun magazines in order make a particular type of ammunition sound really bad ass.
FIX THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE DON'T SWITCH WEAPON SYSTEMS SO YOU CAN START WHOLE NEW PROBLEMS. IT TAKES SO LONG TO GET SOMETHING THROUGH THE SYSTEM, A NEW RIFLE WOULD TAKE ANOTHER 30-40 YEARS FOR ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS TO COME DOWN THE LINE JUST LIKE THEY DID FOR THE M-16/M4.
All of this technology being directed at a bunch of dirty people who fight with vietnam era AK's, rpg's, no uniforms and no real tactics that we can see…they have technology that only fred flinstone can appreciate yet, we are spending BILLIONS on how to smash a cockroach. Give our troops what they need to squash these bugs, but lets be practical and realistic.
what world are you living in where the taliban have no real tactics?
It's not that we're spending money to fight the Afghans. The fight in Afghanistan is showing some of the warts that have grown and we're working through the issues to be ready for the "Next War". No idea what that next war will be, but it would be nice to have a functional weapon in the hands of our infantry when we fight it.
Time taken to buy a modern-day reliable op-rod gas system assault rifle off the shelf: Seconds
Time taken to upgrade a much older system to the same tolerances as the rifle above: Years
Seriously people, stop using duct-tape solutions to fix problems when there is a finished, cutom-built solution sitting right there.
The m4 is a fine weapon that is accurate, reliable, and lethal. It is NOT A MACHINE GUN and cannot put out the volume of fire the saw or m240 can. It is an accurate carbine. On Semi you can put out a very high volume of fire for extended periods without worrying about harm to the weapon-that goes out the window when the selector is switched to burst. Same with the m16 too.
Some mods that could be done to M4s are chrome plating the bolt carrier group, the inside of the receiver, a heavier barrel, heavier gas tube with better cooling. I’m not a gun maker though..just a happy m4 and m16 user.
The m14 will gradually fade away from wear and abuse, only to be seen in the hands of ROTC cadets eventually. It’s a less reliable weapon than the M16. A big, open action where dirt and grime can get in, a piston that accumulates carbon, and it’s HEAVY. It’s pointless-you don’t need a 30 caliber weapon to kill somebody via shoulder fired weapon. (It excels in sniper/machine gun platforms though, and SHOULD stay there).
i been seeing alot of tricked out m-14's..i think they call it the EBR..sage stocks and rails, foregrips..scopes and bi-pods..i think they will hang 4 awhile..
I don't think ther e is anything fundamentally wrong with the M4. The gas system is not optimal (IMHO) but it is familiar from the eM16 series so I'd not expect any user issues.
Where I do see an issue is that the M4 was standardized based on the Iraq urban experience. Now in Afghanistan it is too short ranged.
When this kicked off I wonder how the Afghan with a replica .3303in SMLE would just sit on the hilltop and have a field day. Turns out they find AK derivatives more fashionable.
Thing is mountain warfare is more long range than urban. So an M4 carbine is not the ideal weapon. Noe I'd go for a FAL or M14, it got the legs, even if over 6000m going to take 3-4 rounds per hit (never claimed to be a marksman)
Maybe just need to go back t 0 longer barrel rifle. Re-training on a new weapon is not a quick solution.
This.
I'm reminded of how the Marines have stuck to the M16A4, albeit replacing the M9 in many cases with the M4A1.
I'm agreed with Russ. The quickest solution is to briefly go back to the M-16, or adopt a 7.62 NATO variant like AR-10 or something. Maybe retain the 5.56 M-249 for when you really need spray-and-pray.
i wish i could get my hands on a LWRC "SABR"..man, you can change uppers and use a 20 inch barrel for long range, or the short one 4 the "up close and personal" great for recon teams and SF..
Gee!
That way the soldiers can carry a bunch of different barrels so that in the middle of a gun fight they will have the opportunity to be able to change their barrel's length.
Sounds good to me.
By the way, a barrels length has almost nothing to do with the rifles accuracy.
Sincerely,
Zandor
you realise that ALL AR style rifles can do that. the m16 and m4 are AR style rifles btw
This entire thing is a horrid joke.
The US Military should change its costume when the terrain changes?
The US Army should always be well dressed.
The US Military should also have a multitude of different weapons in different everything configurations.
For Christ's sake the US Military is unable to even effectivly fire what it now has.
The last thing it needs is more dorks!
In case you did not notice, this thread is about modification to the M4, not camouflage. Just pointing it out, it happens to the best of us.
Believe me, we fire our weapons to great affect. ; ) especially when the enemy is yelling allah akbar so loud you could shoot him blind folded. We all cope with this factoid in different ways, and sometimes denial is the first stage.
Sincerely,
Mike
I recall an assault rifle developed by a guy in New Mexico a number of years ago called the "sidewinder" that used the Soviet AK action, had interchangeable barrels for .45 cal., 9 mm, 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rounds.
According to the news release, it accepted either a 30-round box magazine or a 90-round drum magazine and had selective rates of fire of semi-automatic, 3-round burst, or (with a much heaver trigger pull to avoid panic-firing), full automatic.
This "garage engineer" seems to have come up with a weapon that lets you use the most common bullet calibers on the planet, and a proven, reliable action.
A suggest that we look into it instead of reinventing the wheel.
you seriously think your on to something don't you? every ar can accept an a magazine of any capacity. all militaries train in the use of AIMED semi automatic fire so that "interesting" sounding trigger group is pointless. im assume you never have fired a firearm as the harder trigger pull would almost ensure every round misses not just all of them after the first. then who is "we" this is a blog on the Internets "we" are nobody
What could possibly go wrong with an M4/M16A2/M16A4?
M4 and M16A2/M16A4 firearms require continual attention to cleaning and wear of the action, auto sear, ejection port cover, extractor, bolt catch, bolt gas, buffer retainer, and hammer springs; retaining pin; firing pin; bolt carrier group; bolt carrier assembly; trigger assembly; barrel; and dents, damage, and separation of magazine well, walls, feed, and feed lips.
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with rifle or carbine assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.
When cleaning and lubricating your weapon in a a hot, extremely dry, dusty and dirty environment requires the use of a dry lubricate such as Hornady One Shot Cleaner and Lubricate, Militec-1 Lubricate, Smooth Kote Lubricate, or one as such not CLP!
Now the Army wants some new M4 Mods like a heavier barrel and full auto. Gee what do you think is going to happen to all those other parts that can break when your rock'n and rolling in full auto with a heavier barrel?
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with rifle or carbine assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.
When studying small arms weapons of previous military conflicts of WWII and Korea there may be merit in that one weapon will not be the best tool for a variety of combat situations.
Well, isn't that sweet, Zan… i was with the 1/5 SFG myself and ended up in some strange places and learned many things… one of them was phonetics. How come you speak/type like an Asian fluent in English? If you really are a vet, you should be supporting the troops and not insulting them at every turn.
Be a Troll on a goverment site… leave this place for honest dicussions.
BTW… if you think that Just Cause was my only operation, you're sorely mistaken. BS w/V, LoM, & 2 Purple Hearts…
Dear Project Thor;
How come you speak/type like an under eduated American high school grad that wasn't in, shall we say, the top half of his graduating class?
It is nice to know that one of the things that you learned was phonetics.
How many hours a day did you have to spend on the phone to be come a phonetic expert?
I do support the troops, and that is why I so hate to see them killed in idiotic undertakings. Pun implied.
By the way, congratulatons on you Bronze Stars with V device and the duce Hearts.
I hope you are well.
"support the troops" my ass. Your so obvious and oblivious.
Dear Mike;
I am obvious!
I don't pretend to be anything other than obvious.
I don't want any more US soldiers killed in Afghanistan, I don't want any more soldiers killed in Iraq.
You on the other hand seem to think the opposite from me on the issue.
Yet you call me someone that doesn't support the soldiers.
Wow!
I don't want them to be killed, you want them to be killed.
And yet you say you are for the soldiers?
Sincerely,
Zandor
Again, I have read many of your post. So Obvious yet oblivious.
You seem to be running out of things to say.
You have already posted the obvious/oblivious line once before.
Perhaps you remember that, but then again, you probably don't.
I am, for some reason, starting to get the distinct impression that you disagree with my opinions.
Is that true?
Keep up your work on phonetics.
Sometimes things have to be repeated twice for someone to understand, and judging from your previous post, you did not. Phonetics aside, the meaning is true. Your blatantly spinning your ideas around saying something to project your ideology, while trying to seem on the good side or the opinionated correct side. "I support the troops" is an example of this stupidity. Judging by your moronic posts of the past, this should be easy enough for you to understand. Agree?
" Sometimes things have to repeated twice".
Dear Mike;
Just where do you keep your diploma certifying that you are a graduate from the University of Redundancy?
you don't know the difference between direct impingement and gas blow back do you? whats the top piece on the bolt carrier group? how does it function?