Comments on: Major M4 Mods in the Works

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:51:31 +0000

So I’ve been deployed, and tested a newer version of 5.56 while I was in Afghanistan. It’s sick, lethal, shredded a sedan that was sort of in the way at one point, even putting holes in the engine block…

M16 vs M4? It’s the same, ’nuff said.

Also, having used all of our current weapons systems… if we could throw piston uppers on our M4’s, optics with adjustable magnification, and stocks with adjustable cheek pieces.… we’d all be good. Have the Army start issuing good magazines (like the P Mags), and maintenance your weapon… you’re f*ckin golden. The SAW works great, the 240 is hard to clean but works great, the heavies are solid.… new M14 is legit, zero complaints. We’re well-equipped.

The main problem we have is not weapons systems… it’s poor/overzealous leadership, endangering soldiers’ lives, crossing what we call “red lines” with not enough people and getting everyone waxed. In addition to many other things of course… but enough about that.

There’s nothing wrong with a modded M4, and if the Army will do it for me, even better.

By: luke

luke — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 03:29:03 +0000

Hk416? pretty sure its just a gas piston upper on an m4

By: StevenDDeacon

StevenDDeacon — Sun, 02 May 2010 23:31:36 +0000

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.

By: StevenDDeacon

StevenDDeacon — Sun, 02 May 2010 23:27:31 +0000

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!

By: Ontos

Ontos — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 06:36:02 +0000

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 7.62x51 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 (6.5x55 Swede anyone?) keeps it steaming along at range.

Sorry Charlie, 6.5G is the way to go.

By: daniel

daniel — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:12:57 +0000

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

By: daniel

daniel — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:07:10 +0000

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?

By: dead.bolt.dad

dead.bolt.dad — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:10:41 +0000

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.

By: daniel

daniel — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:54:46 +0000

the weight is measured in grains

By: Zandor

Zandor — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:24:44 +0000

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.