Last edited by a moderator:
The insanity begins again
- Thread starter gunmoney
- Start date
sc928porsche
New member
Its about time that they decided to do something positive with the matell toy!
thesheepdog
New member
Wow, this is ret@rded as demigod stated.
Do you call a BCM a "matell toy" or is that just lingo from vietnam that you still hold onto?
Do you call a BCM a "matell toy" or is that just lingo from vietnam that you still hold onto?
Katophract
New member
Wait, is this suggesting the M4 isn't perfect? Blasphemy! There is nothing better and there can never be anything better! To even question is heresy!
thesheepdog
New member
No, nothing is stating that. But to improve an AR-that is purpose built and battle proven-with a piston system is only causing more harm than good.
Get some higher performance 5.56 rounds, and yeah, it's pretty much perfect for the application it was built for.
4thPointofContact
Moderator
Well, a bit more than just a single gas tube. Don't forget there are three gas rings, and the roll pin that holds the gas tube to the FSB.demigod said:
On the short piston gun I'm familiar with the gas system is extremely robust and consists of simple parts.
Parts complexity is pretty much a non-issue and the only reason the AR uses D.I. is for lightness. Once you go from an A1 receiver to an A2 that argument is moot. A quarter-pound of steel isn't any heavier than a quarter-pound of aluminum.
These parts won't require replacement till ... hmm, pretty much the lifetime of the rifle. And when they, do all you need is to be evolved enough to have thumbs.
Last edited:
thesheepdog
New member
Well, would we see an increase in effectiveness if the US military could shoot Hollow points? Think about it. It's not the caliber, it's the bullet. Load up the troops with 77gr or even 55gr HP's and cha-ching, you have now made a lot of troops very happy. But NOOOOO, hollow points are bad, so instead of changing the logistsics and BS with going to a different bullet, not caliber; we have military analysts looking at bigger calibers, rather than just switching to a better, more lethal bullet, not caliber.
thesheepdog
New member
These parts won't need repair/maintenance till about 20,000 rounds.
I have used an aged M16A2 w/M203 in OIf back in 2003. It was a Nickle Plated rifle...wait, nope it was just that old & beat up. The bluing was gone & the upper & lower was two different colors. The full size M16 was a Mutha to have inside of a HMMWV & wasn't very portable/maneuverable inside tight vehicles.
Once HMMWV's started getting outfitted with many more internal features such as IED Counter measures, GPS & Tracking systems, more gear that the Marines carried, bulkier Body armor, etc... the M4 definately became the more preffered weapon of most Marines. Additionally, it was a new toy & looked alot more high speed/low drag. It sounds crazy, but it is what it is. There is definately a no kidding preformance factor, but there is also a "Cool" or "TactiCool" factor that goes along with it as well. The latter is more of a young Soldier/Marine's mindset though.
I & my Marines that I have led in 2 tours in Iraq & 1 tour in Afghanistan had good luck with the M4, M16A2/A4, & M249 SAW. Could the weapon systems & caliber be improved...yes, without a doubt. Are they effective...definately! I will not be mad, disgusted, bitter, etc... if there is a new system given to us...just as long as it is accurate, reliable, rugged, & has some good terminal ballistics.
I don't have the answer for what weapon should be awarded the contract or what new improvements should be made...I'm not an armorer. I would like some better rounds than the FMJ 5.56x45mm. I didn't say different caliber, just a better round itself. I am not saying that I would disagree with having a new round either.
Time will tell & I'm sure I'll be retired before the USMC ever sees any new carbine.
Once HMMWV's started getting outfitted with many more internal features such as IED Counter measures, GPS & Tracking systems, more gear that the Marines carried, bulkier Body armor, etc... the M4 definately became the more preffered weapon of most Marines. Additionally, it was a new toy & looked alot more high speed/low drag. It sounds crazy, but it is what it is. There is definately a no kidding preformance factor, but there is also a "Cool" or "TactiCool" factor that goes along with it as well. The latter is more of a young Soldier/Marine's mindset though.
I & my Marines that I have led in 2 tours in Iraq & 1 tour in Afghanistan had good luck with the M4, M16A2/A4, & M249 SAW. Could the weapon systems & caliber be improved...yes, without a doubt. Are they effective...definately! I will not be mad, disgusted, bitter, etc... if there is a new system given to us...just as long as it is accurate, reliable, rugged, & has some good terminal ballistics.
I don't have the answer for what weapon should be awarded the contract or what new improvements should be made...I'm not an armorer. I would like some better rounds than the FMJ 5.56x45mm. I didn't say different caliber, just a better round itself. I am not saying that I would disagree with having a new round either.
Time will tell & I'm sure I'll be retired before the USMC ever sees any new carbine.
azredhawk44
Moderator
"Hollowpoints" aren't more terminally effective in rifles.
The correct way to describe a hollow-point bullet in a rifle cartridge is "Open Tip Match" or OTM. The jacket is drawn from the base to the tip, with a hint of an opening at the tip due to the construction method. Not due to any mushrooming or destructive intent.
Conversely, FMJ rounds are drawn from the tip to the base, and wrapped around the base.
The only real benefit between OTM and FMJ designs is the OTM results in a bullet with greater BC that rides the wind better.
Now... expanding bullets would be helpful to our soldiers if we continue to fight hordes of unarmored and malnourished savages who are so thin that the M855 round doesn't get a chance to tumble as it enters the target.
However, expanding bullets WON'T be helpful to our soldiers if we have to face a foe with flak vests or armor, whereas the M855 currently in use has a tungsten penetrator core.
thesheepdog
New member
ROFLMAO!!!
Careful azredhawk44. You are entering dangerous territory. Some people around here don't like proper terminology or to learn anything new. You will be accused of making things up and told that your information is irrelevant because it means the same thing anyway. Just say your post was a joke and never mention it again.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Looks like a mixed bag of ideas... I'm not sure how the extra 5oz of barrel and a set of ambi controls are a radical improvement. I can see where adding an extra 5oz of barrel to double the amount of ammo you can fire before the barrel bursts is a nice tradeoff; but was anybody firing 500 rounds in less than five minutes (the barrel bursting point of the original M4 barrel) to begin with? That sounds like more of a reaction to the bad press/poor reporting regarding Wanat than it does an actual solution to a problem.
On the other hand, I think the idea to upgrade the bolt has real merit and is an obvious place to look if you want to modernize the M4. It will be interesting to see if the Army is willing to bite the bullet and accept a new barrel extension in order to get the best bolt design though.
On the other hand, I think the idea to upgrade the bolt has real merit and is an obvious place to look if you want to modernize the M4. It will be interesting to see if the Army is willing to bite the bullet and accept a new barrel extension in order to get the best bolt design though.
Mannlicher
New member
I would be happier with a change in caliber and cartridge, than with the platform.
trg42wraglefragle
New member
If theyre so worried about accuracy what are they doing with a short barrel carbine anyway. They're asking the M4 to do things it wasn't designed for.
It seems as though the army is looking for an amazing do everything gun that doesn't exist.
Unless they go back to how they had squads in WWII with lots of different guns, its always going to be a trade off.
Personally I think they should use the Battle Rifle off Halo 2 and 3, that seems to be a awesome all purpose rifle.
It seems as though the army is looking for an amazing do everything gun that doesn't exist.
Unless they go back to how they had squads in WWII with lots of different guns, its always going to be a trade off.
Personally I think they should use the Battle Rifle off Halo 2 and 3, that seems to be a awesome all purpose rifle.
It's called evolution gentlemen.
How did we get to the M4? by testing to replace the M14, which replaced the M1, which replaced the 1903, etc, etc, etc.
seems so many people have such a cultlike love for their black rifle of choice that they cannot imagine that it is not perfect. And cannot be improved upon.
If the M4 is so great, why do you fear the competition? I prefer a piston, but I won't sit here and bash the M4.
Whatever gives our future soldiers the best weapon whould be supported.
How did we get to the M4? by testing to replace the M14, which replaced the M1, which replaced the 1903, etc, etc, etc.
seems so many people have such a cultlike love for their black rifle of choice that they cannot imagine that it is not perfect. And cannot be improved upon.
If the M4 is so great, why do you fear the competition? I prefer a piston, but I won't sit here and bash the M4.
Whatever gives our future soldiers the best weapon whould be supported.