Quote:“For its cost, I consider the M4 to be an amazing assault rifle. Between the M16 and M4, I’ve carried weapons from that family for nearly 30 years and would not trade them for any other fielded families of assault rifles.”

Quote:The first second-guessing on the M4 occurred inside the military in 2000, when U.S. Special Operations Command, in conjunction with gun specialists at Naval Sea Systems Command, conducted an exhaustive evaluation of its version — the heavier-barrel M4A1. At the time, SoCom had no idea it was testing a critical weapon on the eve of two major land wars that would thrust commandos into constant combat.

With SEALs and Green Berets in mind, testers subjected the carbine to the kind of constant barrel-burning fire in harsh conditions that would erupt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:the kind of constant barrel-burning fire in harsh conditions that would erupt in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:Some of the problems uncovered in 2001 and 2002, such as stoppages or jamming, became evident in the conventional firearm, most infamously in the 2008 Battle of Wanat in Afghanistan in which nine U.S. troops lost their lives.

Quote:Troops left to fend for themselves

Quote:...is absolute bullsh*t. If your unit emplaced a non-camouflaged defense underneath the fields of fire and observation of Taliban, who systematically eliminated your crew-served weapons on the initial volley of the attack, and all you had left was M4's operated by entry-level soldiers with CLP for lube doing mag dumps in an attempt to keep up return fire, it has nothing to do with the M4 anymore, and everything to do with systemic leadership failures, from basic planning, strategy, and defensive tactics, to intelligence. You had complete morons that came up with the combat outpost concept, then executed it, leaving troops to fend for themselves.

LRRPF52 Wrote:The article is filled with so much bullsh*t, and we've been through this over and over again. Why didn't they title the article around this guy's statement?



Then it goes on to highlight the critique from an artillery officer who was awarded the Silver Star in Vietnam. (if...therefore...argument) There are so many logical fallacies in the article, it would take about half a day to go through them all. Here's another:



This is a perfect example of how out of touch these "journalists" are not knowing the context of the subject matter they are discussing. Complete freaking retards poking into a subject with no due diligence, as is to be expected.

SOCOM and Crane were addressing the extreme abuse of carbines by some of their component units who normally conduct Immediate Action Drills such as the Australian Peel, where intense full-auto high volumes of fire are burned through the carbines over and over, day after day to get everyone through all the duty positions in the formation, with contact front, left, right, rear, day and night, with and without rucksacks (if applicable i.e. not Squeals).

These types of units have been doing this since the early and mid 1960's with XM177's, M16's, Colt Model 653's, Colt 733's, and Colt 727's before the M4A1, and the decades of experience from those weapons went into the M4A1 and M4. They just wanted to increase the longevity of an already superb design, and that was accomplished.

To equate that with is absolute bullsh*t. If your unit emplaced a non-camouflaged defense underneath the fields of fire and observation of Taliban, who systematically eliminated your crew-served weapons on the initial volley of the attack, and all you had left was M4's operated by entry-level soldiers with CLP for lube doing mag dumps in an attempt to keep up return fire, it has nothing to do with the M4 anymore, and everything to do with systemic leadership failures, from basic planning, strategy, and defensive tactics, to intelligence. You had complete morons that came up with the combat outpost concept, then executed it, leaving troops to fend for themselves.



Guys entering and attempting to clear a built up mud hut complex that had Taliban up in the balconies firing down on them does not equal deaths because of "jams". Article is low rate journalism on display, with logical fallacy after fallacy.



Total bullsh*t. Left-leaning article with word-dropping like "monopoly" and "scandalous" is typical tripe from the Washington Times.

Trooper Wrote:It is time to go to a Gen III rifle. But since WW2 we have not had a new rifle without a new cartridge.

Quote:So lets push either the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39) or 6.5x45 as the new GPC to replace both the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51

stanc Wrote:And since 1873 we have not had a new cartridge without a new rifle.

Uh, how about first we do a proper test and evaluation?

That's the one thing that bugs me about Grendel and GPC proponents. They argue for their pet cartridge to replace the NATO rounds, but don't bother doing the testing necessary to determine if either round actually has the necessary performance.

Quote:Uh, how about first we do a proper test and evaluation?

That's the one thing that bugs me about Grendel and GPC proponents. They argue for their pet cartridge to replace the NATO rounds, but don't bother doing the testing necessary to determine if either round actually has the necessary performance.

Quote:[SIZE="3"]1895...[/SIZE]

January: Brig. Gen. Flagler instructs Frankford Arsenal to fabricate 250 .22 cartridge cases and 300 bullets. 250 of the bullets are 118 grain, while the remainder is split evenly between 112 grain and 120 grain bullets. Based on data developed by Springfield Armory's Lt. Tracy C. Dickson, the cartridges are tested in modified Krag rifles. Performance of the .22 cartridge is 2,600 feet per second with the 120 grain bullet. (It is not known whether the proposed .20 caliber cartridge was ever fabricated or tested.)

LRRPF52 Wrote:The Small Caliber High Velocity Rifle concept dates waaaaaay back in US Military history. I suspect the impetus was in the 1895 6mm Lee Navy, which replaced the .45-70 in the Navy and Marines until the Army's .30 Cal nazis pushed the .30-40 Krag onto the services.

A small minority of engineers in the Army Ordnance Department already began formulating a series of papers and projects based on .22 caliber, and a Brigadier General had Frankford Arsenal conduct tests with .22 caliber high sectional density projectiles:

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html

By the time SCHV actually gained enough traction, it was the late 1950's, and Armalite and Winchester were solicited to provide test rifles for the SCHV concept, pushing a .22 cal projectile fast enough to perforate a steel helmet at certain yardages, which were then moved by the .30 cal nazis as the .222 Remington proved capable of blowing through the helmets even at 400yds. When the goal posts were moved to 500yds, the .222 Remington only penetrated one side of the helmet, and was deemed a failure by the nzis, so Stoner asked Remington if they could blow the shoulder forward a little, get more case capacity, and push a lighter FMJBT as fast as possible.

Hence was created the .222 Remington Special, which was then re-labeled the .223 Remington, and the rest is history. The .223 Rem, type-classified as 5.56x45 M193 was always meant to be a killer, not a wounder, and killing it did when first fielded by US Advisors with ARVN Infantry units in the early 1960's. The tissue damage witnessed by Korean and WWII vets was unusually avulsive, and brutal, and gained sensational responses from them, which were then passed up the chain in the ARPA program that it was at the time. SF, SEALs, SAS, and rapid deployment units started acquiring and demanding the AR15 immediately, and it became the official service rifle quickly.

WildBill3/75 Wrote:Gigantic pile of uneducated garbage. The M4 and it's variants are so good and thoroughly battle tested that I doubt we will see their replacement any time soon.

GMinor Wrote:Umm, well, yes... You got it right on the nose.


Trooper, you really think they will should replace the .308 with a "6.5 Grendel (6.5x39) or 6.5x45", you must not shoot a .308 very often.

cory Wrote:Brother you've obviously never carried a combat load. Or have never fired an AR for extended periods of time.