Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in M4 rifle

[LRRPF52]

[SIZE="3"]U.S. Military Losing Edge in Small Arms[/SIZE]
by Jim Schatz

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/a...lArms.aspx

What an utter wash, rinse, repeat of the same garbage as before:

Elite units — with a few exceptions — do not use the standard-issue U.S. Army small arms or ammunition. Why? Because they are inferior to the more advanced weapons selected by these units. There is a fundamental difference between their acquisition process and that of the “Big Army,” where there are hundreds of decisions makers and countless agencies and offices involved.

The rifle used to kill Osama bin Laden was not the standard-issue M4 carbine. In the military’s top-tier SOF units, the M4 has all but been replaced by the commercial HK416 rifle, developed on a handshake by industry with no U.S. research-and-development dollars back in 2004. This rifle outperformed the M4 carbine in no less than four government comparison tests, multiple Army “dust tests” and the “individual carbine” program assessment at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

No less than five attempts have been made by the Army to replace the current M16 and M4 family of weapons since 2005, yet still today troops serve with a rifle and cartridge that was, in its earlier form, first fielded in the early 1960s.

I guess they never got the memo that everyone in SOCOM still has M4A1's. The idea that the HK416 is superior because some DEV guys use them is retarded. Suppressed SBR with a lot of use in the water might call for that type of M4 variant, but would be inappropriate for most everyone else, including SF, Ranger Regiment, MARSOC, and big Army. There are plenty of teams within SOCOM that have evaluated HK416 for potential adoption, and dropped it after seeing how it compared to their existing M4A1's. Same goes for the SCAR-L. There are guns floating out there, but M4 proved to have more pros than cons compared to any of these other new offerings.

Notice they mention Wanat again, which has nothing to do with the M4, and everything to do with incompetent leadership.

The only semi-valid argument they have is for the HK automatic 40mm grenade launcher, which is superior to the Mk19, but are there any plans to upgrade the entire fleet of Mk19's Army-wide? The article reads like an HK advertisement.

I know coalition SF and infantry troops who had HK416's, and removed the trigger from it to install in regular M4's, as they had issues with the 416. There's a full auto rental range in Vegas called Battlefield Las Vegas. They started as a foreign weapons training outfit, then opened up shop for a more adventure-based live fire experience. They have posted some very interesting observations about how long guns last before major components fail, like AK receivers cracking, when M4 barrels/bolts need replacement, what optics crap the bed and what ones last, things like that.

DD and PSA AR15's usually go for at least 20k rounds before the barrels ar replaced. AR15 receivers seem to last forever.

Eotechs break, whereas Aimpoints don't.

HK MR556 started key-holing at 10,000rds, which they haven't ever seen in standard AR barrels.

These guys burn through tens of thousands of rounds a week. They maintain over 150 different types of machineguns, and the place employs veterans who show the customers how to be familiar with them, while also covering down on the logistics of keeping that many guns running with replacement parts.

The HK crapped the bed on them very early.

This article is now talking about 6.5x47 Lapua for a service rifle cartridge. I guess they never researched the concept of overbore and chamber pressure and how that affects throat and barrel life. They make it sound like infantry engagements are decided by service rifles, while the enemy magically gets PKM's, yet our machineguns get no mention.

More false premises. These people need to do some more research...

So how is this fixed? A solution requires courageous leadership and pressure from the top. The predecessor of today’s M4 carbine, the AR-15, was only adopted because of the direct personal involvement of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President John F. Kennedy.

I guess Kennedy went back in time and told Army Ordnance, ARPA, and these types to solicit a SCHV rifle too. Maybe he purposely slowed down the disastrous M14 production lines before he took office, right? This article is amateurish.