User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:55:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about that time when worn out equipment failed after 3 hours of mag dumps? Damn M4s Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. What about that time when worn out equipment failed after 3 hours of mag dumps? Damn M4s Yeah, I know, we should just issue SAWs and GPMGs to everyone (to hell with the fact there won't be enough ammo). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:58:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about that time when worn out equipment failed after 3 hours of mag dumps - after being in the field for a month? Damn M4s Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. What about that time when worn out equipment failed after 3 hours of mag dumps - after being in the field for a month? Damn M4s |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 10:59:07 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably the Croatian VHS-2 rifle. A bullpup with an adjustable stock! http://media.desura.com/images/members/1/655/654142/528358_537745716267237_1310130863_n.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:03:23 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. It's such a secret that nobody can find real world examples. What about that time when worn out equipment failed after 3 hours of mag dumps - after being in the field for a month? Damn M4s My memory is poor, probably a side effect of handling my AR today. Of course I don't know much about M4s anyways. This is AR15.com, home of the black rifle. Whereas from a lot of pictorial evidence it would seem many M4s are sort of a bare aluminum color. Hmmm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:07:05 AM EDT
[#5]
My money is Gun C was a Tavor
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:16:52 AM EDT
[#6]
Mini 14?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:19:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My money is Gun C was a Tavor No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:20:09 AM EDT
[#8]
Did they actually say which guns the M4 was compared to?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:22:14 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. 
That's a pretty stupid comment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:24:26 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did they actually say which guns the M4 was compared to? Not ours, as some recall, I didn't like the whiff I was getting off it, so I exited stage left. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:28:49 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not ours, as some recall, I didn't like the whiff I was getting off it, so I exited stage left. http://dakiniland.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/snagglepuss-exit-stage-left2.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did they actually say which guns the M4 was compared to? Not ours, as some recall, I didn't like the whiff I was getting off it, so I exited stage left. http://dakiniland.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/snagglepuss-exit-stage-left2.jpg I would say you whiffed correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:30:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Outperform? Yeah sure. John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles  What? +2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:30:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And just like when the M14 was replaced, the old guard is huffing and puffing about how nothing could possibly be better and the logistical cost of replacement cannot be borne. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Meh  The Army basically did the same/similar thing when what would replace the M14 was being evaluated. Heck, they did the same/similar thing when the Winchester model 73 was new technology.
Adopting a new weapon has aspects for consideration far beyond what does it do better than what we already got. I understand why the military is cautious about embracing "better" weapons, they just are not very good at explaining or rationalizing their hesitance. And just like when the M14 was replaced, the old guard is huffing and puffing about how nothing could possibly be better and the logistical cost of replacement cannot be borne. LOL no. The M14 had hardly seen any service in comparison, and had many flaws. The M16 family is so mature now very few rifles are even going to be able to match it, much less best it to a degree that merits replacing everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:36:20 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. And I don't realty care why etc... You guys can have all the drama and endless debate about that if you like. Just get on with replacing it with something better and stop messing with soldier lives. Care to enlighten us about this open secret about M4s and M16s? Most of my Marines andI never seemed to have all that many issues with issued M4s or M16A4s. I'd like to hear your experiences with the weapons systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:36:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its a Shrike borderline vaporware Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't believe the depth of derp in this thread. We all know exactly what gun C was: http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/63/bc/7263bcccb06974343b6cd6ca3b767a12.jpg Ooooh! Nice!!! What is that/who makes it? borderline vaporware Not excusing their decade-long delay, but they've been available for a few years now. You can buy one & have it shipped same day from several places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 11:50:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a pretty stupid comment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse.
That's a pretty stupid comment. Articulate why. Should the Army continue testing with ammo that they are phasing out? At what point does that madness stop? After adoption and fielding, when it turns out it does not work with currently fielded M855A1? M855A1 is hard on guns. This we know. But, again, as far as I know the M4 has not been modified to work with M855A1 yet. Same gas port, gas block, bolt, extractor and buffer last I checked. Thus the testing was no less fair to the competitors than the legacy platform. If a rifle/carbine fairs extremely poorly with M855A1, I question how sound its design was to start with. And if you are attempting to design a military weapon, it would seem logical to design it around all ammunition in significant current or near future service. Failing to do this makes me question the manufacturers qualification to produce military weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:16:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"This test was a measurement of Class 1 and Class 2 magazine stoppages, in which one soldier can clear the gun himself within 10 seconds or more than 10 seconds, respectively. The U.S. official said classes 1 and 2 are the most common stoppages in battle. A third graphic shows the M4A1 performed best for Class 3 stoppages, which are more significant failures that require a specialist, or armorer, to clear. It achieved 6,000 mean rounds between failure. Gun “C” achieved about 4,500 rounds." ~ the end. This. And are they using Pmags yet? Pretty much all the designs being submitted (we can't know for sure, but going from past competitors) use the same magazines. So magazine issues in the M4 will more than likely carry over to the SCAR, Beretta ect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 12:34:08 PM EDT
[#18]
I'm very curious about the identity of the competitors.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:00:26 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I'm a PROUD 556R owner, but still...  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which gun is "Gun C"? Has it been leaked yet? Sig 556
And I'm a PROUD 556R owner, but still... Got a swat 556...I agree...lol 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:08:36 PM EDT
[#20]
I knew that with all the companies getting into the AR platform it wouldn't be long before GLOCK got in on the game.
Can't wait to get mine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:10:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Articulate why. Should the Army continue testing with ammo that they are phasing out? At what point does that madness stop? After adoption and fielding, when it turns out it does not work with currently fielded M855A1? M855A1 is hard on guns. This we know. But, again, as far as I know the M4 has not been modified to work with M855A1 yet. Same gas port, gas block, bolt, extractor and buffer last I checked. Thus the testing was no less fair to the competitors than the legacy platform. If a rifle/carbine fairs extremely poorly with M855A1, I question how sound its design was to start with. And if you are attempting to design a military weapon, it would seem logical to design it around all ammunition in significant current or near future service. Failing to do this makes me question the manufacturers qualification to produce military weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse.
That's a pretty stupid comment. Articulate why. Should the Army continue testing with ammo that they are phasing out? At what point does that madness stop? After adoption and fielding, when it turns out it does not work with currently fielded M855A1? M855A1 is hard on guns. This we know. But, again, as far as I know the M4 has not been modified to work with M855A1 yet. Same gas port, gas block, bolt, extractor and buffer last I checked. Thus the testing was no less fair to the competitors than the legacy platform. If a rifle/carbine fairs extremely poorly with M855A1, I question how sound its design was to start with. And if you are attempting to design a military weapon, it would seem logical to design it around all ammunition in significant current or near future service. Failing to do this makes me question the manufacturers qualification to produce military weapons. Because they should be able to optimize their guns for the ammo they'll be required to shoot? If they've optimized/gassed their guns based on M855 and then they're tested based on a different type of ammo that produces different levels of gas for the gas system to use, I'm sure it could throw a perfectly reliable gun out of whack. If it wasn't, M855A1 should have been made available for the various firms to test and optimize the gas ports/gas systems of their guns for the ammo they're going to be used for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:12:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Competitor C = HK-416A5?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:22:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because they should be able to optimize their guns for the ammo they'll be required to shoot? If they've optimized/gassed their guns based on M855 and then they're tested based on a different type of ammo that produces different levels of gas for the gas system to use, I'm sure it could throw a perfectly reliable gun out of whack. If it wasn't, M855A1 should have been made available for the various firms to test and optimize their guns gas ports/gas system for the ammo they're going to be used for. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse.
That's a pretty stupid comment. Articulate why. Should the Army continue testing with ammo that they are phasing out? At what point does that madness stop? After adoption and fielding, when it turns out it does not work with currently fielded M855A1? M855A1 is hard on guns. This we know. But, again, as far as I know the M4 has not been modified to work with M855A1 yet. Same gas port, gas block, bolt, extractor and buffer last I checked. Thus the testing was no less fair to the competitors than the legacy platform. If a rifle/carbine fairs extremely poorly with M855A1, I question how sound its design was to start with. And if you are attempting to design a military weapon, it would seem logical to design it around all ammunition in significant current or near future service. Failing to do this makes me question the manufacturers qualification to produce military weapons. Because they should be able to optimize their guns for the ammo they'll be required to shoot? If they've optimized/gassed their guns based on M855 and then they're tested based on a different type of ammo that produces different levels of gas for the gas system to use, I'm sure it could throw a perfectly reliable gun out of whack. If it wasn't, M855A1 should have been made available for the various firms to test and optimize their guns gas ports/gas system for the ammo they're going to be used for. Cartridges the M4 was built to shoot: M855, M856, arguably M193 and M196. Cartridges the M4 has been fed in military service, with the expectation that it will work: M995, Mk262 Mod 0, Mk262 Mod 1, Mk318, M855A1, that crazy low-ricochet load for Maritime actions, that crazy NODs tracer stuff, the 70gr TSX load that no one talks about, the new Marine load, and dozens of others. Basically, you're saying that the new rifles/carbines are pickier about ammo than the M4. Sounds like a flaw in the new contenders to me. Also, they were given ammo to test and tailor their contenders to... They found out their designs sucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:22:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AWESOME reliability. Unless you drop it in the mud. Shitty firepower. Heavy weight. Mediocre accuracy. Insufficient lethality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
AWESOME reliability. Unless you drop it in the mud. Shitty firepower. Heavy weight. Mediocre accuracy. Insufficient lethality. I would disagree with that statement for one reason. From what I have read and understood, If you shoot a +p 9mm out of a Hi-point carbine. It has been said they will reach velocities equal to an AK-47. Get hit with a 147 gr 9mm doing 1500 FPS. 761ft/lbs. Sounds lethal to me. Now just step it up to a 45 230grain 1191 ft/lbs....OWWWW I could be wrong as I don't always believe everything that is on the internet 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:24:35 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most SOF and SOC units are able to utilize COTS stuff (P-mags, parts, and accessories). USMC armorers take care of standard Marines as well as MARSOC and some of the other, higher speed units. I wonder if the rifle that was ahead of the M4 was the SCAR-Light. I believe NSW is playing with the SCAR quite a bit. Speaking of M14s - my dad called me a few days ago wanting to know what hoops he has to jump through to get a tax stamp and get his hands on a M14E2 like he carried in Vietnam. He hated the "new" M16 back then and his unit stayed with the M14. He understands that the kinks have been worked out and the "Mattel" is a good rifle today. He's in the process of acquiring a few ARs. When I told him the price tag for a CIII M14E2, he shit a brick. I thought SOF types had dumped the SCAR Mk16. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:25:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would disagree with that statement for one reason. From what I have read and understood, If you shoot a +p 9mm out of a Hi-point carbine. It has been said they will reach velocities equal to an AK-47. Get hit with a 147 gr 9mm doing 1500 FPS. 761ft/lbs. Sounds lethal to me. Now just step it up to a 45 230grain 1191 ft/lbs....OWWWW I could be wrong as I don't always believe everything that is on the internet Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
AWESOME reliability. Unless you drop it in the mud. Shitty firepower. Heavy weight. Mediocre accuracy. Insufficient lethality. I would disagree with that statement for one reason. From what I have read and understood, If you shoot a +p 9mm out of a Hi-point carbine. It has been said they will reach velocities equal to an AK-47. Get hit with a 147 gr 9mm doing 1500 FPS. 761ft/lbs. Sounds lethal to me. Now just step it up to a 45 230grain 1191 ft/lbs....OWWWW I could be wrong as I don't always believe everything that is on the internet 7.62x39 isn't known for great terminal effects with ball ammo either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 1:43:25 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cartridges the M4 was built to shoot: M855, M856, arguably M193 and M196. Cartridges the M4 has been fed in military service, with the expectation that it will work: M995, Mk262 Mod 0, Mk262 Mod 1, Mk318, M855A1, that crazy low-ricochet load for Maritime actions, that crazy NODs tracer stuff, the 70gr TSX load that no one talks about, the new Marine load, and dozens of others. Basically, you're saying that the new rifles/carbines are pickier about ammo than the M4. Sounds like a flaw in the new contenders to me. Also, they were given ammo to test and tailor their contenders to... They found out their designs sucked.
You are commenting on designs for which you don't even know the stats for. We don't know what the actual results were. A design resulting in 5100 mean rounds before failure doesn't necessarily suck compared to the M4 if it had 5000. That design can still offer improvements over the M4 in terms of modularity, accuracy, weight, ease of maintenance, etc. I personally find it hard to believe that only one design had an advantage over the M4 in one category. And 10k rounds is not a significant number when you're doing testing among several different prototypes. If a manufacturer has five sample guns to submit, then that's only 2k you have to put through each sample gun. FN but 2 MILLION collective rounds through their prototype SCAR rifles during testing and you tell me 10k is more than enough for a new type ammo? You better call up FN and tell them they wasted a shit load of money testing the SCAR since 10k rounds should have been enough to test their guns before going full rate production.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:13:54 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are commenting on designs for which you don't even know the stats for. We don't know what the actual results were. A design resulting in 5100 mean rounds before failure doesn't necessarily suck compared to the M4 if it had 5000. That design can still offer improvements over the M4 in terms of modularity, accuracy, weight, ease of maintenance, etc. I personally find it hard to believe that only one design had an advantage over the M4 in one category. And 10k rounds is not a significant number when you're doing testing among several different prototypes. If a manufacturer has five sample guns to submit, then that's only 2k you have to put through each sample gun. FN but 2 MILLION collective rounds through their prototype SCAR rifles during testing and you tell me 10k is more than enough for a new type ammo? You better call up FN and tell them they wasted a shit load of money testing the SCAR since 10k rounds should have been enough to test their guns before going full rate production.Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cartridges the M4 was built to shoot: M855, M856, arguably M193 and M196. Cartridges the M4 has been fed in military service, with the expectation that it will work: M995, Mk262 Mod 0, Mk262 Mod 1, Mk318, M855A1, that crazy low-ricochet load for Maritime actions, that crazy NODs tracer stuff, the 70gr TSX load that no one talks about, the new Marine load, and dozens of others. Basically, you're saying that the new rifles/carbines are pickier about ammo than the M4. Sounds like a flaw in the new contenders to me. Also, they were given ammo to test and tailor their contenders to... They found out their designs sucked.
You are commenting on designs for which you don't even know the stats for. We don't know what the actual results were. A design resulting in 5100 mean rounds before failure doesn't necessarily suck compared to the M4 if it had 5000. That design can still offer improvements over the M4 in terms of modularity, accuracy, weight, ease of maintenance, etc. I personally find it hard to believe that only one design had an advantage over the M4 in one category. And 10k rounds is not a significant number when you're doing testing among several different prototypes. If a manufacturer has five sample guns to submit, then that's only 2k you have to put through each sample gun. FN but 2 MILLION collective rounds through their prototype SCAR rifles during testing and you tell me 10k is more than enough for a new type ammo? You better call up FN and tell them they wasted a shit load of money testing the SCAR since 10k rounds should have been enough to test their guns before going full rate production.And how many rounds of M855A1 did Colt have when designing the M4?
If they are complaining about the change in ammunition, despite being given ammunition to test and tweak their prototypes with, then something about their design sucked. Or they are just complaining because they are adopting the Aerospace tactic for winning contracts... Bitch about the competition until the military says fuck it and gives you the contract just to shut your whiney mouth. Again, it sounds like these guns were pickier about ammo than the M4, which is a bad trait. It also indicates a lack of foresight among the competitors. You mean the Army switched to the ammo they've been saying they'd switch to for a decade?  Inconceivable! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:26:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And how many rounds of M855A1 did Colt have when designing the M4?
If they are complaining about the change in ammunition, despite being given ammunition to test and tweak their prototypes with, then something about their design sucked. Or they are just complaining because they are adopting the Aerospace tactic for winning contracts... Bitch about the competition until the military says fuck it and gives you the contract just to shut your whiney mouth. Again, it sounds like these guns were pickier about ammo than the M4, which is a bad trait. It also indicates a lack of foresight among the competitors. You mean the Army switched to the ammo they've been saying they'd switch to for a decade? Inconceivable! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cartridges the M4 was built to shoot: M855, M856, arguably M193 and M196. Cartridges the M4 has been fed in military service, with the expectation that it will work: M995, Mk262 Mod 0, Mk262 Mod 1, Mk318, M855A1, that crazy low-ricochet load for Maritime actions, that crazy NODs tracer stuff, the 70gr TSX load that no one talks about, the new Marine load, and dozens of others. Basically, you're saying that the new rifles/carbines are pickier about ammo than the M4. Sounds like a flaw in the new contenders to me. Also, they were given ammo to test and tailor their contenders to... They found out their designs sucked.
You are commenting on designs for which you don't even know the stats for. We don't know what the actual results were. A design resulting in 5100 mean rounds before failure doesn't necessarily suck compared to the M4 if it had 5000. That design can still offer improvements over the M4 in terms of modularity, accuracy, weight, ease of maintenance, etc. I personally find it hard to believe that only one design had an advantage over the M4 in one category. And 10k rounds is not a significant number when you're doing testing among several different prototypes. If a manufacturer has five sample guns to submit, then that's only 2k you have to put through each sample gun. FN but 2 MILLION collective rounds through their prototype SCAR rifles during testing and you tell me 10k is more than enough for a new type ammo? You better call up FN and tell them they wasted a shit load of money testing the SCAR since 10k rounds should have been enough to test their guns before going full rate production.And how many rounds of M855A1 did Colt have when designing the M4?
If they are complaining about the change in ammunition, despite being given ammunition to test and tweak their prototypes with, then something about their design sucked. Or they are just complaining because they are adopting the Aerospace tactic for winning contracts... Bitch about the competition until the military says fuck it and gives you the contract just to shut your whiney mouth. Again, it sounds like these guns were pickier about ammo than the M4, which is a bad trait. It also indicates a lack of foresight among the competitors. You mean the Army switched to the ammo they've been saying they'd switch to for a decade? Inconceivable! M855A1 isn't simply on the market. The gun manufacturers can't just goto Walmart and buy more and like somebody said, the Army hasn't been forthcoming with standardized specifications for the ammo. If you can't see why this could be an issue (I didn't say it WAS the issue), I can't help you. Live in your own little world with your preconceived notions about how engineering small arms works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:39:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M855A1 isn't simply on the market. The gun manufacturers can't just goto Walmart and buy more and like somebody said, the Army hasn't been forthcoming with standardized specifications for the ammo. If you can't see why this could be an issue (I didn't say it WAS the issue), I can't help you. Live in your own little world with your preconceived notions about how engineering small arms works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cartridges the M4 was built to shoot: M855, M856, arguably M193 and M196. Cartridges the M4 has been fed in military service, with the expectation that it will work: M995, Mk262 Mod 0, Mk262 Mod 1, Mk318, M855A1, that crazy low-ricochet load for Maritime actions, that crazy NODs tracer stuff, the 70gr TSX load that no one talks about, the new Marine load, and dozens of others. Basically, you're saying that the new rifles/carbines are pickier about ammo than the M4. Sounds like a flaw in the new contenders to me. Also, they were given ammo to test and tailor their contenders to... They found out their designs sucked.
You are commenting on designs for which you don't even know the stats for. We don't know what the actual results were. A design resulting in 5100 mean rounds before failure doesn't necessarily suck compared to the M4 if it had 5000. That design can still offer improvements over the M4 in terms of modularity, accuracy, weight, ease of maintenance, etc. I personally find it hard to believe that only one design had an advantage over the M4 in one category. And 10k rounds is not a significant number when you're doing testing among several different prototypes. If a manufacturer has five sample guns to submit, then that's only 2k you have to put through each sample gun. FN but 2 MILLION collective rounds through their prototype SCAR rifles during testing and you tell me 10k is more than enough for a new type ammo? You better call up FN and tell them they wasted a shit load of money testing the SCAR since 10k rounds should have been enough to test their guns before going full rate production.And how many rounds of M855A1 did Colt have when designing the M4?
If they are complaining about the change in ammunition, despite being given ammunition to test and tweak their prototypes with, then something about their design sucked. Or they are just complaining because they are adopting the Aerospace tactic for winning contracts... Bitch about the competition until the military says fuck it and gives you the contract just to shut your whiney mouth. Again, it sounds like these guns were pickier about ammo than the M4, which is a bad trait. It also indicates a lack of foresight among the competitors. You mean the Army switched to the ammo they've been saying they'd switch to for a decade? Inconceivable! M855A1 isn't simply on the market. The gun manufacturers can't just goto Walmart and buy more and like somebody said, the Army hasn't been forthcoming with standardized specifications for the ammo. If you can't see why this could be an issue (I didn't say it WAS the issue), I can't help you. Live in your own little world with your preconceived notions about how engineering small arms works. You know M855A1 can be acquired if you know where to look and are willing to drop cash, right? Hell, it just might be possible to acquire it through legitimate channels for testing as a large firearm manufacturer, instead of, as you quaintly suggest, going to walmart. But such connections certainly aren't required to simply get ahold of some to establish a baseline load profile. You're basically saying the contenders lack dedication, foresight or good sense. Definitely the people we want making a standard issue weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:43:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M855A1 isn't simply on the market. The gun manufacturers can't just goto Walmart and buy more and like somebody said, the Army hasn't been forthcoming with standardized specifications for the ammo. If you can't see why this could be an issue (I didn't say it WAS the issue), I can't help you. Live in your own little world with your preconceived notions about how engineering small arms works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cartridges the M4 was built to shoot: M855, M856, arguably M193 and M196. Cartridges the M4 has been fed in military service, with the expectation that it will work: M995, Mk262 Mod 0, Mk262 Mod 1, Mk318, M855A1, that crazy low-ricochet load for Maritime actions, that crazy NODs tracer stuff, the 70gr TSX load that no one talks about, the new Marine load, and dozens of others. Basically, you're saying that the new rifles/carbines are pickier about ammo than the M4. Sounds like a flaw in the new contenders to me. Also, they were given ammo to test and tailor their contenders to... They found out their designs sucked.
You are commenting on designs for which you don't even know the stats for. We don't know what the actual results were. A design resulting in 5100 mean rounds before failure doesn't necessarily suck compared to the M4 if it had 5000. That design can still offer improvements over the M4 in terms of modularity, accuracy, weight, ease of maintenance, etc. I personally find it hard to believe that only one design had an advantage over the M4 in one category. And 10k rounds is not a significant number when you're doing testing among several different prototypes. If a manufacturer has five sample guns to submit, then that's only 2k you have to put through each sample gun. FN but 2 MILLION collective rounds through their prototype SCAR rifles during testing and you tell me 10k is more than enough for a new type ammo? You better call up FN and tell them they wasted a shit load of money testing the SCAR since 10k rounds should have been enough to test their guns before going full rate production.And how many rounds of M855A1 did Colt have when designing the M4?
If they are complaining about the change in ammunition, despite being given ammunition to test and tweak their prototypes with, then something about their design sucked. Or they are just complaining because they are adopting the Aerospace tactic for winning contracts... Bitch about the competition until the military says fuck it and gives you the contract just to shut your whiney mouth. Again, it sounds like these guns were pickier about ammo than the M4, which is a bad trait. It also indicates a lack of foresight among the competitors. You mean the Army switched to the ammo they've been saying they'd switch to for a decade? Inconceivable! M855A1 isn't simply on the market. The gun manufacturers can't just goto Walmart and buy more and like somebody said, the Army hasn't been forthcoming with standardized specifications for the ammo. If you can't see why this could be an issue (I didn't say it WAS the issue), I can't help you. Live in your own little world with your preconceived notions about how engineering small arms works. DoD will provide access to it to fire arms manufacture if they request for testing purposes |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:20:16 PM EDT
[#32]
I talked to a buddy this AM who was on the selection committee. He said that one of the KPIs was a 20% improvement over the incumbant in phase one. If a submission achieved this, then there would be a down select test. Rifle "C" was only a 6% improvement so they stopped at phase one. In addition he mentioned that rifle "C" despite having 6% less stoppages, had more breakages which is considered more adverse for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:20:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Had a malf......double feed lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:22:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Oh God.
I bet the "leaker" works for HK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:27:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "the Army explained the cancellation by saying none of the eight showed a huge improvement over the M4." I'm guessing it needs to be a hell of an improvement so that it's worth the cost and trouble to switch. I could see the argument if it was like comparing a M14 vs a M16. But there is nothing that "newly" designed rifles do that the M4 cannot do. The M4 is just as ergonamic, accurate and reliable as anything else out there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:30:44 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "This test was a measurement of Class 1 and Class 2 magazine stoppages, in which one soldier can clear the gun himself within 10 seconds or more than 10 seconds, respectively. The U.S. official said classes 1 and 2 are the most common stoppages in battle. A third graphic shows the M4A1 performed best for Class 3 stoppages, which are more significant failures that require a specialist, or armorer, to clear. It achieved 6,000 mean rounds between failure. Gun "C” achieved about 4,500 rounds." ~ the end. Yeah... Guns are going to jam in combat. It doesn't matter; every gun jams. I think being able to quickly fix a jam is better than just trying to invent a rifle that will never jam.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:03:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Soooo in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IN!!!!  Soooo in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:11:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I talked to a buddy this AM who was on the selection committee. He said that one of the KPIs was a 20% improvement over the incumbant in phase one. If a submission achieved this, then there would be a down select test. Rifle "C" was only a 6% improvement so they stopped at phase one. In addition he mentioned that rifle "C" despite having 6% less stoppages, had more breakages which is considered more adverse for obvious reasons. Are they not going to release the results of the testing? Or is it confidential for some reason? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:20:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Damned SKS in .223
I blame Canadian Neck-beards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:24:11 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they not going to release the results of the testing? Or is it confidential for some reason? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I talked to a buddy this AM who was on the selection committee. He said that one of the KPIs was a 20% improvement over the incumbant in phase one. If a submission achieved this, then there would be a down select test. Rifle "C" was only a 6% improvement so they stopped at phase one. In addition he mentioned that rifle "C" despite having 6% less stoppages, had more breakages which is considered more adverse for obvious reasons. Are they not going to release the results of the testing? Or is it confidential for some reason? Acquisitions types don't like to talk about those who participate in trials to 1) prevent lawsuits and 2) encourage participations. Some companies may not to submit samples if they feel failures would be made public and effect future sales. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:30:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they not going to release the results of the testing? Or is it confidential for some reason? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I talked to a buddy this AM who was on the selection committee. He said that one of the KPIs was a 20% improvement over the incumbant in phase one. If a submission achieved this, then there would be a down select test. Rifle "C" was only a 6% improvement so they stopped at phase one. In addition he mentioned that rifle "C" despite having 6% less stoppages, had more breakages which is considered more adverse for obvious reasons. Are they not going to release the results of the testing? Or is it confidential for some reason? Its not confidential. A major performance requirement was NOT met and the testing was halted. eta the word "NOT" |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:53:34 PM EDT
[#42]
Maxi-14?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:54:41 PM EDT
[#43]
AGAIN???????????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:57:15 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Care to enlighten us about this open secret about M4s and M16s? Most of my Marines andI never seemed to have all that many issues with issued M4s or M16A4s. I'd like to hear your experiences with the weapons systems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It long known open "secret" that the M4 /m16 et.al. has serious issues. I not surprised it lost. And I don't realty care why etc... You guys can have all the drama and endless debate about that if you like. Just get on with replacing it with something better and stop messing with soldier lives. Care to enlighten us about this open secret about M4s and M16s? Most of my Marines andI never seemed to have all that many issues with issued M4s or M16A4s. I'd like to hear your experiences with the weapons systems. The only thing I hated about my A4 was it was like a damn musket compared to the M4s 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:08:10 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what? There is no doubt that there are rifles that can outperform the M4, the question is is the potential gain worth the billions of dollars it would cost to replace the M4 with something else? The answer is still no. The M4 is reliable, accurate and durable, the logistics for supporting it have been in place since the sixties. The Marksmanship programs of all our military services are based on the M16 platform of rifles, every serviceman serving today is trained and familiar with it. Until we see a major advance in small arms technology there probably isn't going to be a compelling reason to replace what we have now. I call serious BS. First of all, are you really saying that "Yes, some rifles may be better than the M4, but people who want them should just STFU and quit whining"? Is that what you'd like to tell the parents of a soldier who was killed because of a stoppage that could have been avoided? As far as BILLIONS of dollars? There are 500,000 M4s in inventory according to the report. Replacing ALL of them wouldn't cost one Billion. How much money do the armed forces spend on stupid crap that's just flushed down the toilet? Are you saying we can't afford to upgrade the weapon issued to every soldier more than once in 50 years? Hell, I don't know if rifle "C" is really that great or if it's worth it, but I'll tell you one thing: I want our soldiers to have the best. If the M4 has been eclipsed, then so what? The AR platform is still amazingly successful and will continue on. It's almost like people are so afraid that something might just be better. Hell if that attitude prevailed our Army would still be carrying 1903 Springfield rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:15:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are they not going to release the results of the testing? Or is it confidential for some reason? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I talked to a buddy this AM who was on the selection committee. He said that one of the KPIs was a 20% improvement over the incumbant in phase one. If a submission achieved this, then there would be a down select test. Rifle "C" was only a 6% improvement so they stopped at phase one. In addition he mentioned that rifle "C" despite having 6% less stoppages, had more breakages which is considered more adverse for obvious reasons. Are they not going to release the results of the testing? Or is it confidential for some reason? Bid sample testing is always non releasable. If a winner was selected, only their results MAY have been publicly released. Since no contract was awarded the results will remain unreleased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:19:54 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Length? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who cares? There are some things that matter more than performance. Length? And girth. There are videos out there that defy human biology...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:23:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Everyone knows it was a Red Jacket Firearms rifle. They built something that had never been done before and the Army just couldn't handle it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:26:14 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:38:58 PM EDT
[#50]
still be talking about this same debate 10 years from now. until there is a revolution in small handheld weapons nothing is going to change. Nothing that shoots bullets outperforms the m4 in its role well enough to warrant changing. wake me up when we have antimatter rifles or something.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
