User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 11:30:15 AM EDT
[#1]
Thank you for the link. I cant say i disagree with anything the Marines are saying about the M4.
It is criminal that Otis is charging them $102.00 for the cleaning kits! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 11:32:10 AM EDT
[#2]
I very much doubt Otis is. I've got the price sheet and its FAR less than that. Heck you can buy them off the website for $70 ea (M4 cleaning kit). EIther they got the numbers wrong (i.e. the cost was for 2 kits), or they are buying from a shady middle-man. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 11:55:38 AM EDT
[#3]
"As fielded the M4 MWS is not as combat effective as the current M16A2. Use of this weapon as designed will result in unnecessary malfunctions, which could lead to the death of Marines in combat."
WOW! i didn't know that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 12:19:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Have you read the report? Here is the seciton I'm refering to: "TOPIC: Otis Cleaning Gear DISCUSSION: Marines are continuing to experience problems removing stuck cartridges from the M4 using the flexible cleaning rod. Marines are purchasing and carrying the M16 cleaning rod in order to quickly be able to remove stuck cartridges. The Otis cleaning gear consists of 20 different items, an increase of 10 from the M16A2 cleaning kit. The pieces are small and easy to lose making it a dysfunctional piece of gear. The cost of the kit is borderline waste fraud and abuse at $109.22. When ordered individually the components only cost $61.68. The kits sold for only $55.00 to the Defense Logistic Center. RECOMMENDATION: Do not field the Otis cleaning kit. The current M16A2 cleaning gear is sufficient and effective. Supplement the kit with the M9 cleaning case, NSN 8465-00-781-9564." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 12:30:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Sure, but Uncle Sugar replaced the barrels damaged from the multi-piece steel rods. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 12:56:07 PM EDT
[#6]
AA77778888 Thx for the link..Goog reading...I was in the corps 20 years ago ,we used the A1...It's got alot to do with what you get used too...If i had to go in combat today(like they would take this old broke down fart now) there is not a dout in my mind that I'd want a M16a1...the M4 looks cool and is a neet little rifle.Maybe for a swat team,not combat..to many little nick- nacks and moving parts .Now thats MPO
semper-fi |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 12:58:28 PM EDT
[#7]
The M4 has the same parts (except for the sights and the stock) as the M16A2 (and close to the M16A1). All the techy doo-dads that EACH cost more than the rifle seem to be the Corps issues. I think they can remedy extraction issues common to carbines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 1:03:20 PM EDT
[#8]
What are you talking about, the tubes on our rifles last something on the order of 30,000 rounds. The steel rods used, caused more "should" damage than real damage. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 1:13:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Since we already have bought and fielded all the electronic sights etc, I think those cost are really not an issue. The problem we are having is that the MWS hand guards are not all the were advertised as. They overheat rapidly, the unit in question, 3/2 often replaced them with the standard issue M4 hand guards because the other got too hot on rapid fire. Also point of aim retention was not occurring when sights were removed and reinstalled. Initially the Corps was testing the M4 as a weapon to use in MOUT, but since that time the army has gone with the decision to issue them to just about everyone that pulls triggers in the active force. So the were evaluating them for the same purpose. However, that is still up in the air because of the few hitches that arose. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 1:20:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Good idea.
Bad idea. But it shows that they've learned little from the Black Hawk Down incident. -Troy |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 2:21:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Yes I have all (each of the reports on the page).
Ok if the Logistics center is getting them for $55, why is the unit paying $109? That doesn't makes sense, they can go online an pay less than $109. I want to know where that figure comes from and if the writer is either mistaken, or biased and fudging the report a bit. (wouldn't be the first time) Another issue I have with the report is the talk about the 'extractor'. The report indicated the Army uses the same extractor in their M4s as they do in their M16A2s. Well we all know the current M4 extractor for the Army is the 'black' insert which is an stronger/upgraded extractor. It is now allowed to be used in the M16A2. Did they actually talk with current armorers, or did they look something up in an old -23&P? So where they talking about the blue insert extractor in the Marines M4s or the black insert extractor? My guess is they didn't talk to the right people. The SF guys in the Army have used this quite a bit (for quite a while) bugs like this were LONG since worked out. Did you notice all the rifles with loose barrels? Did Colt have a bad day or what? If they didn't install the barrels correctly you think they might not have installed the correct (black) extractor? Another issue with the report it mentions the new Holosight as a preferred non-magnifing sight. I saw no mention for the Aimpoint. Yet the Aimpoint has undergone trials, is proven, and has a battery that lasts orders of magnitude longer. (did they even test battery life?). They brought up some good issues and points, but there are some questionable items (as above). |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 4:04:33 PM EDT
[#12]
This report was prepared by a line unit NOT by experienced Instructors/ Professional weapons evaluators !!
The problem with line units doing there own BS T and E is that its full of personal bias. The report is not work the paper it was written on |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 4:14:34 PM EDT
[#13]
That is exactly what makes it so valuable. The weapons were evaluated in the manner they will be used, and by those that will actually use them. I'm pretty sure the Marines know more about what works for them than Jan Libourel or some other gunwriter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 4:40:19 PM EDT
[#14]
Man talk about having ones eyes opened about the M4. Thanks for the read. Although all the problems with the rifle are able to be overcome. Hmmm. It has changed my outlook somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 4:40:28 PM EDT
[#15]
I understand the value that line units can provide but you can do that by conducting an assesment of needs at an operational level where you are getting input and participation from those line units.
The important part is that you have experienced evauluators oversee and run the testing. Here's a good example of a flaw in the report : The report repeatedly states that the marines experienced an increase in DNQ's with the M4. Well of course they are not going to shoot the M4 as well as the M16A4 which they have been issued and been trained in for years. No one can argue that a 20" barrel is going to provide better accuracy at the longer distances (400-500 meters )than a 14.5" barrel. It is common sense . You also have to look at alot of studies which was the impidus to go to a smaller weapon , that is that engagement distances are no longer believed to be 400-500 meters. Professional Evaluators are not only objective ( most of the time ) but can take in the totalility of all factorrs before publishing a report. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 5:16:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Ok, this report sounds a bit strange.
If the Army AND spec ops guys like the M4's, and find them reliable, then why are the marines having so much trouble with them? I can understand the RAS handguards issue. But reliability? So I guess spec ops troops enjoy getting shot at while clearing jammed rounds, but marines don't? Also, I hate to ask, but what's with this new M4 extractor? Is there a major need for these in M4's? Is there anyone who's got these for sale? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 5:26:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Let me get this strait those of us who will use the weapon in combat, are not as capable to evaluate how well it works for us. However, non-combatants that can operate the weapon under controlled conditions are better suited to tell us how well the weapons works. What brand of crack are you smoking? I think most Marine or Army rifle squads are going to expose the weapon to a lot more abuse that simulates combat than, just about any of you.
Here is a flaw in your analysis, we don’t have any M16A4s, our standard rifle is the M16A2. Most Marine feel the M16A4 may be a better alternative than the M4 for about everything except MOUT.
The are several complaints about the M4 and marksmanship. The first being that the shorter sight plane now makes fine marksmanship more important and less forgiving of little errors. Combine this with the shorter sight plan making the front site post larger than a man silhouette at the 500 meter line, makes it much easier to miss at those distances. The second compliant revolves around the sights themselves, the iron sights on the removable carrying handle are not holding zeros well under field conditions, combine this with a sight drum that is calibrated appropriate if the barrel length was 17.25 inch in order to allow it to be used on both the M16A3/A4 and the M4 makes marksmanship a bit iffy. I must remind the non-Marines out there that the Marine Corps is a service of Marksmen, we pride ourselves in our ability to shoot. We think that is one of the things that sets us apart from the other services, the idea that every Marine is a riflemen. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 5:27:16 PM EDT
[#18]
The impetus for the Marines testing M4 was SPMAGTF (X) and the Urban Warrior experiments. The Marines wanted a shorter weapon to be used in MOUT, The M4 was apparently fit the bill. However, since that date the Army had added fuel to the fire by adopting the M4 as a general issue weapon. The Corps want to know if the M4 could serve as a general purpose weapon that was able to maintain the Marine Corps standards for marksmanship. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 5:27:51 PM EDT
[#19]
The problem with the reliability stems from the new magazines issued with the rifle, they were all Kay brand magazines and they were all were crap. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 5:54:44 PM EDT
[#21]
(1) I think this is the best way to test it for the purpose of the report. If you had a whole new unit being created or you were outfitting an army w/o modern weaponry that would be one thing, but this is like switching from, say, Dos to Windows, or Windows 95 to Windows 2000. There is a cost to moving to the theoretically better platform owing to the unit's relative familiarity with an existing weapon. To just ignore this because "professional weapons evaluators" may make something work better is asinine. It reminds me of metric system proponents.
(2) The velocity difference is dismissed all to easily by folks. The extra few inches on the A2/A4 cannot be dismissed and it's one reason I've been reluctant to get an M-4 for myself, even for CQB type training. (3) Spec Ops folks are more mature, proficient etc. and can probably handle the requirements of a more complicated, but capable weapon. But when the Marines field a weapon to line infantry units made up of capable, but somewhat immature 19 and 20 year olds, it's probably good not to forget who they're dealing with and the best way to do that is just throw the new gear at them and see what happens. It sounds like--as I would have expected--mixed results thus far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 5:59:46 PM EDT
[#22]
The study brought up some good issues: we need a better collapsible stock design. We need a better handguard design. Tactical slings have a lot of issues (just see the Burnsed sling thread :-) The Otis cleaning kit is not optimum (the price issue is a distractor and should not be considered in an operational evaluation). It made good suggestions for optics and support equipment load-outs.
The study had unrealistic expectations of the M4. Sight radius and front sight width are non-issues since the M4 really should be used with a day/night optic, with iron backup. 20" barrels are obviously going to be better at over 300M. Clearly, BZO is going to be different, why this was a surprise I'll never know. They need better armorers. Doesn't everybody know about the extractor issue on the M4? (I've been using a D-fender myself, but I've had that since before the black insert. One of these days I'll change, but why fix it if it isn't broken :-) Why didn't they come with the black inserts? The loose barrels were an unfortunate distraction, and any well informed armorer would know that this was a factory anomoly. The optics part of the study was obviously an afterthought, and poorly documented at the very least. None of the issues raised in the study are unknown to the "more advanced" professional users of the M4 system, but those users usually have the benefit of more extensive training and are generally better equipped to exploit the full capabilities of the system even in the face of it's known shortcomings. The best part, of course, is that it validated all of my choices for my long-time (pre-dates the M4 system) personal M4-like (11.5" pre-ban registered SBR) weapon system htweight, So how do we get one of those new Crane-designed collapsible stocks? That would be a worthwhile upgrade. aa |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 5:59:59 PM EDT
[#23]
I agree with everything you said STLRN.
And after reading their report I too have never liked the collapsible stock on a '16. Marines are Marksmen. As far as the increased # of UNQ's... I do not think that the M4 could every be as accurate for Marine Corps Marksmanship vs. the M16A2 or A4. Length of barrel and crappy stock hurt the scores. I loved my M16A2 ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 7:25:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Posted this earlier this month under the heading M4s in Afganistan. After seeing this report the metal rod taped to the stock seems to make more sense. But have to say that in 1998/9 the PSYOP unit I was in (9th POB) was issued the M4 and we had no extraction problems, and that we received an extra allocation of ammo to learn to shoot the M4 since most if not all PSYOPers had never seen one prior to their being issued. The M4 is not something that you can just throw into the hands of someone and expect them to put it on Battle Sight Zero and expect to be effective. It takes a bit of "Re-training" to learn to shoot it. lucasf |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 7:36:08 PM EDT
[#25]
lucasf: Concur. Saw the same thing in 1994 when my company in 7th SFGA got the M4. We had no function problems and the SOT, HALO and SCUBA teams loved it. It is not interchangeable with the M16. It is a carbine and should be fielded as such. Retraining is required and for general purposes, I think that the Corps is better off with the M16. Recon would probably prefer the M4. The lethality of the 14.5" barrel is much abbreviated over the 20" M16 as well. If you hit something over 300m. with the M4, the terminal effect is going to be a lot less than the M16, especially with the M855/856. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 8:29:34 PM EDT
[#26]
The Otis kit is overpriced junk. I bought one, used it once and it now sits in that "special" box along with the rest of the "special" crap I bought, things like Tac-Triggers and USA mags.
I spent a lot of money on "special" crap before I found the AR15.com boards!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 9:17:11 PM EDT
[#27]
The problem is simple: th m-4 is not an m16 and can not be treated as such. The sight radius is much shorter so you cnat expect 300 meter shots to match that of an m-16. But then try to find a wll camo'ed target at 200 yards when it is moving in low light. The extractor is subjected to a much more violent force because the gas port is closer to the chamber... it will take some tuning, but the m-4 has been around a while.
The m-4 is a tru assualt rifle, something the m-16 tries to be. The m-16 is not a true main battle rifle , something it has always wanted to be. For the Marine corps they need both an assualt rifle and a main battle rifle. The m-16 is the best comprimise....pat |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 10:15:22 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/16/2002 11:20:05 PM EDT
[#29]
STRLn , No I dont smoke crack , maybe if you read carefully you would have seen that I was saying that the best way to properely eval a weapons system would be TO USE LINE UNITS to participate , but for professional evaluators to run the testing , set crititeria and objectively eval stats.
M16A4 or A2 the point is the familiarity differences from those systems to the M4. I spent 3 yrs. as an Army Grunt , am a Firearms Instructor for a living and regularly test weapons for my agency. We tested the M4 and it came through with flying colors especially in the reliability area. Think about it , they used BS mags in the test guns ????? There is a good example of poor testing standards , why would you use a dfifferent mag on the M4 than on the M16A2/A4 ?? Dude I have fired in excess of 15,000 just through my M4 and I have had 2 MF's !! I'm not putting down the Marines I'm just saying its a flawed study |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 2:39:38 AM EDT
[#30]
I appologize if I misread your statement. What you are seeing is some of the line unit imput to Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity (MCOTEA) and Engineering/Documentation Systems, Inc. (Fallbrook).
If you go through all the PPTs you will see that the question is even asked, does the Marine Corps want to maintain its marksmenship standards. If so the M4 will not work for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 4:32:59 AM EDT
[#31]
As someone who is quite familiar with Camp Lejeune, Camp Geiger and the Corps all I can say is - Leave it to a Marine!
After all, the Marines were the ones who failed to understand the design/training/tatical significance of the A1's set it and forget it sight system. No, they weren't happy with the fact that soldiers in the Army could be trained to engage targets out to 350 meters by simple reflex and the command to "Aim center mass!" No, indeed, that concept of increasing hits in combat was too much for their reptilian brains. So we have the A2. The A2 isn't bad, but if you're training your warriors to f@ck with their sights WWI style you've missed the boat. Sure, it was good enough for Chesty Puller, but this is the 21st century now Devil Dogs! Sure, it makes the A2 a better target rifle. But he11, it defeats the major concept driving the weapon platform development and fielding. Instead of amending the tactics to face the realities of modern weapons like the Army, the USMC sought to make the weapon fit the demands of yesteryear's wars! They're doing the same thing with the M-4 now. And now the M-4 breaks their little stony hearts and their their little little minds, because it doesn't have the sight radius of the boarding cutlass. Don't get me wrong, conservatism is good to a point, but never forget the conservatives were the ones who almost killed the adoption of the M16. "It ain't got no wood? How cans ya go inna battle wif no wood?"  The M-4 has its limitations, but it isn't as bad as this report makes it out to be. So for all you Gyrenes out there: Semper Fi - No Offense - Amen - Good Day! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 4:52:42 AM EDT
[#32]
No offense?
I've slammed some Marines in my day (most of it good-natured), but how can you use the phrase "no offense" after that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 5:41:30 AM EDT
[#33]
i'm no Marine, and i'm certainly no expert, but i can offer a somewhat non-biased opinion here.
just remember that the military is above all else, a political entity. if a branch sees fit to trash a weapon system, they will! just look at the initial testing of the M16. the arctic tests were evaluated by a team that already made their minds up. they provided sub-standard ammunition, faulty magazines, and a number of other tricks to show the world how bad the 16's were ~ in other words, the tests were rigged. does anyone remember the trajically comedic developement of the Bradly fighting vehicle? it was supposed to be a troop transport, but by the time each general and colonel who had their hands out for funding got through with it, it could only hold six men and a ton of ammo and weapons that nobody wanted to begin with. as far as the mysterious cost increase of the Otis systems, all i can say is how do you think they get secret funding for secret projects? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 6:25:38 AM EDT
[#34]
The one thing I would point out..... "Profesional evaluators" often set about to prove something, "this will work", "this will work better". The M4-MWS is not a weapon, it is part of a weapons "system", with M-203's, NVD's, IR, and Lasers designators. Not only do they have to test the M-4, the have to test how it works with the other systems line Marines would be familiar with. The would also have to test the operating conditions that real Marines would subject the weapon to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 6:42:52 AM EDT
[#35]
I found the report pretty interesting although it sounds like some of the problems they are encountering have been addressed long ago - specifically the extractor and stock issues. I could be wrong on this; but I believe the Crane stock they are describing is basically the same as the Rock River Arms stock but with storage space for batteries.
The improved extractor and stock have been around for a year or two now? Although, in military bureaucracy terms that is practically yesterday, so its possible that few of those improvements have filtered down to line units. By the way, the M4 black extractor is available at www.sawlesales.com/ I'm more interested in the criticisms of RAS. I wasn't aware that heat build-up was such a problem with RAS. It definitely helps me reevaluate my own purchasing decisions. I was already having trouble with heat build-up on a 16" carbine in a Texas summer with standard carbine handguards with a heat shield. The M4 double-heat shields solved that problem; but I'm definitely reluctant to spend a bunch of money on something like RAS that may be a step backward in that department. As far as the evaluation conclusions, I think the Marines are correct in their conclusions which were basically: "No, the M4 is not a substitute for the M16A2 at 500m" and "RAS hasn't demonstrated itself to be an advantage on either the M4 or M16 so far". I wish they had gone into more depth on the optical sights though since that would have made the sight radius issue moot for 500m engagment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 6:47:20 AM EDT
[#36]
I agree that some evaluators sometimes fall into that pitfall. Evaluators should base testing criteria primarily on modern mission criteria and needs assesment from operational units.
By the way I noticed your unit patch , did you serve in the 3 Inf. ? I was in the Marne Div. from 2/82 - 8/83 . Loved my time in Germany |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 6:49:38 AM EDT
[#37]
That is nice to know that you know about Camp Gieger, but since none of the testing or evaluation occurred there, what does that have to do with the test.
I think you have kind of misread history. The first thing is that the Marine Corps wanted a sub-caliber rifle for Vietnam, we even went so far as testing Stoners there by equipping an entire rifle company with them to see if is was a possible standard issue weapon. The army through its ordnance Corps attempted to not adopt the M16 because it didn’t posses those rifle like qualities they desired at the time. They went so far a sabotaging tests for the weapon. I have to agree that the Marine Corps does over emphasis aimed rifle fire, however people way above my pay grade make those decisions, as whether accurate aimed fire is the TTP that the Marine Corps will train for. But since that is the way we train and indoctrinate troops we cannot in midstream give them a tool that cannot accomplish those goals On the issue of training to shoot center mass, well that is the way I was trained to shoot. But that really doesn’t influence hits. Since random fire in the general direction of the enemy has caused more hits than “aimed” fire. Since the introduction of the army’s new methods of marksmanship training, they have not improved marksmanship and most with only the training they receive in the army can not diagnose and correct problems in marksmanship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 6:49:47 AM EDT
[#38]
4/84-10/85 Kitzigen Germany, Larson Barracks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 7:20:12 AM EDT
[#39]
m my $0.01
the report clearly shows the m4 was a failure as evaluated the ras overheats and burns hands, jams, breaks, the m203 mount breaks, marines are buying their own cleaning gear, front sight is too big, and on and on. the m16 type rifle has been in service for a LONG time and i see no excuse for the failures listed in the reports. the person writing the report clearly states "the hypothesis that this rifle and MWS enhances the combat effectiveness of the infantryman has not yet been proven", "it retards and slows down action on the battlefield", on and on. the m203 mount falling off is a real classic. if the us mil wants a carbine that is only effective out to 300 m and one that has been battle proven since 1947 the ak 47 would fit the bill nicely, but which will not happen in my lifetime due to politics/ignorance. the one saving grace the m16a2 offers over the ak is its great accuracy out to 500m, take that away what does a grunt have? a less reliable weapon than the bad guys that is more prone to failure, a sad situation. all a grunt has is his rifle and providing a reliable/acurate weapon is an obligation the us gov has no right to shirk. i have spent my share of time at 29 palms/desert and the mountains and 500 m shots are readily available in that type of terrain. not all fighting is going to be mout/close quarters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 8:23:39 AM EDT
[#40]
The study is flawed if they are attributing the failures to certain aspects of the FIELDED M4 MWS not the particular things that need to be changed. For instance looked at another way the M4 is good if:
1: Different SLING 2: They keep the current cleaning kit for m16 3: They use the DELTA Equiptment on the M4 4: They purchase a narrower front sight bead 5: They go with Different Mags 6: They purchase a heavier Spring for the Bolt I have read about Ranger Units in Nam who instead of putting 30 rounds into their 30 RND Mags they instead put only 18-20 RNDS in the Mags and this helped keep Misfires to a lower rate. But the Marines have time. I don't think it has occurred to the higher ups that they can put together whatever M4 they want. They can have them with 14.5" Barrels They can have them in 16" Barrels they can have them In CAR-15 Configurations w silencers/ without silencers With Regular A2 grips and KAS floating Rail System or whatever the hell they want. If I was procurring weapons for Front line troops I would just issue Them with A M16A2 with 20" Barrel and Aimpoint or Trijicon TAO1 With the 40MM Gernade Launcher. And a PVS14 NV Monocular. That would probably have made them happy. Benjamin |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 9:33:21 AM EDT
[#41]
2 questions for the guys in the Marines;
#1. who has experience with the PVS17? what is your opinion base on experience with other weapons mounted rifle sights? #2. on the over heating probs of the Knights RAS, i see the report says they got so hot the rail panels peeled off!? i have one of these and dont have problems on my semi auto but are they over heating because of all the aluminum parts? i have had heating probs with the old style (non M4) HG's but the M4 gaurds are great, they just dont have the fancy rail to hang sheet on. thanks guys, scott |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 9:37:55 AM EDT
[#42]
Dead-nuts on, Xero. My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 10:07:59 AM EDT
[#43]
Seems to me, this is more an issue of...do you want a short, light carbine or a heavier rifle.
The rifle is better at range and more lethal past 200 yards... the carbine is lighter and more nimble. The Marines fought on Guadalcanal with bolt guns because the M1 semi-auto rifle was "less accurate"...they quickly changed to the M1 "Garand" following that close encounter with the Japanese... lesson learned... 8x firepower has more value than 5% better accuracy. Seems to me both the Army and the Marines would be better served with a 20" upper, perhaps a 14.5 incher in the gear locker for city/jungle fighting.... Who comes up with these "common engagement distances" anyway... sounds like BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 10:32:22 AM EDT
[#44]
Please don't forget that the adoption of the M16 also killed a lot of Marines. The stories of Marines found dead with their weapon broken open and the cleaning rod jammed down the barrel to dislodge a stuck cartridge case after firefights in Vietnam ~1968 aren't apocryphal. The Marine Corps has some history with a weapon system being jammed down their throats and are rightfully very cautious. Call all the names you like, but I'll take the Gunner's opinion over yours. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 11:51:23 AM EDT
[#46]
"RECOMMENDATION: Get rid of the Maybelline cleaning gear."
Excuse me while I bust a freaking gut laughing.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 3:05:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Echoing what many have posted:
The M4 is a specialty weapon. Fielding it as a general purpose weapon is a mistake, just as it was a mistake to field the M1 Carbine as a general purpose weapon. Carbines certainly have their place, and MOUT/CQC/SWAT/Spec-Ops are obviously among them, but even with today's military missions, these are the tasks of a minority of the infantry. Clearly, if they were evaluating M4s based on the jobs that the M16 does, the M4 will fail, because it can't do those jobs as well. I agree with the idea that they should keep the M16A2s (or better, switch to the M16A3), and keep some M4 uppers around for MOUT duty. The lack of a collapsable stock is not really an issue for the Marines. They can also keep some M4A1s for Recon and other small groups to use as necessary, such as air/heliborne ops. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2002 3:23:40 PM EDT
[#48]
As I have always said, "the M4 is a joke". Give me an A2 or an A4 any day of my life.
 GG |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2002 3:47:15 AM EDT
[#49]
What exactly would you like to know? Compared to the old PVS-4 they are really good, but they suffer from the same problem any weapons mounted NVS suffers from, it is mounted to the rifle and to see the rifle has to be shouldered.
Not sure why they were overheating, it was one of the observations on the rifle range. So it wasn't a case of full auto, when the fastest they were shot was 10 RPM. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2002 9:36:47 AM EDT
[#50]
forgive my ignorance, what is "MOUT" ???
|
|
|
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.
.jpg)
!