Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/21/2004 12:49:52 AM EST
It seems that the Army is all gunho about the XM8, and the HK has built the plant to mass produce them, then why the stop gap measure of piston driven M4 such as HK's 416? The GI have been using the M16/M4 system for years without significant mechanical upgrades if you dont' count the new modular stuff. Also the military has never complained about the AR reliability, at least not publically. What's your take on this? simply having too much money to spend?
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 1:05:49 AM EST
Very good question.

I think that it is a simple fix just to keep an inferior system out of the... system.

Flamesuit on. Let's ROLL!
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 1:09:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Beyond_Visual_Range:
It seems that the Army is all gunho about the XM8, and the HK has built the plant to mass produce them, then why the stop gap measure of piston driven M4 such as HK's 416? The GI have been using the M16/M4 system for years without significant mechanical upgrades if you dont' count the new modular stuff. Also the military has never complained about the AR reliability, at least not publically. What's your take on this? simply having too much money to spend?



The only people "gunho" about the XM8 are its manufacturers and the project managers for the OICW.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 3:24:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Beyond_Visual_Range:
It seems that the Army is all gunho about the XM8, and the HK has built the plant to mass produce them, then why the stop gap measure of piston driven M4 such as HK's 416? The GI have been using the M16/M4 system for years without significant mechanical upgrades if you dont' count the new modular stuff. Also the military has never complained about the AR reliability, at least not publically. What's your take on this? simply having too much money to spend?



That's a very good question. The other question I can't figure out is why HK dropped their entire piston driven upper program when Colt sued them. They just capitulated and said "ok, we won't make AR15 stuff anymore if you promise to drop your lawsuit", and all their research and development went down the toilet, again.

HK has a bad, bad habit of spending years and millions on researching something, being the only company to make it work, and yet failing to bring their product to the market.

P.S. HK don't deserve my money anymore, I'm saving up for an ORF Mp5 type.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 6:32:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Beyond_Visual_Range:
It seems that the Army is all gunho about the XM8, and the HK has built the plant to mass produce them, then why the stop gap measure of piston driven M4 such as HK's 416? The GI have been using the M16/M4 system for years without significant mechanical upgrades if you dont' count the new modular stuff. Also the military has never complained about the AR reliability, at least not publically. What's your take on this? simply having too much money to spend?



HK is gunho for the XM-8 nobody else really is.

All reports from Iraq are giving the M-16/M-4 good marks for reliability. The only complaints have been on the effectiveness of 5.56 out of the M-4 at extended ranges, the XM-8 is not going to anything to address this.

Funding for XM-8 has been removed for the 2005 budget. I see little evidence the rifle will be adopted and plenty that it never will. The chances the XM-8 will be adopted by the Army are slim to none, there is simply no need.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 6:34:40 AM EST
There was an article just recently that said the DOD dropped the XM-8 adoption, wasn't there? I figure it will be back down the road, but not by 2006.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:16:52 AM EST
Personally I hope HK gets the new plant build right before the gub'mint announces that they will be using weapons from Colt and FN.

Then HK will have to make guns to sell to us civvies to stay afloat.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:23:53 AM EST
The HKM4 was more designed for LE and a temporary/back up solution to the M16 gas system.

The XM8 is taking over, whether you guys like it or not...it is...
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:26:38 AM EST

When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:29:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
The HKM4 was more designed for LE and a temporary/back up solution to the M16 gas system.

The XM8 is taking over, whether you guys like it or not...it is...



Is the XM8 that much more reliable?

All I see is a bunch of ugly plastic.

I really hope I dont have to carry that ugly POS, why couldnt the army just give us G3's if they like HK so much!
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:30:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:
The only people "gunho" about the XM8 are its manufacturers and the project managers for the OICW.



I agree. It seems to me that HK could care less about civillian shooters. Do you think they will start producing USA made 'assault rifles' for civillians now that they have the plant here? Probably not. They just want to sell overpriced pistols. Also, how supportive has Germany been through this war...?
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:31:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



You wont hear me bitch about reliability on my M4. the people who bitch about reliability are the morons who either dont clean it, or clean it and dump half a cup of CLP onto the action and wonder why it gets filled with dust and dirt. I had one misfeed with my M4 out of thousands and thousands of rounds put through it and that was due to a bad magazine(which I promptly fixed)
now the 5.56 M855 is pretty crappy for downrange lethality. headshots work fine, but center mass is pretty much a crap shoot past 120 yards.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:33:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"



I dont know I haven't had any big malfunctions that couldn't be cleared quickly.
They do seem to get dirtier faster than other rifles.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:39:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



You wont hear me bitch about reliability on my M4. the people who bitch about reliability are the morons who either dont clean it, or clean it and dump half a cup of CLP onto the action and wonder why it gets filled with dust and dirt. I had one misfeed with my M4 out of thousands and thousands of rounds put through it and that was due to a bad magazine(which I promptly fixed)
now the 5.56 M855 is pretty crappy for downrange lethality. headshots work fine, but center mass is pretty much a crap shoot past 120 yards.





I've put thousands of rounds through my ARs and never had a malfunction. (except when a canadian ss109 blew up in a rifle)

Was your use of the M4 in combat in the military? Or are you speaking of civilian range use like me?

For my part, I can never feel real good about a rifle that inserts dirty gases into the reciever chamber after what all those vets told me.

One day I was cleaning my FAL after shooting hundreds of rounds thru it, and amazed at how clean the inside of it was. And then I realized I was used to looking into the chamber of ARs after one magazine had been fired thru it.

As far as the round goes, I live in Montana, I see what different kinds of rounds do to live flesh. This rifle badly needs the 6.8 or grendle round.

If they switch to this new rifle, they are nuts if they don't upgrade the round.

I can't wait to get an are with a gas piston and a new round! That will be a real combat rifle. Finally.

Zen



"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:40:40 AM EST
Kurt's Kustom is working on one as well... And has been working on it for some time now. (Tho I do understand he's had some Hurricane related problems).

I'm going to be in the market for a new upper soon. I would LOVE for it to be a piston CAR/M4 style so I can be the first kid on my block with one.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:42:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 9:47:50 AM EST by Adam_White]

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



When someone talks like that - you need to find out what they are using as a baseline for comparison. Too often it is Hollywood or some weapons they have only "heard" of - such as stories passed down from Joe to Joe about the legendary reliability of the AK-47. Also, I have seen WRONG maintenance HUNDREDS of times on service weapons - things done that only make it WORSE - such as spraying globs of CLP into the an open chamber on a dusty day. This is a training issue, not a weapon issue. As for stopping power reports - just becasue someone wears the uniform doesn't mean they can't just spread stories they "heard" from someone else. Many reports talk about how such or such would be better - and are from soldiers who clearly then have no experience using that alternative item - they are just talking out of their ass. The evidence is clear that 5.56 fragmentation actually does more damage than 7.62.

The guys who shoot a variety of alternative rifles - such as other military forces and special forces types, very often seem to go back to the M16 family when the going gets rough. THAT is the reality.

Finally, for all the talk about a weapon shitting where it eats, you again repeat - accurately, IMHO, that reliability problems are caused by EXTERNALLY induced fouling - NOT FROM THE CARBON BUILD-UP. Heck, Jessica Lynch never got a round off - and people cite that as an example of why the XM8 would be better - the idea that a weapon with an operating rod and similarly mistreated would have also not been rusted to unserviceability is hard to grasp.

I have low crawled M16 rifles through mud, and humped them for miles - and they still functioned flawlessly - even with blanks. Of course, many folks also leave the dust cover open, and an open magazine well when trying this - on TOP of too much CLP gooing up the works - the resultant jams woul doccure with any kind of operating system.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:48:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



When someone talks like that - you need to find out what they are using as a baseline for comparison. Too often it is Hollywood or some weapons they have only "heard" of - such as stopries passed down form Joe to Joe about the legendary reliability of the AK-47. Also, I have seen WRONG maintenance HUNDREDS of times on service weapons - things done that only make it WORSE - such as spraying globs of CLP into the an open chamber ona dusty day. This is a training issue, not a weapon issue. As for stopping power reports - just becasue someone wears the uniform doesn't mean they can't just spread stories they "heard" form someone else. Many reports talk about how such or such would be better - and are form soldiers who clearly then have no experience using that alternative item - they are just talking out of their ass.

The guys who shoot a variety of alternative rifles - such as other military forces and special forces types, very often seem to go back to the M16 family when the going gets rough. THAT is the reality.

Finally, for all the talk about a weapon shitting where it eats, you again repeat - accurately, IMHO, that reliability problems are caused by EXTERNALLY induced fouling - NOT FROM THE CARBINE BUILD-UP. Heck, Jessica Lynch never got a round off - and people cite that as an example of why the XM8 would be better - the idea that a weapon with an operating rod and similarly mistreated would have also not been rusted to unserviceability is hard to grasp.



I wish I had a problem with carbine build up.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:51:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By macman37:

I wish I had a problem with carbine build up.



That's what I get for half-ass proof-reading /editing - thankfully, I caught it right after I posted - but unfortunately not soon enough to beat the quote .
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:54:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 9:55:24 AM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



When someone talks like that - you need to find out what they are using as a baseline for comparison. Too often it is Hollywood or some weapons they have only "heard" of - such as stories passed down from Joe to Joe about the legendary reliability of the AK-47. Also, I have seen WRONG maintenance HUNDREDS of times on service weapons - things done that only make it WORSE - such as spraying globs of CLP into the an open chamber on a dusty day. This is a training issue, not a weapon issue. As for stopping power reports - just becasue someone wears the uniform doesn't mean they can't just spread stories they "heard" from someone else. Many reports talk about how such or such would be better - and are from soldiers who clearly then have no experience using that alternative item - they are just talking out of their ass. The evidence is clear that 5.56 fragmentation actually does more damage than 7.62.

The guys who shoot a variety of alternative rifles - such as other military forces and special forces types, very often seem to go back to the M16 family when the going gets rough. THAT is the reality.

Finally, for all the talk about a weapon shitting where it eats, you again repeat - accurately, IMHO, that reliability problems are caused by EXTERNALLY induced fouling - NOT FROM THE CARBON BUILD-UP. Heck, Jessica Lynch never got a round off - and people cite that as an example of why the XM8 would be better - the idea that a weapon with an operating rod and similarly mistreated would have also not been rusted to unserviceability is hard to grasp.

I have low crawled M16 rifles through mud, and humped them for miles - and they still functioned flawlessly - even with blanks. Of course, many folks also leave the dust cover open, and an open magazine well when trying this - on TOP of too much CLP gooing up the works - the resultant jams woul doccure with any kind of operating system.



Thank you, Adam.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:55:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



When someone talks like that - you need to find out what they are using as a baseline for comparison. Too often it is Hollywood or some weapons they have only "heard" of - such as stopries passed down form Joe to Joe about the legendary reliability of the AK-47. Also, I have seen WRONG maintenance HUNDREDS of times on service weapons - things done that only make it WORSE - such as spraying globs of CLP into the an open chamber ona dusty day. This is a training issue, not a weapon issue. As for stopping power reports - just becasue someone wears the uniform doesn't mean they can't just spread stories they "heard" form someone else. Many reports talk about how such or such would be better - and are form soldiers who clearly then have no experience using that alternative item - they are just talking out of their ass.

The guys who shoot a variety of alternative rifles - such as other military forces and special forces types, very often seem to go back to the M16 family when the going gets rough. THAT is the reality.

Finally, for all the talk about a weapon shitting where it eats, you again repeat - accurately, IMHO, that reliability problems are caused by EXTERNALLY induced fouling - NOT FROM THE CARBINE BUILD-UP. Heck, Jessica Lynch never got a round off - and people cite that as an example of why the XM8 would be better - the idea that a weapon with an operating rod and similarly mistreated would have also not been rusted to unserviceability is hard to grasp.





Well, one thing I have learned in my short life. Is to listen to those who have been and done. The vets I talked to were not talking out of their ass. They were talking out of their experience.

Experience counts. Real world combat experience counts for even more.

When people with real world experience speak. I listen. And learn.

Even though I like the ergonomics, wieght, handling, sights, etc of the AR15, it doesn't keep me from seeing the reality that it is a flawed design that needs upgrading badly.

Its like the old 9mm 45acp debate. You can debate it on which you like better forever, or you can go to real life shooting incidents and see the real life stopping power of those rounds.

I like to let reality be my guide, not my personal love of a certain weapon. Just because personally I like something does not make it a worthy combat weapon.

Personal love for a weapon is a world away from it's ability to function properly and do it's job.

Zen



"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:59:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 10:00:47 AM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By ZEN:

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



When someone talks like that - you need to find out what they are using as a baseline for comparison. Too often it is Hollywood or some weapons they have only "heard" of - such as stopries passed down form Joe to Joe about the legendary reliability of the AK-47. Also, I have seen WRONG maintenance HUNDREDS of times on service weapons - things done that only make it WORSE - such as spraying globs of CLP into the an open chamber ona dusty day. This is a training issue, not a weapon issue. As for stopping power reports - just becasue someone wears the uniform doesn't mean they can't just spread stories they "heard" form someone else. Many reports talk about how such or such would be better - and are form soldiers who clearly then have no experience using that alternative item - they are just talking out of their ass.

The guys who shoot a variety of alternative rifles - such as other military forces and special forces types, very often seem to go back to the M16 family when the going gets rough. THAT is the reality.

Finally, for all the talk about a weapon shitting where it eats, you again repeat - accurately, IMHO, that reliability problems are caused by EXTERNALLY induced fouling - NOT FROM THE CARBINE BUILD-UP. Heck, Jessica Lynch never got a round off - and people cite that as an example of why the XM8 would be better - the idea that a weapon with an operating rod and similarly mistreated would have also not been rusted to unserviceability is hard to grasp.





Well, one thing I have learned in my short life. Is to listen to those who have been and done. The vets I talked to were not talking out of their ass. They were talking out of their experience.

Experience counts. Real world combat experience counts for even more.

When people with real world experience speak. I listen. And learn.

Even though I like the ergonomics, wieght, handling, sights, etc of the AR15, it doesn't keep me from seeing the reality that it is a flawed design that needs upgrading badly.

Its like the old 9mm 45acp debate. You can debate it on which you like better forever, or you can go to real life shooting incidents and see the real life stopping power of those rounds.

I like to let reality be my guide, not my personal love of a certain weapon. Just because personally I like something does not make it a worthy combat weapon.

Personal love for a weapon is a world away from it's ability to function properly and do it's job.

Zen



"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"




Where are you FACTS man?

Because someone told you something at some time does not make it so.

Have you EVER low crawled through mud with your AR15?

Shot THOUSANDS of rounds through it without cleaning OR lubricating it?

Used it in nearly every condition known to man (dust, mud, rain, cold, hot, etc) and NOT had any malfunctions related to the design?

Well, I have. I've NEVER had a malfunction that I could attribute to a "flawed design" with respect to the operating system of the AR15/M16.

Stop perpetuating myths about which you have no actual knowledge regarding.

Vietnam-era problems have long since been remedied.

I would not hesitate to go to war with the AR15/M16 as my rifle.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:03:14 AM EST
you know what though we should have a idiot proof weapon something that will work if its clean or not.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:03:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
...
Well, one thing I have learned in my short life. Is to listen to those who have been and done. The vets I talked to were not talking out of their ass. They were talking out of their experience.

Experience counts. Real world combat experience counts for even more.

When people with real world experience speak. I listen. And learn. ...
Zen



"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



There are many on this board who have been to Iraq and back - many have seen the results of a hit with an M16. Numerous reviews have found the M16's effectiveness in combat more than adequate. The only - and well known - issue here is that when the velocity drops below that magic fragmentation point, much of that effectiveness is lost.

Palestinian groups continue to complain about the inhumanity of the round due to its awesome effectiveness and wounding potential. That tells me all I need to know.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:08:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 10:17:32 AM EST by vito113]
Just my Pennies Worth on the M16/M4……

I keep hearing that its' "unreliable" and "prone to jamming"…… OK… so why does nearly every damn one of the worlds Special Forces use the M4 or a derivative of it?

Is it because they are stupid?…… NO!

Is it because they have no choice?… NO!

Is it because it is the best weapon for the job?… YES!

FACT!!! Special Forces People can usually buy any weapon they want… and nearly all want Mr M4!…… FACT!



EDITED TO ADD: A lot of people who complain about the 'faults' are REMF's, and I suspect a lot of them could jam their finger just picking their nose!

Andy
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:09:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 10:10:33 AM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By Mak762:
you know what though we should have a idiot proof weapon something that will work if its clean or not.




What planet do you people live on anyway?

Maybe a "LASER" (the kind that sharks wear on their heads) would be just such a weapon.

But it would still be subject to a bad battery or other power source, faulty wiring, a loose circuit board, or a host of any other problems.

Look, as long as we use MACHINES, they will break. NO machine can go forever without some periodic maintenance.

The trick is to make the MTBF so long, with regular simply maintenance, that the weapon becomes essentially reliable all of the time.

Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:09:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 10:12:47 AM EST by ZEN]
Ouote:
____________________________________________________________________________

Where are you FACTS man?

Because someone told you something at some time does not make it so.

Have you EVER low crawled through mud with your AR15?

Shot THOUSANDS of rounds through it without cleaning OR lubricating it?

Used it in nearly every condition known to man (dust, mud, rain, cold, hot, etc) and NOT had any malfunctions related to the design?

Well, I have. I've NEVER had a malfunction that I could attribute to a "flawed design" with respect to the operating system of the AR15/M16.

Stop perpetuating myths about which you have no actual knowledge regarding.

Vietnam-era problems have long since been remedied.

I would not hesitate to go to war with the AR15/M16 as my rifle.

_______________________________________________________________________________



I am relating my experience with veterans I have worked with and know.

Your milage may vary.

But do you think that HK is spending millions of dollars just because the AR functions well and doesn't need an update? Think again.

I'm glad you feel good about staking your life on your AR. To each his own.

But I feel exactly the opposite. I don't feel good about staking my life on a rifle that was flawed when it was made and still is.

When I get an HK upper with a gas rod in 6.8 caliber, I will be more interested in staking my life on it.

Until then I will continue to stake my life on my M1.

You seem to be taking my comments personally. I don't mean them to be. I am just sharing my opinion along with others. And we obviously differ on the reliability and round for the AR15.

And if you're wondering, I have done my share of crawling around with weapons including the AR15, but that is no substitute for actually being in combat with one.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:12:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 11:06:50 AM EST by magnum_99]
Originally Posted By ZEN:

Where are you FACTS man?

Because someone told you something at some time does not make it so.

Have you EVER low crawled through mud with your AR15?

Shot THOUSANDS of rounds through it without cleaning OR lubricating it?

Used it in nearly every condition known to man (dust, mud, rain, cold, hot, etc) and NOT had any malfunctions related to the design?

Well, I have. I've NEVER had a malfunction that I could attribute to a "flawed design" with respect to the operating system of the AR15/M16.

Stop perpetuating myths about which you have no actual knowledge regarding.

Vietnam-era problems have long since been remedied.

I would not hesitate to go to war with the AR15/M16 as my rifle.


I am relating my experience with veterans I have worked with and know.

Your milage may vary.

But do you think that HK is spending millions of dollars just because the AR functions well and doesn't need an update? Think again.

I'm glad you feel good about staking your life on your AR. To each his own.

But I feel exactly the opposite. I don't feel good about staking my life on a rifle that was flawed when it was made and still is. Then you are delusional. A Delusion is defined as unreasonably clinging to a belief despite all evidence to the contrary. There is AMPLE evidence, OVERWHELMING evidence that you do not have a clue about what you are talking about.

When I get an HK upper with a gas rod in 6.8 caliber, I will be more interested in staking my life on it.

Until then I will continue to stake my life on my M1.

You seem to be taking my comments personally. I don't mean them to be. I am just sharing my opinion along with others. And we obviously differ on the reliability and round for the AR15. No, I take it that you are completely stating OPINION about something that is not true and that you are ignorant about the AR15/M16 weapon system. QUOTE: "I FEEL the opposite." AGAIN, no FACTS to support anything. This is not D.U.


And if you're wondering, I have done my share of crawling around with weapons including the AR15, but that is no substitute for actually being in combat with one.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:27:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
Originally Posted By ZEN:

Where are you FACTS man?

Because someone told you something at some time does not make it so.

Have you EVER low crawled through mud with your AR15?

Shot THOUSANDS of rounds through it without cleaning OR lubricating it?

Used it in nearly every condition known to man (dust, mud, rain, cold, hot, etc) and NOT had any malfunctions related to the design?

Well, I have. I've NEVER had a malfunction that I could attribute to a "flawed design" with respect to the operating system of the AR15/M16.

Stop perpetuating myths about which you have no actual knowledge regarding.

Vietnam-era problems have long since been remedied.

I would not hesitate to go to war with the AR15/M16 as my rifle.


I am relating my experience with veterans I have worked with and know.

Your milage may vary.

But do you think that HK is spending millions of dollars just because the AR functions well and doesn't need an update? Think again.

I'm glad you feel good about staking your life on your AR. To each his own.

But I feel exactly the opposite. I don't feel good about staking my life on a rifle that was flawed when it was made and still is. Then you are delusional. A Delusion is defined as unreasonably clinging to a belief despite all counter-evidence to the contrary. There is AMPLE evidence, OVERWHELMING evidence that you do not have a clue about what you are talking about.

When I get an HK upper with a gas rod in 6.8 caliber, I will be more interested in staking my life on it.

Until then I will continue to stake my life on my M1.

You seem to be taking my comments personally. I don't mean them to be. I am just sharing my opinion along with others. And we obviously differ on the reliability and round for the AR15. No, I take it that you are completely stating OPINION about something that is not true and that you are ignorant about the AR15/M16 weapon system. QUOTE: "I FEEL the opposite." AGAIN, no FACTS to support anything. This is not D.U.


And if you're wondering, I have done my share of crawling around with weapons including the AR15, but that is no substitute for actually being in combat with one.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"




And so the name calling begins. By calling me names and calling into question my mental state (slandering me) you have shown who and what you are.

What you and others fail to realize, is that "crawling around in mud" is not combat. In combat, you may not have time to clean your weapon, and you may get attacked at that time, and you may get shot at at inopertune times.

When you're crawling around in mud on the range or in the woods, no one is shooting at you. So you can always keep things clean and workable.

I hope for your sake, that you never have to stake your life on your opinions. Because opinions and attitude, and blind love for your weapon will not keep you alive when the chips are down. Real world experience does that.

And with that, I am done with you magnum_99, as you have no manners or class, and I don't waste my time with people like that.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:42:59 AM EST

Doesn't this thread belong on the AR forums? This topic has been covered ad-nauseum. The myths of poor AR performance are beyond stooopid.

Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:45:48 AM EST
okay guys, you can always agree to disagree.

Despite what the vets have claimed, the DOD has always maintained that M16/M4 platform is a competent and modern system suitable for the US military. This tone has not changed even after XM8 annoucement. So, any more info on HK dropping the piston upper? I thought they're still going ahead with it, just not using the HKM4 name. And as for DOD, the local Army newspaper has been saying XM8 is a go and all indications show that it will come, but may be not as soon as 2006.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:50:48 AM EST
The HK M4 or 416 as it is now known is alive and well and HK are actively marketing it to the military and LE. As for the XM8, that is a cost and political issue and does nothing to improve upon the current weapon, that said, it would not surprise me if HK were backing two horses here.
HFG
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 10:53:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Beyond_Visual_Range:
...And as for DOD, the local Army newspaper has been saying XM8 is a go and all indications show that it will come, but may be not as soon as 2006.



Who do they quote as a source? What are these "indications?"
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:09:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 11:11:51 AM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By ZEN:

Originally Posted By magnum_99:
Originally Posted By ZEN:

Where are you FACTS man?

Because someone told you something at some time does not make it so.

Have you EVER low crawled through mud with your AR15?

Shot THOUSANDS of rounds through it without cleaning OR lubricating it?

Used it in nearly every condition known to man (dust, mud, rain, cold, hot, etc) and NOT had any malfunctions related to the design?

Well, I have. I've NEVER had a malfunction that I could attribute to a "flawed design" with respect to the operating system of the AR15/M16.

Stop perpetuating myths about which you have no actual knowledge regarding.

Vietnam-era problems have long since been remedied.

I would not hesitate to go to war with the AR15/M16 as my rifle.


I am relating my experience with veterans I have worked with and know.

Your milage may vary.

But do you think that HK is spending millions of dollars just because the AR functions well and doesn't need an update? Think again.

I'm glad you feel good about staking your life on your AR. To each his own.

But I feel exactly the opposite. I don't feel good about staking my life on a rifle that was flawed when it was made and still is. Then you are delusional. A Delusion is defined as unreasonably clinging to a belief despite all counter-evidence to the contrary. There is AMPLE evidence, OVERWHELMING evidence that you do not have a clue about what you are talking about.

When I get an HK upper with a gas rod in 6.8 caliber, I will be more interested in staking my life on it.

Until then I will continue to stake my life on my M1.

You seem to be taking my comments personally. I don't mean them to be. I am just sharing my opinion along with others. And we obviously differ on the reliability and round for the AR15. No, I take it that you are completely stating OPINION about something that is not true and that you are ignorant about the AR15/M16 weapon system. QUOTE: "I FEEL the opposite." AGAIN, no FACTS to support anything. This is not D.U.


And if you're wondering, I have done my share of crawling around with weapons including the AR15, but that is no substitute for actually being in combat with one.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"




And so the name calling begins. By calling me names and calling into question my mental state (slandering me) you have shown who and what you are.

What you and others fail to realize, is that "crawling around in mud" is not combat. In combat, you may not have time to clean your weapon, and you may get attacked at that time, and you may get shot at at inopertune times.

When you're crawling around in mud on the range or in the woods, no one is shooting at you. So you can always keep things clean and workable.

I hope for your sake, that you never have to stake your life on your opinions. Because opinions and attitude, and blind love for your weapon will not keep you alive when the chips are down. Real world experience does that.

And with that, I am done with you magnum_99, as you have no manners or class, and I don't waste my time with people like that.


Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"




Slander? That's funny.

No, I simply asked for your FACTS, not feelings, to support your assertions.

You have presented NONE.

While I, and many MILLIONS of individuals and, yes, troops in actual combat, certainly have experienced the reliability and viability of the AR15/M16 weapon system.

The only issue with its "design flaws" are those in your head (and from something someone once told you about their uncle John's or Bill's experience in 'nam), and are not based upon FACTS.


I don't have "blind love" for any machine, but simply know, from experience and the supporting facts, that the AR15/M16 weapon system is on par, or superior, to every other system out there.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 11:18:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mak762:

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
The HKM4 was more designed for LE and a temporary/back up solution to the M16 gas system.

The XM8 is taking over, whether you guys like it or not...it is...



Is the XM8 that much more reliable?

All I see is a bunch of ugly plastic.

I really hope I dont have to carry that ugly POS, why couldnt the army just give us G3's if they like HK so much!



I don't think whether a gun is ugly or not has much effect on how good it is. In fact, some still think the AR15 is ugly (many did when it came out). The G3 is dead...HK has moved on...
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 12:07:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 12:09:47 PM EST by DJbump]

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
The other question I can't figure out is why HK dropped their entire piston driven upper program when Colt sued them. They just capitulated and said "ok, we won't make AR15 stuff anymore if you promise to drop your lawsuit", and all their research and development went down the toilet, again.



Except that HK HASN'T dropped their piston driven rifle. They just renamed it the HK416 to avoid that whole infringing on Colt's M4 name aspect. Still no solid date on its arrival, though rumor says it will be on shelves in November.

Of course, HK still claims that civilians cannot buy their rifles or uppers, but I imagine it will be similar to the current Colt situation where many dealers are in fact offering Colt LE rifles for sale to the masses despite Colt's stating that they will restrict their LE/No-ban featured rifles to LE/MIL customers.

HK is not the only ballgame in town with respect to piston-driven rifles/uppers, though. Leitner-Wise has one as does Kurt of Kurt's Kustom. Of course, with L-W's track record, it may not be wise to put all your piston-driven eggs in their basket so to speak.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:51:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
When I owned my military surplus store I used to carry ar15s. I loved shooting them as well.

But, ..... when veterans would come in, they would ALL scoff at them. Saying they were unreliable and would malfunction all of the time.

I would respond: "I have had twenty or thirty of them and I have shot many of them extensivly and never had any problem".

They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"

These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"







Whatever. Having spent 3 years in the infantry, I can tell you right now those are the same morons that say "The Ak-47's better, coz it's got a bigger boolit! Huhuhuh." [insert sound of vapid mouth-breathing here]


These are also the same morons that would constantly bag on the M249, even though the M60 was the piece of ratshit that kept falling apart every time you fired more than 50 rounds through it. Yet the inferior M249 would keep thumping away, putting rounds downrange.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 7:55:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 8:10:25 PM EST by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By Rem700PSS:
The HKM4 was more designed for LE and a temporary/back up solution to the M16 gas system.

The XM8 is taking over, whether you guys like it or not...it is...



Contrary to all the documented evidence, huh. You must either work for HK or an HKaholic.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:06:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:

But do you think that HK is spending millions of dollars just because the AR functions well and doesn't need an update? Think again.




No, HK is spending millions in hope of making more millions by trying to create a "need" that does not exist.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:07:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:
They would say: "Yes, on the range the're fine, but once you get them into a real life situation (in the field) they will let you down" "They function in a clean range type environment, but in combat with dirt and dust etc, they foul up and don't work when they should"



Bla bla bla... most of the guys who say this are just repeating crap they were told OR they were in Vietnam when the M16 really did have problems. The last time I was at the shooting range I was talking to a guy who was in Vietnam (well, supposedly) and he went on and on about how bad the M16 was. Funny thing is, after a while I realized he had no idea my AR15 in my hands bore some resemblance to the M16 He told me some stories about how he just "tossed" his M16 and convinced the Army to give him a Garand. And not any old Garand mind you, an M1 Garand "A" model with a detachable clip (M1A??). He then told me a couple other stories too that were really tall tales, I forget what they were now but I was laughing on the inside.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:07:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 8:10:55 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Beyond_Visual_Range:
It seems that the Army is all gunho about the XM8, and the HK has built the plant to mass produce them, then why the stop gap measure of piston driven M4 such as HK's 416? The GI have been using the M16/M4 system for years without significant mechanical upgrades if you dont' count the new modular stuff. Also the military has never complained about the AR reliability, at least not publically. What's your take on this? simply having too much money to spend?



HK416 is not being used by the US Military.

It is a stopgap to keep HK from losing all of their MP5 business to Bushmaster.

And the XM8 is on-hold by congressional order. It's funding was suspended.

P.S. Adam & Red know what they were talking about...
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:08:43 PM EST
The AR15 design is not the pinnacle of all Assault Rifle Designs. Is it an Accurate Rifle? Yes. Is it more reliable than an AK47? No.

Is it possible to build a rifle that is just as accurate as the current AR15 design, yet more reliable than the AR15 , and have better terminal ballistics? Absolutely.

Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:18:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 8:19:18 PM EST by Dave_A]
Oh, BTW, ZEN:

The 6.8 is another huge mistake (except for SF use, where there are applications)...

It does few things better than 77gr OTM 5.56mm, and some things worse...

But it's a bigger booollliitt, so a bunch of folks like it...

As for the XM-8, the thing melts under sustained full-auto fire, but HK is billing it as a SAW (M249-class) weapon using the very Beta-C mags that the US rejected as unreliable in the past...

And the reliability improvement is purely theoretical...

Who cares if the XM-8 can shoot 10 combat loads of ammo and the M16 can only shoot 7 before it jams...

No professional soldier worth his salt is going to go that long without the quick field-cleaning that is needed to keep the AR going every what, 5,000 rounds? 7,000 rounds?... And if they don't it's not the rifle design's fault...

Iraqi conditions have jammed every rifle operating system known to man, including the vaunted AK47...

The solution is proper cleaning practices, not a new rifle...

And YES, the AR *IS* the pinnacle of assault weapon design. It is the flat out best assault weapon made today, by virtue of extreme accuracy and sufficient reliability to do the job & make it to the next regular cleaning...

Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:22:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
The AR15 design is not the pinnacle of all Assault Rifle Designs. Is it an Accurate Rifle? Yes. Is it more reliable than an AK47? No.

Is it possible to build a rifle that is just as accurate as the current AR15 design, yet more reliable than the AR15 , and have better terminal ballistics? Absolutely.






Don't waste your breath Bostonterrier97.

They don't want a discussion on the possible new rifle. Or the merits of the M16/M4, and if it can be improved.

You are just pissing on their sacred cow.

Don't confuse them with the facts:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl


Because as everyone knows, the M16 is the best assault rifle ever made and has no flaws.

It is totally reliable and has the deadliest round known to man.

And it needs NO improvment.

Just nod in aggreement with them and go along.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"



Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:31:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By ZEN:


These weren't just old vets from the nam, they were current vets fresh out of the military and straight from the front line. And I heard this from every vet univerally, and I talked to hundreds of them having almost the exact same conversation.

The AR-15 badly needs this new HK rod operated gas system. It needs a fix.

And it needs a different round as well, because the 223 has failed in combat as well, lacking stopping power and penitration power. They also talked about that.

That is the reality.



I am a vet, I have carried an M-16 (A2) to the field on 3 continents (only "combat" was Panama). I am perfectly willing to put its reliabaility in trained hands up against any rifle in the world. As for the stoping power of the 5.56 round, it is a trade off. The ultimate in stoping power would maybe be a .45 at 10 feet. Combat however occurs at a variety of ranges, and grunts have to cary their ammo. The 5.56 has the best stopping power at the ranges most encountered under combat situations (after years of the DOD studying combat) when combined with the weight of the round. If I could only shoot at someone once I would want a 7.62, but I would much rather have two 5.56 rounds.

Out of all the fire arms available I have an AR carbine for the unlikely event that I will ever be in combat.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:33:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:37:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By SNorman:

Bla bla bla... most of the guys who say this are just repeating crap they were told OR they were in Vietnam when the M16 really did have problems. The last time I was at the shooting range I was talking to a guy who was in Vietnam (well, supposedly) and he went on and on about how bad the M16 was. Funny thing is, after a while I realized he had no idea my AR15 in my hands bore some resemblance to the M16 He told me some stories about how he just "tossed" his M16 and convinced the Army to give him a Garand. And not any old Garand mind you, an M1 Garand "A" model with a detachable clip (M1A??). He then told me a couple other stories too that were really tall tales, I forget what they were now but I was laughing on the inside.



At that one I would have been laughing on the outside
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 8:48:14 PM EST
When someone says the HK weapon is superior to the POS, ancient M16 just nod your head in agreement and walk away... There will always be people stuck on brand name and be willing to pay 2-3X as much to do it while getting no tangable increase in benefits. After all how could people SELECTED or have a VESTED INTEREST to test it be biased?

When there is no problem to solve you create one to solve. It's called job security.

S.O.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:43:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 9:44:05 PM EST by magnum_99]

Originally Posted By ZEN:

Originally Posted By Bostonterrier97:
The AR15 design is not the pinnacle of all Assault Rifle Designs. Is it an Accurate Rifle? Yes. Is it more reliable than an AK47? No.

Is it possible to build a rifle that is just as accurate as the current AR15 design, yet more reliable than the AR15 , and have better terminal ballistics? Absolutely.






Don't waste your breath Bostonterrier97.

They don't want a discussion on the possible new rifle. Or the merits of the M16/M4, and if it can be improved.

You are just pissing on their sacred cow.

Don't confuse them with the facts:

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl


Because as everyone knows, the M16 is the best assault rifle ever made and has no flaws.

It is totally reliable and has the deadliest round known to man.

And it needs NO improvment.

Just nod in aggreement with them and go along.



Zen

"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"







And I thought you were "done" with this discussion.

Bottom line: Logic, reason, and FACTS are just lost on some people.

Oh well, let's hope they aren't in charge of anything important.
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 9:54:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 4:22:29 AM EST
My army experience with the M-16 was almost universally positive. the only malfs i got were from cracked magazines. Bad mags will double feed every time, and if the AR has one weakness it is that the magazines are too filmsy.
Link Posted: 9/22/2004 7:56:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sawgunner101:
My army experience with the M-16 was almost universally positive. the only malfs i got were from cracked magazines. Bad mags will double feed every time, and if the AR has one weakness it is that the magazines are too filmsy.



The British HK made SA80A2 magazines fit the M16, are steel and don't jam… they are the 'Mutts Nuts'! I have them…

ANdy
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top