Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Posted: 6/13/2002 6:18:46 AM EDT
I am not to sure if after all the ongoing problems that it is worth all the money the Gov't has thrown at it-what do you all think?
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 5:37:49 AM EDT
Hmm, nobody is biting. Well I'll give my opinion then: Nope, nada, nyet, nein, non I think it is time to perhaps look for a newer weapon system to replace the 40+ year old design that they still cannot fix the problems on. That actually goes for the whole M-4 seies.
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 7:26:58 AM EDT
OK, what is the M4A1, and what are the problems you are referring to? The tank, the rifle, or is it a wretched replacement to the P-9 canopener?
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 7:38:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/17/2002 7:38:42 AM EDT by Archangel]
What ongoing problems are you referring to? Most, if not all, of the probelms with the M4 I've heard about have been a result of using the M4 in roles it was not designed to fill, or expecting it to do things it was not designed to do. It's not a main battle rifle, or a sniper rifle, or a magic do everthing weapon. It's a (rather good, I think) short to intermediate range carbine.
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 9:44:06 AM EDT
M4A1 Carbine (the M-4A1 carbine that is full automatic capable the M-4 is burst capapble only)-sorry for any confusion. I am just referring to basic functioning problems: Stuck cases, FTE, barrels shooting loose, light strikes, barrels "grenading", black extractor springs and "donuts", Broken bolts, faster than normal wear on the gas rings, damaged upper recievers, extremely high cyclic rates amongst other things. Just functioning not capabilities that is another topic.
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 9:49:00 AM EDT
The M4 is a carbine with no other changes than the barrel taper cut and the basic carbine design has been around practically since the rifles inception. I don't think the M4 itself is flawed, but rather the production methods have changed such that it makes the rifle "seem" unreliable. There is nothing wrong with the M4 that couldn't be fixed by having the "right" number of individuals working on the assembly process as Colt had for the original M16 design.
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 11:17:00 AM EDT
Tondog, maybe so But here are a few things to chew on these problems are not new to the Colt carbine series (albeit it is more pronounced in the M-4 series than other M-16 systems)-The M-177 series had problems also, I believe that the M-4 is beyond the M-16 series design limits, because when they fix one problem a new one crops up. The original M-4A1 carbine has/had a light barrel that is slowly being swapped out in favor of a heavy barrel. And the problems go back to the pre M-4 designation of the M16A2 carbine or whatever you want to call it. serious problems have been reported as far back as Somalia with these weapons and that means almost 10 years to figure it out and I personally don't think they ever will.
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 11:20:57 AM EDT
The answer = HK G36K !!
Link Posted: 6/17/2002 4:03:12 PM EDT
The G-36 is not to shabby-my only gripe so far is the selector switch it is pretty (I like the stle of the M-16) controllable and not too uncomfortable too shoot-But I do doubt it's usefulness as a club (heheh.
Link Posted: 6/30/2002 12:16:06 AM EDT
I am issued a M-4a1 carbine in the Army (SF commo support guy), and fire 500-2000 rounds a month thru it. So far, I have had no problems that were not magazine related. Yes, its an M-16 so you actually have to clean the thing . Big deal. As for the G-36, I have fired it a few times with the Germans, and did not really care for the thing. It kicks more then the M-4, the optics are not that great, and when I watched a German soldier jump down into the prone position his magazine broke open spilling his rounds all over the ground. Off all you guys that complain about it, how many actually use a factory M-4A1 carbine?
Top Top