Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/6/2006 6:04:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 6:18:01 PM EDT by EL_TIRADOR]
According to the 13 Mar 06, AIR FORCE TIMES, the USAF is trying to buy 35,000 M4's. They want 25,000 for deploying and 10,000 for training. It is on the "Unfunded Priorities" list, but it's number 6 under funding for seven C-17's. The estimated cost is $61 Million. That's $1742.86 per rifle!?!?

Having served in Iraq with an M16(not A1 or A2) it's nice to see. Although it's still unfunded, it's a sign the AF is headed in the right direction! Who has Colt stock?

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:08:45 PM EDT
Thats pretty normal prices, when you add in the cost of the ammo, training the armorer's, overtime for the range workers and a basic load of spare parts.

Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:09:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 6:54:28 PM EDT by RustyTX]
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:46:45 PM EDT
I think they should get sig550s instead
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:54:29 PM EDT
Some of us in the AF already use M4's
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:05:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2006 7:07:42 PM EDT by Black-Tiger]
Well, the M4s are usually reserved to either CCT/PJs or the SF guys (that's the Security Forces); so is good to hear that the rest of the USAF will drop their old M16 Mod. 601s and their GAU 5s in favor of the M4A1s.

You figure the USAF has a big chunk of the Defense budget for maintaining all them high priced Stealths and F/A 22s, but to see the USAF guys lugging around with vintage M16 is just depressing. (That's just MHO)

But good to hear that you're getting up to date.

On a side not; you still got the Happy button on your old M16s, which the rest of us gave up in favor of the BURST option.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:11:41 PM EDT
AF has been purchasing m-4s for a few years now. Add the price of an Aimpoint, mount, and BUIS (which our latest shipment of M-4s came with) to the price of an M-4 and I'd say that the price is about right.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:41:34 PM EDT
They can have some of mine for that price.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 7:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Black-Tiger:
On a side not; you still got the Happy button on your old M16s, which the rest of us gave up in favor of the BURST option.



From a practical point of view, I kinda like burst. But for the range, its about the full auto!
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:17:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By heavytank2:

Originally Posted By Black-Tiger:
On a side not; you still got the Happy button on your old M16s, which the rest of us gave up in favor of the BURST option.



From a practical point of view, I kinda like burst. But for the range, its about the full auto!




I believe the knock on the M4 "burst" was that it was not a resetting function. That is a burst could be 1, 2, or 3 rounds with the next pull of the trigger the rest of the available 3. (IIRC from BR II).

Maybe this was resolved.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:27:59 AM EDT
Doesn't the simple fact of having to comply to true mil spec and proving so add to the cost over a "mil spec" commercial rifle?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:34:01 AM EDT
I can't believe some of our forces are still using the old M16. Too bad you couldn't have brought it home with you!
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 4:56:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 4:58:07 AM EDT by FALARAK]
I wouldn't feel "under-armed" with the original M16. With the proper M193 ammunition.... it is a light, accurate, deadly weapon. Sure the M4 is smaller, but once you strap on all the options, it is a heavy pig.

I am glad they have tried to get the most service life out of these small arms..... and only upgraded the units who needed the newer technology the most.

ETA - when the AF is done with the 1:12 barrels, domestic M193 will likely be a thing of the past.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:19:10 AM EDT
I doubt it, unless the Army (for one) stops using M193 for training.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:44:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By boltcatch:
I doubt it, unless the Army (for one) stops using M193 for training.



Exactly - once the army is done with all thier 1:12 barrels (rumor has it they are phased out now) they will have zero need to train with M193, and will use nothing but M855. One ammo, consistent with NATO, same zero, etc....
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 8:54:15 AM EDT
A1s are still in Army circulation. When I go to Advanced Camp this summer we'll be using A1's for regular training, apparently we are issued an M16A2 to qualify wit for BRM though.

Steve
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 9:35:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EL_TIRADOR:
The estimated cost is $61 Million. That's $1742.86 per rifle!?!?



They must be budgeting for the rifle as-fielded. Colt is currently getting about $1080 per M4 carbine.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 10:01:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 12:35:10 PM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By EL_TIRADOR:
That's $1742.86 per rifle!?!?


Probably includes options like RAS, maybe optics, possibly M4 specific repair parts as well.



Who has Colt stock?


Nobody, it hasn't been issued yet.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 12:31:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By boltcatch:
I doubt it, unless the Army (for one) stops using M193 for training.



Exactly - once the army is done with all thier 1:12 barrels (rumor has it they are phased out now) they will have zero need to train with M193, and will use nothing but M855. One ammo, consistent with NATO, same zero, etc....


The need to train with M193 has nothing to do with barrel twist. Virtually all Army and Marine M16s have 1/7 barrels now. Using M193 for training leaves more M855 for combat.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 1:20:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SPTiger:
I can't believe some of our forces are still using the old M16. Too bad you couldn't have brought it home with you!hr


I'm an AF civil engineer and deployed with an M16A2. While deployed I never saw any AF members (or anyone for that matter) with the old M-16. It must not be very common.

But I do welcome the M4. If for no other reason that it'll be easier to manage on a packed blackhawk, or squeeze next to your chair in a crowded chow hall.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 1:26:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:
Using M193 for training leaves more M855 for combat.



Unless you are using up old surplus this makes no sense.

You can make M855 just as fast as you can make M193. When Lake City doesnt *need* to make M193.... I am betting they wont, and ANY manufacturing will be converted to NATO spec ammunition that is standard for ALL small arms in the inventory.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 1:38:54 PM EDT
The Air Force doesn't have all of their weapons storage upgraded to lock M4s-that's a unit-by-unit, typically self-help job that costs something like$85 per rack. 35,000 carbines take up a LOT of racks. There are also other things they use too-airtight travel cases for airshipment (an Airman typically does NOT carry his weapon while in flight) and things like that. Still, an extra $700 each sounds high.

Before I retired last year, I got to handle an Air Force M4 once. ONCE. They were unpacking them at the Security Forces Training facility at Camp Bullis and showing them off to me as I was visiting to work out a logistics issue with the school. They also got M240s to replace M60s that were older than the entire faculty and staff of the school. This was late 2003. The Air Force historically got hind tit in terms of small arms because the Army didn't understand how they were employed by the Air Force (and for a long time, the AF didn't either).

I'm surprised nobody took any shots at the fact that the carbines were behind additional C17s on the wish list. The current fleet of C17s is overtasked; they are not getting the down time they were designed for, which will eventually turn into mandatory down time for a badly broken airplane. Congress cut C17 funding because they "wanted to teach the Air Force a lesson in fiscal responsibility," though they still wanted all the cool projects to go to the bases and companies in their home districts (like a passle of new C-130Hs that the Air Force didn't need but one congressman wanted "his" AF Reserve unit to have for the status, or the other one that wanted to fill out a short wing in his district-but there was barely a mission for the wing as it was).

Ok, venting over. Just remember guys, the grunts can't do in the bad guys if they can't get to 'em, and then they need food, ammo, parts, etc. Don't cut the Air Force's ability to support the Army and Marines. It's dumb.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 1:46:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/7/2006 2:41:24 PM EDT by Mattl]

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By EL_TIRADOR:
That's $1742.86 per rifle!?!?


Probably includes options like RAS, maybe optics, possibly M4 specific repair parts as well. Mags too



Who has Colt stock?


Nobody, it hasn't been issued yet.



Thier FN manufactured Colt lost the M4 contract. FN pays a dividend to Colt for "intellectual properties" i.e. specs data. Even with ten mags like the SCAR and spare parts $1743 is way to high. Venezuela just bought AK103s at a hair over $300 USD but from what I understand mil contracts always way overbid because the person who authorizes payment is in deep shit if under or over.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 1:57:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Thier FN manufactured Clot lost the M4 contract. FN pays a dividend to Colt for "intellectual properties" i.e. specs data.



????????



Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:09:29 PM EDT
NUcadet07 What Regiment are you going?
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:19:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Mattl:
Thier FN manufactured Clot lost the M4 contract. FN pays a dividend to Colt for "intellectual properties" i.e. specs data.



If you're trying to say FN makes M4s for the Military you must be listening to the "SEALs" that sell jerky & beanie babies at the gunshows...
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:28:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SWO_daddy:

Originally Posted By FALARAK:

Originally Posted By boltcatch:
I doubt it, unless the Army (for one) stops using M193 for training.



Exactly - once the army is done with all thier 1:12 barrels (rumor has it they are phased out now) they will have zero need to train with M193, and will use nothing but M855. One ammo, consistent with NATO, same zero, etc....


The need to train with M193 has nothing to do with barrel twist. Virtually all Army and Marine M16s have 1/7 barrels now. Using M193 for training leaves more M855 for combat.


That makes little sense. Think about the M193 production lines producing M855. You would have the same number of rounds produced for training and war.

The only reason to produce M193 is for older weapons and for indoor ranges. The new frangible round eliminates the last need.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:38:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
The only reason to produce M193 is for older weapons and for indoor ranges. ...



Does the Navy have indoor ranges that allow M193 but not M855?

Army had the M261 .22LR conversion kits, and now the plastic training ammo with the special bolt.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 2:41:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By dport:
The only reason to produce M193 is for older weapons and for indoor ranges. ...



Does the Navy have indoor ranges that allow M193 but not M855?

Army had the M261 .22LR conversion kits, and now the plastic training ammo with the special bolt.


Little Creek for one. 25 yard range. Would not allow M855, so I had to qualify everyone on the M14 because it was "safer."

Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:24:02 PM EDT
I don't see how having A1's would be all that much worse than lugging around an A2. In fact, they're lighter. And unless you plan on poking your shots out to 400 or more, I'm sure the A1 sights are pretty good. I'm not saying I don't like the A2 sights, I just don't know if it would be that much worse to use an A1 in combat. And as far as the m4 goes, Yeah it'd be nice but the extra velocity is nice in the 20 inchers too. Just my humble two cents. I've never been in combat before, so take it FWIW.

El Tirador, thanks for serving.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:24:42 PM EDT
I really hope they get the budget to bring everyone's equipment up-to-date. That's the least we can do for all you guys standing on the wall. It's a shame all of those old rifles will probably end up in the crusher. If the USAF could sell them to civilian collectors, they would make a profit even after purchasing the M4s @ $1800 each... It's going to be sad when the CMP runs out of stuff to sell to us.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 3:52:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By t-money:
I really hope they get the budget to bring everyone's equipment up-to-date. That's the least we can do for all you guys standing on the wall. It's a shame all of those old rifles will probably end up in the crusher. If the USAF could sell them to civilian collectors, they would make a profit even after purchasing the M4s @ $1800 each... It's going to be sad when the CMP runs out of stuff to sell to us.



They could sell the uppers. And parts off the lower recievers. Buttstocks, etc. yeah, they need to do that!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:28:13 PM EDT
Not all AF Guard units have finished the A2 conversion. When I was at Sather/BIAP in late 2003 the CE unit that was there had M16's and the unit I was with had A2 conversions and a few of those had no forward assist chrome carriers in them. Our Guard unit SF squadron just got thier new M4's two months ago. We only stopped getting M193 ammo last year , 2-3 years after completing our conversions.
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:36:24 PM EDT
And think, if they beat the ATF over the head hard enough, they could make money on the deal!
Link Posted: 3/7/2006 6:44:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:
Originally Posted By heavytank2:
I believe the knock on the M4 "burst" was that it was not a resetting function. That is a burst could be 1, 2, or 3 rounds with the next pull of the trigger the rest of the available 3. (IIRC from BR II).

Maybe this was resolved.



The counting cam don't know if its in an A2 or an M4. No matter what AR type platform you put it in you could have this"problem"

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 5:55:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bennyjammin:

Originally Posted By SPTiger:
I can't believe some of our forces are still using the old M16. Too bad you couldn't have brought it home with you!



I'm an AF civil engineer and deployed with an M16A2. While deployed I never saw any AF members (or anyone for that matter) with the old M-16. It must not be very common.

But I do welcome the M4. If for no other reason that it'll be easier to manage on a packed blackhawk, or squeeze next to your chair in a crowded chow hall.



As you can see in the picture, I was in Baghdad the first week we had it. About ten days after we took the airport, Saddam was removed from the sign and it was changed to Baghdad International Airport. When I was there, M16's were the norm for AF guys. The cops and PJ's had A2's and M4's (GAU). Most of our replacements showed-up in Oct 03 with M16's that were converted to A2's. Our guys leaving Davis-Monthan are armed with these converted A2's.
Top Top