so much herp it makes my head hurt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UAzd2-_sHE&feature=related

Guys got his own agenda. Let's have a ground war in Singapore and see what happens.

"Out-hits the M16 two to one"

WTF?

Whatever.

"A walking man cant use the sights very well so you ah fire from the hip full automatic that is where assault rifle came from"

He was one of the AR-15 designers.
 

I guess he thinks all weapons should be used on full auto now.

I've read some of his interviews in SAR, and the guy is a prolific designer.  Not sure I agree with everything he said, but then again the editing may have been a liability to his intended message.

One thing that is accurate was expressed by that Marine in the segment.  The M16 malfunctions under sterile conditions of range use, and I know many infantrymen and at least one engineer who have had FTF and FTE malfunctions in combat.  Yes it's a mechanical device and these things happen, but at the frequency we observe it happening at?  I attribute most malfunctions to magazines mostly, but they are malfunctions none the less-some rather difficult to clear.  Spend any time on the rifle range observing 7 relays of 50 target positions (350 or so shooters) for weeks at a time and the complaints about reliability shouldn't be a surprise.  PMags get issued to certain units for a reason.

The AK74 is flatter shooting than the AK-47 or AKM (especially the AKM), but I doubt if it's capable of better mechanical accuracy than the M4 or A4.  Ammo and sights have always been the limiting factor in Kalashnikov accuracy.  The AK74 seems to accurate enough for its intended role, however.

The retired Col. is right though (even if he does work for CDI-a liberal think tank), in that there has to be something better out there that exceeds the capabilities of our current rifle and carbine.  40 years is a long time to be stuck with that thing.

See, that's his big hangup.

The M-16 sucks because it has 30 round mags, and empties in 3 seconds with a 5 second reload time.

The M-16 sucks because you dont use sights, you fire from the hip.

The M-16 sucks because they haven't adopted 100 round drums.

This guy is hung up on how much lead you can throw down range per second. That's his only criteria for success.

Military doctrine left this guy in the pasture 20 years ago.

No, he was a DRAFTSMAN.  He SHRUNK the design.  Then he thought the same thing could be done to the  M14 and he sold it to Ruger.
 

The real question is...

What does the upgrade provide for the cost of replacing the M16 family of rifles/carbines.

It needs to be a huge fucking improvment to make it fiscally worth it IMHO.
I may be a dumb pogue but I am not seeing the value add here. If there is one its very small.

Being more aggressive about destroying defective mags would solve most of the problems... Keeping in mind that it's a mechanical device with certain design limits (like not firing 600 rounds on full auto as fast as you can change mags) would pretty much do the rest.



ETA: I've not seen anything that I would call a clearly superior weapon system, at any price point.  AK actions in a plastic gun, or gas piston AR's aren't it.





 

seen this before.  The guy is a POS, hopefully dead by now.

Quite a few fallacies in the video. So many in fact, that there is little point in debating any of the issues. According to their reasoning, attaching a light or a laser, increases jamming in the weapon.

There is some truth in the video, that should not be entirely dismissed. In the right conditions, the design is prone to failures, if specific maintenance is overlooked. I am sure we have all heard tales of soldiers picking up rocks and using them to hammer their forward assists to bring the bolt into battery. I think it is a combination of factors, that add up to these failures, which indeed can cost lives. Other designs are far more forgiving to lack of upkeep, which is a common occurrence in combat.

In its modern renditions, which include piston designs, the M-16/ AR-15 is capable of keeping pace with Kalashnikov designs. Perhaps not quite as functional when encrusted in mud/ dirt, but what they lack in ability to be tortured, they make up for in accuracy. The piston designs also keep things running cleaner, and cooler for longer. It is a very capable weapon, provided time is available to properly maintain the weapon.

Through personal experience, I feel the greatest single limiting factor, besides the resistance to adopt the piston design, is the cartridge the system shoots. I realize the 5.56 is a proven anti-personnel chambering, and provides its prowess through precision and velocity. But I also know, first hand, the additional benefit of larger munitions, and their effects on the human body. The problem we encounter with larger cartridges is that they trade off the benefits associated with the 5.56mm. There are many factors including weight savings, recoil, muzzle blast, and inter-changeability of munitions with other weapons. Going to a 6.5mm or a 6.8mm might solve some problems, but it creates other problems. Having a general issued rifle/ carbine means it must be a one-size fits all package, and with today's broad spectrum of what a soldier looks like, and is capable of, sometimes less is more. Weapons, and munitions are just a portion of the expense involved in changing the issued arm of an army.

I have had my share of injuries, including GSW, I can honestly attest I would not want to get shot by either weapon, as either Kalashnikov or Stoner's design will make your day really bad, really quickly in the right hands.

-PC-

This. They're expendable on the books. But no one ever gets rid of them...much less does maintenance on them. In '07 I still had black follower mags on hand. In an infantry unit.



I had a FTF in a firefight...that magazine was never used again. Never had issues with new mags (and never had PMags). Old, worn out springs will fuck up your day...



 

The M16 has had a piston since day one.  The piston just happens to be the bolt.  The cylinder is the carrier.






 

Awww....poor old bastard has Alzheimers.

And there it is.  A bunch of magazine failures, and one failed cartridge.



Mechanical devices need maintained, and wear parts need replaced.  



 

I could not watch more than 30 seconds of that B.S.

A good friend of mine deployed with brand new USGI mags when he was with Co. B  2 / 6 and went to Afghanistan in (I believe) 2009-2010.  All 7 were still in the white box when he signed for them.  I saw them sitting on his pile of gear (MTV, FROG suits, etc.), and suggested he upgrade them with Magpul followers, but he replied "I'll use what I'm issued".  New magazines can be defective, but it's not the only reason problems develop with the M16 series.  

Yes, his rifle malfunctioned during a firefight.  No big deal, as he was with his crew and he cleared the malfunction with "immediate action" like he was trained to, but still....I'd like to add he's a GySgt with two tours in Iraq, and understands the necessity of weapons and magazine PMCS.  

Cheap-ass USGI mags should be tossed after every deployment IMO.  The armorers tell me you can get by with 'em on two deployments, but since they're so cheap I'd elect to pass the fucking things out like candy.      

Personally, I think they should issue p-mag's and be done with it.





 

I never met a person in the Army whose job was trigger pulling that didn't love the M4.



We're using that shit in the harshest environments on planet earth and they're still running STRONG.


 

Fire superiority is extremely important in any fire fight. But thats why we have purpose made machine guns. The M16 should have FA for certain situations, but with good cover and concealment and a good field of fire, it can be used to devastating effect on semi.

+1.  Every malfunction I've ever seen related to the AR15 series has been magazine-related.  (Obvious causes excepted- bullets loaded backwards, operator error, gas tube meltdowns, etc.)
In normal use, with functional magazines, the M16/M4 is unbeatable.  I can't think of any other rifle I'd rather carry.  If I were to design a replacement, it would be a piston design with P-Mags- basically what the ACR already is.  

They could easily offload them on the civilian market and people would gobble up mags "used in _____stan!" probably for more than they're worth.

The new yellow followers (magpul follower knock offs) make the USGI's much more reliable. But the PMAG is still more durable.

I'm not a magpul fanboi but I would definitely like to see them as standard issue instead of the current USGI mags.

Yep. Only problem I ever had was either blanks or mag related. Even with minimal field cleaning my M4 always went bang when I wanted it too.

I much prefer the 240 though. Something about belt fed 7.62 gives me a hard on.

Yup. The only ones who had problems were doing something wrong. A little bit of retraining and they were good to go.

These threads always go well.  

Aren't the P-Mags cheaper to produce as well?  I would think that with the cost of aluminum vs thermoplastic, it would be an easy decision to make.

wtf? is on full auto the ak74 is much more controllable than the m16/m4. even larry vickers says so.

The more accessories you hang on the rail, the more likely it is to fail!  

Larry Vickers isn't to be trusted on this particular issue, to be perfectly blunt.



He's hawking the AK as a business move.



 

My unit never gets rid of mags until they literaly fall apart. I can't get the chain of command to understand that they were designed to be disposable.

more proof

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbe4maIL0A0&feature=related[/youtube]

I carried one in 1969-70 with 0 problems, but I cleaned it when it got dirty

good quality USGI mags are best

Love P-Mags myself.  Cheap, durable, and reliable.   I won't ever go back to GI-style mags.  I own both DI and Piston operated AR15's, as well as an AKM variant.  My piston-operated LMT is my favorite.  It will shoot everything I feed it - ranging from shitty TulAmmo to Hornady TAP.  

In my shooting experience, AKM's are dead nuts reliable and more accurate than most people think, but the ergos suck.   Charging handle and safety are on the wrong side for me, the mag release is awkward, and the whole "mag rocking" thing isn't my cup of tea.  I do like how easy Kalashnikov's rifles are to clean.  

I would really like to own a ACR, Scar, or even the new Tavor bullpup that may be coming to the US.  

Do we have any real comparative numbers for the AK's though?  Where are the trials?  Or do we just kinda take it on faith that AK's are so much more reliable? And it's not like the soviet block would have ever fluffed the numbers to score propaganda points, would they?

Also, I have seen AK's FTF and FTE due to ammo.  If mag manufacturing counts against the AR, why wouldn't ammo manufacturing count against the AK? And God knows Century has been able to assemble AK's in an unreliable manner, so we know the AK can be stopped by quality control issues at assembly the same way that the AR can be.

And that's what's pretty laughable about Sullivan's obsolescence argument against the M-16. He prefers the AK, which is even older and less technologically advanced.

What is this new tech that makes his rifle so superior? Plastic?  No, that's been around a while.  Steel?  Nope, been around even longer.  Stampings?  No, both sides were using that tech in WWII.  CNC machining? No. That's been around a while too and is used in AR manufacturing.

It's too late at night for sarcasm.

Thanks for reminding me. I almost fell out of my chair when he said that.

I was expecting him to say that it makes the system more complicated and thus more prone to a failure of some type.  But no, he said it increased the chances of it jamming.

I'd really be curious too.  I've never seen hard reliability numbers from a test that compares an AKM to an AR15.    

It also amazes me that the monkeys at Century managed to screw up an AKM.   I thought Kalashnikov designed that weapon for ease of mass manufacture by untrained Russian workers in improvised factories/workshops.

This is true, an AR-variant that broke down with a button-push would be the tits!  No pins to lose or fall out.

I was a SAW gunner my whole deployment, but i would never want a 100rnd magazine for it or an m4.  Way to bulky.  And nobody with any competency would have ever chose an AK over an M4.  The guys that did complain that wanted an AK were the ones that always had their rifles jam on them because they were to lazy to take care of them.

Weapons aren't designed in a tactical vacuum. Sullivan is promoting the idea that the correct tactical approach is a bullet hose and spray fire from the hip (Lord I have wanted to used that phrase without being facetious) and given that the correct weapons design is something with a 100 round mag and a happy switch.

The people who actually develop and use tactics in combat think otherwise. And from their ideas about tactics, different weapons designs flow.

Personally I'd choose the ideas of the Army guys who have actually used these techniques in combat over those of Sullivan.

The 1911 was originally conceived being shot with one hand.

Just because we have modified our approach to the design, doesn't change the philosophy behind the original design.

Sullivan is known for being an idiot.

why not redo the whole thing with what has been learned from the 50 years that 20 armys have had the gun...?