Better Than The M4, But You Can't Have It

[civdiv]

BF,

This is marginally related to CMSF but really can't be portrayed in a game of this scale. Feel free to move this to the 'General' section as you see fit.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219forafmcnt/

[aka_tom_w]

worth the read

Thanks

that was a great story

-tom w

[akd]

Problems of the M16/M4 system exaggerated. (Rifle must be maintained to function.) Benefits of the 416 exaggerated. (Rifle must still be maintained to function, but not quite as much.) The real opportunity cost problem that is at the heart of the issue glossed over.

Nothing new here, unfortunately. All rifles will jam if not maintained or if fed with bad magazines or ammunition. Yes, even AKs.

[Battlefront.com]

Whatever the arguments are for this or that weapon, we shouldn't be using something that is based on such old technology. If we can't build a better gun ourselves, then we should buy someone else's like we did for the M240 and M249.

The XM-8 was a bloated disaster that should have been killed before it even got started. Typical Military Industrial Complex... let's take something that works, spend millions to make it not work, then move on to something else once the funding is finally cut. The XM-25/29 looks doomed too, but at least it tried to offer something completely revolutionary.

As for all weapons needing cleaning and maintainence. That's true. However, some require more and some less. The German G3 and AK family certainly had less problems than the M16/M4 and they are even older technology.

Steve

[MeatEtr]

IIRC, this is that gun I saw on Discovery channels Future Weapons. The ex-navy seal host had it completely submerged in sand and water and it had no problem firing at all. It was pretty impressive.

Edit: Here it is, found it. Future Weapons - H&K 416 enjoy!

[ February 22, 2007, 04:56 AM: Message edited by: MeatEtr ]

[J Ruddy]

I'm with Steve on this one.

1966 Ferrari 275 GTB versus a 2006 Corvette Callaway.

[MikeyD]

Considering the Korean War era M14 was showing up in an increasing number of Iraq photos for awhile, instead of concentrating on 'future weapons' perhaps they should instead take a backward look over their shoulders at a few 'past weapons' I just finished reading one soldier's blog rating the weapons in-theatre - his conclusion: "I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!!"

Is it my imagination, or has 'auxiliary' use of the M14 dropped off in Iraq - or perhaps they simply aren't considered photo-op worthy anymore?

[ February 22, 2007, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Considering the Korean War era M14

The Korean War ended in 1953.

[MikeyD]

D'oh! You're right! According to Wikipedia M14 was designed in 1954 and about 1.4 million produced from '59-64. I don't know where I got it in my head it had made it into the Korean conflict.

[aka_tom_w]

nothing.

[ February 22, 2007, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

D'oh! You're right! According to Wikipedia M14 was designed in 1954 and about 1.4 million produced from '59-64. I don't know where I got it in my head it had made it into the Korean conflict.

Interestingly, the FN was developed and adopted at about the same time (mid to late 1950s), in the same calibre, in Britain and Canada and a few other places.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Considering the Korean War era M14 was showing up in an increasing number of Iraq photos for awhile, instead of concentrating on 'future weapons' perhaps they should instead take a backward look over their shoulders at a few 'past weapons' I just finished reading one soldier's blog rating the weapons in-theatre - his conclusion: "I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!!"

Is it my imagination, or has 'auxiliary' use of the M14 dropped off in Iraq - or perhaps they simply aren't considered photo-op worthy anymore?

Actually, a new, modernized version of the M14 is now appearing for CQB use. It's called the M14 Mod 0, and it is essentially an M14 with polymer stocks and hand grips, a folding stock, and an 18 or 22 inch barrel. Some special mission units are adopting it.

http://www.fulton-armory.com/MARifles.htm

http://www.dentrinityshop.com/pr_list.jsp?cid=AEG&bid=GP1AS

[akd]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Considering the Korean War era M14 was showing up in an increasing number of Iraq photos for awhile, instead of concentrating on 'future weapons' perhaps they should instead take a backward look over their shoulders at a few 'past weapons' I just finished reading one soldier's blog rating the weapons in-theatre - his conclusion: "I cant help but notice that most of the good fighting weapons and ordnance are 50 or more years old!!!!!!!!! With all our technology, it's the WWII and Vietnam era weapons that everybody wants!!!!"

Is this from a blog, or from that infamous e-mail that shows up attributed to a different soldier everytime it makes the rounds? The quote seems awfully familiar.

Is it my imagination, or has 'auxiliary' use of the M14 dropped off in Iraq - or perhaps they simply aren't considered photo-op worthy anymore?

Originally posted by akd:

HIGH-RES

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> U.S. Army Spc. Jason Peacock, a rifleman from Alpha Troop, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, scans the rooftops from his overwatch position during a cordon and search mission in Baghdad, Iraq, Feb. 8, 2007. The A-1/14th CAV is conducting cordon and search missions with 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade,6th Iraqi National Police, in order to maintain security and stability in Baghdad

</font>

[sross]

I think the M14 that is mostly seen, like the one above, may actually be the M21 sniper version of the M14, which is still in use. I believe most of the M14's were surplused out 10-15 years ago.

[MikeyD]

Some people claim to be able to tell the difference between an M21 and a tricked-out M14 but I'm not knowledgeable enough to, unless its without a scope mount - that's a hint right there. It seems a fair number of M14s had been pulled out of mothballs and sent off to reserve units to bolster their hitting power.

"...or from that infamous e-mail that shows up attributed to a different soldier everytime". Ooooh, that sounds familiar! You may be right. I thought it sounded familiar when I ran across it yesterday. A self-perpetuating urban legend thing like the equally infamous 'spitting hippie protestor' story from Vietnam.

Back to the original topic, and tying it with the urban legend story. Is the M16/M4 as awful or as wonderful as the competing stories claim? In one case a new better rifle would be worth the effort and expense, in the other it wouldn't.

[ February 23, 2007, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[acrashb]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Is the M16/M4 as awful

According to the people I know who use them for work, no. They are reliable in field use, and have high lethality. I don't doubt the 416 is 'better', as in is easier to clean (I personally despise cleaning DI systems) and maybe the bolt components (as in extractor spring(s)) last longer through less heating, but so what? Spending a billion dollars to get a million of benefit is a net loss.

The M4/M16 series, in adverse condition (across the beach etc) testing (USN special warfare), works as well or better than any of the piston-upper proposed replacements.

The 416 is a great system (I've used the same gas piston technology in G36/SL8 guise) - as far as I know it's the only piston system that passed last year's USASOC tests, and it has out-shot the M4 in accuracy testing by CAG (Delta) - but again, so what? It is incrementally great, not revolutionarily great, so it's not worth the expense - throughout the entire logistics chain - to switch.

A Porsche would be better than my current car, and I "can't have it", but I don't need it either.

[tiny_tanker]

The problem I see is that we've been spending billions for small "improvements" on the M16/M4 for the past 40 years. What's spending a few billion more, to get what seems (i haven't fired the M4 or the M416 of course) to be a much larger improvement?

On a side note, what's the comparison in performance between the G36 and the M16/M4?

[akd]

Originally posted by sross:

I think the M14 that is mostly seen, like the one above, may actually be the M21 sniper version of the M14, which is still in use. I believe most of the M14's were surplused out 10-15 years ago.

They are mostly M14s pulled out of storage. I posted an article on the Army's current DMR program awhile back. Look for "Stryker snipers."

In the case of the above rifle, I think it is an M14 with Knight's Armament Company's M14 Rail Adapter System and a scope added-on.

http://knightarmco.com/slicks/M14%20RAS%20slick04.pdf

[ February 23, 2007, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[akd]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Back to the original topic, and tying it with the urban legend story. Is the M16/M4 as awful or as wonderful as the competing stories claim? In one case a new better rifle would be worth the effort and expense, in the other it wouldn't.

The Army does believe a new system would be worth the effort and expense, but does not seem to believe that the effort and expense should go towards acquiring a system now that offers only marginal improvements and which would preclude adoption of a system that might offer exponential increases in capabilities 10 years later.

It's not so much that the M16/M4 is so wonderful, but that a system like the HK 416 is really not that much more wonderful.

edit: oops, that was supposed to be an edit, not a new post.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Some people claim to be able to tell the difference between an M21 and a tricked-out M14 but I'm not knowledgeable enough to, unless its without a scope mount - that's a hint right there. It seems a fair number of M14s had been pulled out of mothballs and sent off to reserve units to bolster their hitting power.

"...or from that infamous e-mail that shows up attributed to a different soldier everytime". Ooooh, that sounds familiar! You may be right. I thought it sounded familiar when I ran across it yesterday. A self-perpetuating urban legend thing like the equally infamous 'spitting hippie protestor' story from Vietnam.

Back to the original topic, and tying it with the urban legend story. Is the M16/M4 as awful or as wonderful as the competing stories claim? In one case a new better rifle would be worth the effort and expense, in the other it wouldn't.

IIRC, all M21s have polymer stocks and hand grips. If it has wood it's a M14.

[Splinty]

M14s are pretty common over here, the Cav guys I was out with last night are using the same model as in the photo above.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

The problem I see is that we've been spending billions for small "improvements" on the M16/M4 for the past 40 years. What's spending a few billion more, to get what seems (i haven't fired the M4 or the M416 of course) to be a much larger improvement?

On a side note, what's the comparison in performance between the G36 and the M16/M4?

I have spent time with all three weapons

I was always a big fan of the M-16. I found it a little uncomfortable to handle and a little too unbalenced due to its length. But I was impressed with its accuracy and range.

With the 40mm grenade launcher I found the weapon to feel alot more solid and better balenced and was a very stable firing platform.

The M4 I do not have alot of experience with.

It handled well but I found the recoil to be pretty awful and very hard to keep the 'floating effect' from throwing off my aim when I had it in full auto.

Even in short controlled bursts the weapons barrel constantly drifted upwards because of severe recoil.

It was accurate as well for a carbine. But the range despite being listed as close to the M16s range, I found the drop off to be pretty severe past a certain range. The rounds spin started to fall apart after a few hundred meters and its accuracy was almost useless at that point.

In an urban enviroment that would matter little however.

I am probably very biased when it comes to the G36

I have fired probably 20,000 rounds from that weapon.

I found it to be an extremly solid weapon.

Very comfortable to hold in any posistion, very well balenced and the recoil was manageable enough in full auto mode if you limited your bursts.

It was also very accurate and with the standerd 3x optical site you could engage targets with reasonable accuracy out to medium ranges.

You also get a red dot sight with 1.0x magnification and you use that site with both eyes open which makes it perfect for controlled shots while on the move and in short range situations like urban combat.

It works both in daytime and is battery illuminated at night.

Penetration is about the same as the M4 and M16.

It leaves something to be desired since it it a 5.56mm round but is decent enough.

One final thing is that in a few minutes you can convert the weapon into a faux LMG by adding a bipod and 100 round box magazine.

It does not excel in that role but in Afghanistan we had two kits per platoon in addition to our MG3s.

At medium ranges we could put alot of rounds at a target and the bipod kept recoil pretty well controlled.

The box magazines led to a few more jams and the barrels are not made for that kind of abuse.

But when needed it let us convet a carbine into a decent LMG to increase our firepower.

Like all H&K weapons it is pretty lavishly manufactored. The parts fit together perfectly and we had to send back very very few back due to defects.

It took abuse pretty well, but the weapon does not like sand or dust at all.

Matinence is very important to keep the weapon in working order.

The only real flaw we had was early magazines tended to wear out quickly and warp due to heat and stress. They changed the plastic composistion on them and that solved many of the problems.

One final story before I move on.

In my first ever full gear practice jump we parachuted over the DZ.

Our platoon drifted a little and we fell in a wooded area.

I ended up falling into a tree and as luck would have it I got pretty well snagged about 30 feet off the ground.

Its not that uncommon so I was not that bothered by it. I pulled out my knife and began to cut the chute straps so I could climb down and get on with the mission.

Well I must of been full of adrenaline and nerves because I cut my rifle strap.

Oops

The weapon fell and never hit a branch on the way down.

I got down to the ground about 10 minutes later and went to get the rifle.

The stock was broken and the barrel was slightly bent

So here I was, green as grass and having to explain to my platoon and company CO why I had a broke ass rifle.

The company CO was an easy going man and was pretty good about it.

My platoon CO gave me hell about it for the next three days.

He assigned me to the 40mm GL and I had to haul around about a 1000 rounds of 7.62 for the platoon MG3 on top of 12 40mm gernade rounds and the launcher

After three days I thought the muscles in my legs were going to explode.

There were still lots of G3s floating around as well when I was serving.

I loved that weapon and we got ahold of as many as we could to take to Afghanistan.

Most of them had bipods and 6x scopes on them and made a pretty dependable and cheap 'sniper' weapons.

The penetration was very good and the power of the 7.62mm round was something you could count on to bring down a target and makesure it stayed down.

Plus the accuracy was the best of any assualt rifle I have ever used or seen in action.

Simply amazing what you could do in single shot mode with the weapons sighted properly.

You could also beat the hell out of them.

Many of them had lots of nicks and fairly serious dents but they still hardly ever jammed.

[civdiv]

Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiny_tanker:

The problem I see is that we've been spending billions for small "improvements" on the M16/M4 for the past 40 years. What's spending a few billion more, to get what seems (i haven't fired the M4 or the M416 of course) to be a much larger improvement?

On a side note, what's the comparison in performance between the G36 and the M16/M4?

I have spent time with all three weapons

I was always a big fan of the M-16. I found it a little uncomfortable to handle and a little too unbalenced due to its length. But I was impressed with its accuracy and range.

With the 40mm grenade launcher I found the weapon to feel alot more solid and better balenced and was a very stable firing platform.

The M4 I do not have alot of experience with.

It handled well but I found the recoil to be pretty awful and very hard to keep the 'floating effect' from throwing off my aim when I had it in full auto.

Even in short controlled bursts the weapons barrel constantly drifted upwards because of severe recoil.

It was accurate as well for a carbine. But the range despite being listed as close to the M16s range, I found the drop off to be pretty severe past a certain range. The rounds spin started to fall apart after a few hundred meters and its accuracy was almost useless at that point.

In an urban enviroment that would matter little however.

I am probably very biased when it comes to the G36

I have fired probably 20,000 rounds from that weapon.

I found it to be an extremly solid weapon.

Very comfortable to hold in any posistion, very well balenced and the recoil was manageable enough in full auto mode if you limited your bursts.

It was also very accurate and with the standerd 3x optical site you could engage targets with reasonable accuracy out to medium ranges.

You also get a red dot sight with 1.0x magnification and you use that site with both eyes open which makes it perfect for controlled shots while on the move and in short range situations like urban combat.

It works both in daytime and is battery illuminated at night.

Penetration is about the same as the M4 and M16.

It leaves something to be desired since it it a 5.56mm round but is decent enough.

One final thing is that in a few minutes you can convert the weapon into a faux LMG by adding a bipod and 100 round box magazine.

It does not excel in that role but in Afghanistan we had two kits per platoon in addition to our MG3s.

At medium ranges we could put alot of rounds at a target and the bipod kept recoil pretty well controlled.

The box magazines led to a few more jams and the barrels are not made for that kind of abuse.

But when needed it let us convet a carbine into a decent LMG to increase our firepower.

Like all H&K weapons it is pretty lavishly manufactored. The parts fit together perfectly and we had to send back very very few back due to defects.

It took abuse pretty well, but the weapon does not like sand or dust at all.

Matinence is very important to keep the weapon in working order.

The only real flaw we had was early magazines tended to wear out quickly and warp due to heat and stress. They changed the plastic composistion on them and that solved many of the problems.

One final story before I move on.

In my first ever full gear practice jump we parachuted over the DZ.

Our platoon drifted a little and we fell in a wooded area.

I ended up falling into a tree and as luck would have it I got pretty well snagged about 30 feet off the ground.

Its not that uncommon so I was not that bothered by it. I pulled out my knife and began to cut the chute straps so I could climb down and get on with the mission.

Well I must of been full of adrenaline and nerves because I cut my rifle strap.

Oops

The weapon fell and never hit a branch on the way down.

I got down to the ground about 10 minutes later and went to get the rifle.

The stock was broken and the barrel was slightly bent

So here I was, green as grass and having to explain to my platoon and company CO why I had a broke ass rifle.

The company CO was an easy going man and was pretty good about it.

My platoon CO gave me hell about it for the next three days.

He assigned me to the 40mm GL and I had to haul around about a 1000 rounds of 7.62 for the platoon MG3 on top of 12 40mm gernade rounds and the launcher

After three days I thought the muscles in my legs were going to explode.

There were still lots of G3s floating around as well when I was serving.

I loved that weapon and we got ahold of as many as we could to take to Afghanistan.

Most of them had bipods and 6x scopes on them and made a pretty dependable and cheap 'sniper' weapons.

The penetration was very good and the power of the 7.62mm round was something you could count on to bring down a target and makesure it stayed down.

Plus the accuracy was the best of any assualt rifle I have ever used or seen in action.

Simply amazing what you could do in single shot mode with the weapons sighted properly.

You could also beat the hell out of them.

Many of them had lots of nicks and fairly serious dents but they still hardly ever jammed. </font>

[panzermartin]

I've fired a couple of times with the G3A3 while serving in the greek armed forces, quite recently. I found it very easy to handle but a bit heavy too, almost 5kg(M16 must be around 3,5 or smth). Very few in the shooting range had any problems with jammed rifles despite most of them being manufactured in mid 80s'. Strong recoil though, although I havent fired any other type of weapon to compare.

[luderbamsen]

Whenever I read one of these articles, it's always about how this new weapon is so fabulous and what "we" have now is crap.

The truth is there is no such thing as the "perfect" assault rifle (or handgun, or submachinegun, or sniper rifle, or anti tank rocket, or tank, or aircraft carrier or...). There is only the best and most affordable compromise.

You may note that while Delta worked on the M416, they carried the M4 for years, as did Rangers, SEAL's and whatnot. The SAS use it as well. Heck, even French SOF use the M4 for crissake! Is it the perfect weapon? Certainly not. Is it pretty good? You bet.

The position of the Pentagon is that an investment in a new small arm should take place only when such a weapon offer significant increase in capability over the excisting M4/M16 system.

I'm not entirely convinced that the cost of switching to the M416 (which still has many similarities with the M4/M16) would be all that big, compared with continued purchase of the M4/M16 and there does seem to be indications that it provides some improvement.

However, one should not underestimate the fact that most soldiers are dissatisfied with the weapon they have and always think the grass is greener on the other side. We hated the G3 for being big and heavy and for its horrible ergonomics, conveniently ignoring that it was both accurate and reliable.

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[ February 24, 2007, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: luderbamsen ]