A replacement for the M4/M16 system? I think NOT!

[Art Eatman]

The primary difference between combat use and the civilian use by folks who would get involved in a website like this is that there is a lot less mud and sand in civilian use.

There is less stumbling and falling. Civilian rifles don't get banged around nearly as much. They're not subjected to vibration, in a C-130 or a deuce-and-a-half.

There's also the "lowest common denominator" people aspect. Maintenance and such. Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

Makes ya wanna go back to something like the old Enfield 1917.

, Art

 

[Correia]

Easy to maintain? Easy to maintain?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Compared to what? The Space Shuttle? Enron's financial statements?

Have you ever cleaned any other weapons besides the AR? It has got to be about the worst modern weapon to take care of, honestly I can't think of anything close to as bad. Even AR defenders admit that it is a pain to clean. Lots of tiny locking lugs, spring loaded ejector that can be jammed by shavings, direct gas impingement (which is pretty dirty), a few TINY parts that can be lost when you are stripping it out in the woods (any of you guys see a Cotter pin laying around?) And this is coming from a cake eating civillian, I can't even imagine what it would be like to try and maintain an AR is some windy desert.

I'm not a total AR basher, I do think they have their good points, but come on now. We could do better, and I ain't talking about the OICW pig either.

The M4 for general issue? Why? It is a carbine for close range use, virtually useless at longer ranges. The one thing the .223 has going for it is velocity, so chop five and a half inches off of the barrel and all of sudden there goes your speed. So at 300 yards you are hitting the guy with a glorified .22 LR. I would imagine that for regular troops you would want the 16 with its 20 inch tube. "Oh but the M4 is so light and handy!" Well whoop-de-freaking-do, so is a 10-22, don't mean I want to take it into battle.

And the average trooper don't need a RAS, nor are they going to have Land Warrior, or thermal imaging, or any other crap you can hang on the gun. Special purpose gear is exactly that, special purpose. If the one big advantage that everybody touts about the AR is its lightness and compactness, why the hell do we want to hang an extra 10 lbs. of gear off of it? The average grunt needs a gun that reliably shoots bullets to about where it is aimed, and said bullets need to kill people.

And AR magazines suck. Compare an AR mag to any other military mag. They just suck. They have no redeeming features other than weight.

And the .223 pokes a hole is soft steel plate? Ok, so this affects anything how? And it did more damage than a .357? I should certainly hope so, since the .357 is a pistol cartridge. If ANY bullet is pointy, hard, and going fast it will penetrate soft steel. Shoot it with a 30-30 soft point and it will probably splatter, and that doesn't prove a thing. Shoot it with a FMJ 7.62x39 and it will poke a hole too. (just for fun, shoot it with some 7.62x54R AP, but stack up some cinder blocks behind the plate first).

But if I am ever attacked by soft steel plate I will be sure to use my Bushmaster.

Sorry, the AR is a decent gun, but it also a flawed forty year old idea. We could do much much better.

What more could I want?

A better operating system. More reliable. Easier to maintain. More durable. More soldier proof. Better magazines. A better cartridge. More effective bullet designs. Advanced composite construction. Light weight. Advanced recoil control. Good combat optics with good backup iron sights. And more training.

Ain't going to happen, because that costs money, and isn't flashy enough.

 

[M4A3]

Easy to maintain? Easy to maintain?!?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Well I know now that I am not going to change any body's mind here. But see, you ARE an AR basher.

Dude, I can completly dissassemble my M4 in the dark in about 30 sec to a min. And I'm shure you could too. In my opinion the ar-15 is a verry simple and easy to dissasemble rifle. Maby you just have butter fingers.

As far as cleaning the M16. It takes me about an hour. For evey thing. Every last part, I even take the plunger and spring out of the buffer tube. How is that so bad? An hour...

And AR magazines suck. Compare an AR mag to any other military mag. They just suck. They have no redeeming features other than weight.

What AR mags do you have?.... I have NEVER and I mean NEVER had any problem of ANY kind. You have nothing to back up what you're saying.

Have you ever cleaned any other weapons besides the AR?

Shure I have. Try cleaning a 30-30 win lever action.

I'm not a total AR basher

DONT BASH AR'S

The M4 for general issue? Why? It is a carbine for close range use

What do you consider "close range"? I can hit 2'X2' targets @ 250M iron sights pretty damn easly.

22 LR. I would imagine that for regular troops you would want the 16 with its 20 inch tube. "Oh but the M4 is so light and handy!" Well whoop-de-freaking-do, so is a 10-22, don't mean I want to take it into battle.

Dude the more I read you're post the more I get

LOOK AT THE MILITARY WOULD BALISTICS OF THE 5.56x45MM.
The 5.56 has Greater trama to flesh with in it's fragmintation range or 2500fps+ than you're 7.62!!!! GRRRRRR!!!!!!! If you would just LOOK!!!!!!

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

If the 5.56 is such a weak peace of S**T then why is it a standard in our military? Dont you think people have run tests to see the capabilities of the 556? Also why do you think all of these other countries are mimicing or copying the idea if the 5.56. The sovet 5.45 for example.

 

[Redlg155]

What do you consider "close range"? I can hit 2'X2' targets @ 250M iron sights pretty damn easly.

A marksman should be able to hit a 4 foot square target at 250 Meters with just about any battle rifle. If you meant to say 2inch by 2inch target with iron sights offhand then you ought to try out for the olympics. That's some high quality shooting.

If the 5.56 is such a weak peace of S**T then why is it a standard in our military?

Don't put too much stake on the Military seal of approval. Remember we had the M1 Carbine as a duty carbine for quite some time also.

I'm not an AR basher, in fact, I like them. I own them and routinely build up ARs for family and freinds. They are a great little rifle system, but they do leave much to be desired.

Use your AR enough and sooner or later you will experience malfunctions, whether mag related or something a bit more like the carrier key becoming unstaked.

As for AR mags. They do have problems. Since the adoption of AR mags there have been a couple of changes in followers that I know of. 1 the original metal alloy follower changed to plastic in 20 and 30 rd mags. Then to the green "anti tip" type follower in the 30 rd mags. All military magazines eventually have problems. A weak poinnt in most any semi auto weapon.

Good Shooting
RED

 

[M4A3]

A marksman should be able to hit a 4 foot square target at 250 Meters with just about any battle rifle. If you meant to say 2inch by 2inch target with iron sights offhand then you ought to try out for the olympics. That's some high quality shooting.

LoL no,no,no. I put 2'X2' this means 2 foot by 2 foot. 2 inch by 2inch looks like this 2"X2"....



"=inch
'=foot

 

[ronin308]

Here's my take:

The AR sucks to clean. If you've ever cleaned another system you will realize that other systems are easier. There are too many small parts that could conceivably be lost and/or damaged. The fact that the spring is located in the buttstock is just plain old silly. The direct gas issue doesn't bother me as much as it does some people. Another thing is that the sights are really high above the bore...which is annoying when you're shooting at different and unknown ranges. Yet another limitation of the system is the mags are flimsy. I don't care what you say, compare an AR mag to an AK, M1A, etc. magazine and see the difference in construction.

The 5.56 is a good cartridge provided its limitations. One limitation being that it has to be travelling somewhere above 2700 ft/sec for it to fragment (causing the magic wound channel). Given this limitation, the 5.56 is good for sub 150 yard stuff. Just because you can hit it, doesn't mean you can stop it. I've hit bowling pins at 200 yards with a .22LR, does that mean I should use it to kill moose?

The MAJOR upside is that the AR is a joy to use. The ergonomics of the rifle are excellent. The controls are right where they should be...well except maybe the charging handle. Its accurate and lends itself to long range target shooting.

Bottom line: The AR isn't the secret to tactical ninja power

 

[JIH]

Remember we had the M1 Carbine as a duty carbine for quite some time also.

What's wrong with the M1 Carbine?

Anyway, I've never had that many problems cleaning an AR15. You don't need to disassemble the rifle that much to give it a good cleaning... I don't know what compells people to go all thw way with an AR15, but if you're popping out the buffer tube or removing the FCG after every session, you're over-doing it.

Clean the bore. Clean the chamber. Clean the bolt and bolt carrier group. Maybe now and then clean the buffer tube and lube the spring a little. Beyond that... put it back in the rifle and stop frigging with it.

 

[ronin308]

JIH- Don't forget to take off the wimpy extractor for a good scrubbin'

 

[Correia]

I could care less if I make you angry. You've got your opinions that you have formed in all of your obvious and vast experience. Good for you.

An hour to clean? And you are talking about it being easy? If an hour to clean is considered easy I would hate to see what you would consider hard. FAL=5 second field strip. To keep it functioning in really dirty conditions you wipe the sand or mud out of the receiver with a rag, wipe off the bolt carrier, relube it and put it back together. AK=Pop the dust cover off, remove the bolt carrier, run a rag over it, relube it, reassemble.

30 seconds in the dark? In your living room? With all of the parts put down on a sheet? Going to work the same way squating on a rock in the forest? Desert? Mountains? Swamp? So where do you put your little tiny cotter pin while you are doing this?

And it probably is easier to maintain than a Winchester lever action. Now there is an apple and oranges comparison for you. Compare the AR to the other major military rifles in the world. Pick any one of them. I've been lucky enough to play with many of them, and I would be hard pressed to find one harder to maintain.

And yes, the magazines do suck. They are weak. They are easily damaged. The feed lips are easily bent. They are harder to strip and clean than an AK or FAL mag. Talk to anybody who shoots AR15s extensively, (and I'm not talking about 600 rounds total, I'm talking about 600 a week) they will have gone through many AR mags. My best friend is currently a National Guard armorer, and right now is ranked as the second best rifleman in any branch of the service in this state. He thinks that the magazines suck and are a huge weak link in the system. And this is from a person that has put more rounds down range out of a .223 than 99.9999% percent of the gun nuts out there.

Back up my statement? Do a search here on AR malfunctions. I've got about 200 people who will back up my statement. AR mags are easily damaged and once damaged will cause malfunctions.

Even people who love the AR system can admit that the most common malfunction they see is magazine related. The green followers are better than the previous design, but the mag bodies are still the same. One of the most advertised improvements of the G36 is that is has tougher magazines with superior feed lips. (and I happen to think that the G36 is an overhyped unproven glorified AR18 as well). And this is coming from a company that is trying to sell their guns to replace guns that use the NATO/STANAG AR mags. You can use an AK mag to drive tent stakes.

And that is great, you have pictures of wound channels. I never at any point in time said that the .223 was feeble. BUT the only thing it has going for it is that the bullets go really really fast. So why the heck would you want to chop the barrel down and lose your velocity quicker?

Once again, I haven't insulted the .223, I own a few, and my wife's main rifle is a .223. But it is a special purpose bullet. It is a light weight, low recoil, flat shooting cartridge. But it doesn't have magic powers. It has to obey the same laws of physics as everything else. And no matter how you trump it up, is is still just going to be a very fast .22 caliber projectile.

Sure the Russian's use the 5.45. So what? They also don't wear socks. (And I happen to think that the Russian round has tons of potential). China has the newest entry in assault rifles and they went with a 6mm round. Does this prove anything? By your reasoning it must. Of course the rest of NATO went to .223, they would have went to 45-70 if we had made them do it. Heck, NATO wanted to go with a .280 before we shoved the .308 down their throats.

And no, I don't consider myself an AR basher. I consider the AR to be a mechanical device. Like any mechanical device it is not perfect.

You have this belief that the AR system is some magic sword gift from God. It isn't. Even if your SR cost you more than any 2 of my guns put together.

I have seen just about every type of weapon malfunction, including AR15s, AKs, FALs, CETMEs, G3s, AR10s, Dragunovs, Garands, and an M1a. Any and all mechanical devices can fail. I always get a kick out of people who talk about how their gun has never jammed, all that proves is that you haven't shot it enough. Some guns jam more than others though, and I've seen plenty of AR15s malfunction, including my own.

And that is wonderful that you can shoot a 2x2 steel plate. Good for you. Come shoot in a match with me sometime, and we can watch people's guns malfunction together.

" DONT BASH AR'S "

Or what, is your world view going to be threatened? Not going to post anymore pictures of yourself violating safety rules?

 

[M4A3]

Correia,
At first I wasnt going to respond to this becaus I am so sick of having my works twisted around, but for you to type ALL of that you must feel strongly about you're reasoning. So I guess I will.

So whare do I start... An hour to completly clean every last part on the rifle. When I clean my rifle I dont just "run a rag in the chamber" brush the barrel and call it good. But what ever.

So where do you put your little tiny cotter pin while you are doing this?

In between my top 2 front teeth and bottom 2 front teeth.

Compare the AR to the other major military rifles in the world.

The only other military rifle I have personly had apart is the AK-47.
That I would have to say was a little easyer but I dont care, I like cleaning my guns.

And yes, the magazines do suck.

etc.,etc.,etc.,

Well... I dont know about you're buddy maby he likes to chew on them

As soon as I have a peoblem with any of my AR mags then I'll agree with ya.

You have this belief that the AR system is some magic sword gift from God.

Now that is a bunch of :barf: :barf: :barf:
When did I ever say that? All I said was my Knights has not yet jamed in the first 600 rounds I have shot through it whare my DPMS has... Thats it... I minght even have said that in a differnt thread. Heck I dont even know how we got on this subject, the thread is about A replacement for the M16.

Any way, lets end this here.

Come shoot in a match with me sometime, and we can watch people's guns malfunction together.

I would love to

 

[tyme]

Lots of people, including those in the military, complain that the ar15/m16/m4 system is difficult to maintain (mostly that they're difficult to clean and have a less-than-ideal gas system and magazines), and people even offer suggestions on how to fix some of the problems. Why is nobody actually using the suggestions to make the rifles better? Are they waiting for a thunderbolt from the sky to inspire the military to build or decide on a completely new weapon?

 

[STLRN]

Because allot of the complaints are unfounded. There are allot of military urban legands out there, quite a few are about the M16

 

[JIH]

Even people who love the AR system can admit that the most common malfunction they see is magazine related

Definitely. I like the AR system... I think it's too bad it craps where it eats, but other than than that and the mags, it's a good system. I'm waflling on trading one for an AR180B... and, as noted in the selling forum, I'm getting out of the AR10 business (but nothing to do with the system).

I have an M4gery (ArmaLite lower, RRA upper... I ain't gonna spend Knight's money... bad customer service and I don't think they're priced well). However, the .223 relies on velocity. You're robbing it of that velocity by chopping the barrel. Yes, you're only taking away 200-275 fps, but that extra helps beyond 100 yards. There's a reason I only keep M193 in my M4gery. (and, note, it's the one that is on the AR180 chopping block if I go that route)

Why is nobody actually using the suggestions to make the rifles better? Are they waiting for a thunderbolt from the sky to inspire the military to build or decide on a completely new weapon?

They came up with the OICW...

Anyway, what weapon would you suggest?

HK G36?
I fall out with Correia... I wonder about the G36. It's an AR18. Putting more plastic on it and marking it with a big red HK doesn't make it God's gift to the myrmidon. It relies on the round that everyone is convinced is anemic (it's killed a hell of a lot of people for such an anemic round...).

It does address the mag issue, which is good. I think good magazines are more important than a good gas system. Rifles should be built around the mags... not the other way around.

M14?
Recruits whine about the weight and recoil of the AR15 and you wanna give them that?

Phase Plasma Rifle in the 40-Watt Range?
OK.

Something besides .223?
Personally, if I were gonna replace the .223, I'd replace it with something like a 6.5-08. But, you're giving up mag capacity and you're increasing barrel wear. And don't give me some BS logic like "but, if you have less rounds you'd make it count more!" Horsepuckey. They should all count, and I'd rather have 30 rounds that count than 20. If the instructors don't tell the recruits to make their shots count or the recruits don't follow the advice, that's not a rifle problem.

There is not going to be another big refinement in cartridge-and-ball technology. Until they figure out the caseless issue or they can miniaturize energy weapons, pretty much everything will be been-there, done-that. Etronx may be a good refinement, if they get the kinks worked out and can also make a cheap, rugged system that can't be defeated by simple EM-interference techniques and a guy with a machete.

There's probably not going to be another big refinement in action-technology either. We've basically got it down to delayed blowback (HKG3), op-rod/piston (M1, M14, FAL, AK, AR18... some people break out the piston and op-rod into two groups, I fail to see the benefit in doing so), and direct gas impingement (M16). The best bet for reliability is using an op-rod.

Ok, so... if you're going to design the next US rifle, go ahead and lay out your design here. And don't put "well, kinda like the AK, but like an AR, and sort of an FAL too." I don't want to hear about those other rifles. I understand them. (and, besides... it's called an FN-FNC... it's not that accurate and it has bad mags and bad firing pins)

Oh, and no bullpups. Imagine all those wonderful KBs you've seen pictures of. Imagine your face right beside that. No thanks.

 

[DARTH 44]

Another exciting AR15/M16/M4 thread.

Gents,isn`t the LR300 a redesigned and "done much better" AR?

I`m surprised MAD DOG didn`t post in this thread so far.
I love his comments about assault rifles.Experience,Expertness
and Sense of humor.
Someone`s post:
"I`ll take my ARs anyday.They run like clocks"
MAD DOG`s reply:
"Tickatickaticka SPROIOIOIOING!
(mental image of badly sprung cuckoo bird,hanging on the
end of its little tether,as the clock`s internals go every
which way)"

After I read this first time,I was laughing so hard I had to wipe
my eyes

Getting back to the subject,
"Why is nobody actually using the suggestions to make
the rifles better?"
Well, if the M16s are concerned I think the answer may be here
http://www.jouster.com

Regards

 

[STLRN]

too bad it craps where it eats

I love that quip, people use it all the time too bad it really doesn't mean anything. If it really did mean anything almost all malfs wouldn't be magazine related when using ball ammo in the military.

 

[JIH]

It doesn't not mean anything.

The action does get dirtier because of it. Does it get dirty enough to cause a problem? Not except under unusual circumstances which aren't going to be experienced by me or most any other person on this board. Still, the potential exists.

Whether or not that constitutes a problem in your eyes is up to you.

 

[Jimmy Mac]

My AR days are over. I learned a long time ago about their problems.

 

[Brian Williams]

I hated cleaning my M16 in the Marines...

anemic round - killed a lot of people
Gas passer - Malfed alot
never had a mag problem
liked the light weight and handling.


yes I want one. just for memories and old times
heck I want all the weapons of the jarheads


Combat; I would never want to have to depend on what I shot in the 70's m16a1. Maybe an a2, or m4

I would love to have an AR in 6mmSAW

mid way between 5.56 and 7.62

 

[STLRN]

Not really all the bolt of my M240s and M249s get just about as much carbon in them, its a function of "blow back," late obturation, unlocking and extraction. Even my personal bolt guns get carbon back in the action. The holes on the side of the bolt eject all the gas into the atmosphere, since it is hitting the bolt at some pretty good pressure it self limits carbon build up, as long as you don't shoot ammo made of reclaimed (rancid powder) shouldn't have a problem.

 

[Turk]

As many of you may know from my posts I think the M-16 is a very good bullet-launching platform especially using the M-193 ball ammo and at the close ranges as used in Vietnam it was quite effective. I personally think the new round (69gr.?) is less effective and with the M-4 barrels length it is even less. I truly believe the M-4 should not be issued to the general infantry troops.

Is there a better rifle? Probably but not good enough to replace the entire US inventory. I don’t think we need that computerized boat anchor we are currently testing.

My thoughts are we need a rifle in the same weight range as the 16 and even more important is a better round. A 6mm, 100 gr. bullet with a MV of 3200-3400 fps that is loaded in a 5.56 NATO size case. It’s hard for me to believe with our technology such a round couldn’t be devised. It would take a stronger case (steel?) and an improved propellant. A stronger bolt lock up would also have to be developed. I know some will say we have such a round like the 243 Win. But again it’s in a larger case. Less weight the round weighs the more rounds the grunt can carry.

That's my take. Oh by the way in my opinion a replacement rifle isn't an AK type rifle.

Remember to pray for our service men and women around the world fighting the war.

Have a good day.

Turk