idea for a new infantry rifle- hear me out

RC20 refrencing the M4:
Barrel is too short for anything past 300 meters not 50.
Click to expand...

How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training. They just don't spend enough time at the range anymore.

When I first got to Italy in 1992 as an 11B they had a 25m indoor range on the base, I spent at least one day (if not a week) a month in there putting lead down range. Plus we would qualify on a regular range at least 3-4 times a year. When I got back to Ft Bragg in 1994-96 the monthly range trips slowed down but we still qualified about once a quarter.

I've been in the Reserves since 2001 as an 88M and I've got to qualify about once every 18 months. If I didn't still have my own AR15 I doubt I'd qualify as well as I do. Still I don't qualify Expert every time anymore like I did in my AD days, just because I don't shoot like I did. Unfortunately we spend more time in a class room learning about suicide prevention and consideration of others training most of our field time gets pushed aside to complete this “mandatory” training.

IMO the Army has started to drift to far from emphasizing basic soldier skills. Getting back to the basics and spending more time teaching soldiers to shoot (move, and communicate as well) will have a great effectiveness on the M4’s capabilities than a longer barrel could ever provide. Combat units still get to train more on AD with live ammunition however these last two wars have seen a far greater number of “non-combat” troops seeing action and these units just don’t put enough emphasis on going to the range.
 
How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.
Click to expand...

BINGO........................we have a winner.
 
How is the barrel to short to be effective on targets past 300 meters? I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.
Click to expand...

Agreed! I've seen someone qualify with a M4 for Marine qualifications... took that sucker to 500m. It may not be pin point accurate, but you can still hit a man sized target from that distance consistantly.
 
A friend of mine went to a NG Sniper Comp in Arkanasand made a 700m shot with his M-4A1 after the SASS went tits up for some reason.

It's not the weapon, it's the traning that goes behind it.

But..........something other than 62 grn FMJ would be friggin awesome.
 
"I wouldn't feel comfortable with arming the military with a rifle made by a company that can't keep their website malware free."

Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.

I'm not even going to start to go into what's wrong with that concept, Jim, but it would start with a discussion about how Keltec makes guns, but they're not really into web design, and that's why they hire it out.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have used a smilie. :)

It was on my mind because I was actually researching Keltec's folding 9mm carbine as a plinker and, before I realized what I had done, I clicked a link to their sight, knowing of their problem. :eek: Thought I got infected and took appropriate steps. Took hours but all is okay. As much on me as them if there was a problem.
 
Achilles11B said:
And thus, the great "American Combat Rifle Debate: Why Everyone's Choice Sucks (But Not As Much As The M4)" continues.
Click to expand...

Winning comment. Can I use that as a sig line?
 
Because lord knows NO other firearms company has ever been subject to any sort of cyber attack.
Click to expand...

I find it incredibly unlikely that they'll get any kind of government contract state, federal or otherwise when it takes them a month (and counting) to get a mess like that cleaned up. This fiasco has made me lose all respect for their company.
 
Walking? Pffft. That's for the Marines.

Death before dismount.

That being said, there were times when I told myself that a full sized M-16A4 would have been great, it was shortly followed by father's voice echoing in my head saying "When your in charge, take charge." and then remonstrating myself that Danny was pretty damn good with his DMR.
 
I prefer m16,

According to reports, rebadged m14's are being used I think all bases are covered.

Also most things I've heard, Its foolish, still, to engage US troops, and the outcome isn't very pleasant.

I don't see a need to replace US inventories.
 
I like my M-4A1 when I was doing Squad Leader type things.

You know trying to read a map with my stupid pen light, talking on the radio, trying to open an MRE with my Gerber, trying to fold said map.

But when I had to do real shooting, there were more than a few time when I wished I would have liked an M-16.
 
TriumphGuy said:
I find it incredibly unlikely that they'll get any kind of government contract state, federal or otherwise when it takes them a month (and counting) to get a mess like that cleaned up. This fiasco has made me lose all respect for their company.
Click to expand...
They never gave you that RFB, did they?
 
Never heard a peep back from them after I emailed and told them where the bad links on their sites were. Of course,every time I check back it's in a different place. They've got some serious problems and it's all kinds of irresponsible to keep the site live until it's worked out. If nothing else, they're putting current and potential customers at risk of identity theft and costing them money in PC repair costs.
 
The using a Kel-tec as a military rifle idea makes my belly giggle. I think we should give them to the Afghans. (Or the Syrian insurgents)

You know trying to read a map with my stupid pen light
Click to expand...

Whats a map? Isn't that the software they use for the BFT? Why do you need a penlight for that? How do you "fold it".

I found the biggest problem with using the M4 effectively past 300 meters is the Army's lack of training.
Click to expand...

Well in defense of my brethren there is no way that anyone with an AK will be able to hit you at that range so you are pretty safe (at least in Iraq you were). It is also just outside of the minimum danger range for a 500#er ....so..... Me and a few dudes with rifle conducting Battle Drill#4/5 or.... the 500#er off the F-15 and everyone goes home with all their limbs intact.... not seeing the downside here....
 
Last edited:
I will agree that the army does not spend enough time at the range. Now the m
Marines on the other hand do spend time at the range. The last i knew the marines were still qualifying at 500 yards with the M4. That was when I left Kuwait last year. So something may have changed.
 
Jo6pak, as long as I get credited, it's yours.

KraigWy, the Infantry still walks. A lot. M4's are also easier to hop a fence with.

I always wished that us grunts hit the range more often, the Marines have it right (maybe, I've never been a Marine, can't say for sure). But, I don't trust the terminal ballistics of a 62-grain pill at 500 yards. Great for punching paper, not sure about people, though.
 
BFT?

Haha. Good one. It worked great for the Blackhorse Cav in "Executive Orders", but for us....not so much.

Now, some of the guys who had been to OEF talked about how great it was there, but as much as I deride this saying, it was definantly something designed for the Cold War.

Doesn't work too well when your trying to figure out which farm "down the road aways, to the left" your going to.


And I'll echo Achilles, I like the M-16/M-4 weapon system. However, I think there needs to be more training earlier, and that we need better ammo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top