The outdated M4 carbine and M-16 why is our military still using them?

a reply to: Stupidsecrets

AK is garbage. Very inaccurate. M4 is accurate super versatile. Can be used long range, close quarters, ability to modify with scopes, grenade launchers. I retired with 20 years. I know that weapon like the back of my hand. It's a great general purpose weapon. Anybody who thinks an AK is better does not know weapons. It's more powerful but that's about the extent of it.

Well, I think you're biased, and I beg to differ that the AK is complete garbage. "Better" might be debatable, but garbage it's not. Let's put this into context. Standing at the shooting range, in a non-combat situation, clearly the M4 has the upper hand over the AK. Yeah, we can play around changing scopes and putting all manner of things on the rails, but that's all just fun. Out on the battlefield it's a different story.

The AK is simple, it's cheap to manufacture, and easy to mass produce quickly in huge numbers. Consequently, millions upon millions of enemy combatants are armed with them. The AK is a sloppy action, but it's simple and it's beyond durable. You can open the action and dump a cup of sand right into the breech, cycle the action one time, put a mag in it, charge the action and it'll fire! Try that with an M4...ain't happenin'.

Just look at the condition of many of the captured enemy combatant weapons in Iraq and Asskrackistan. They're rusted, bent, broken down pieces of crap...but they still fire. Most of them have probably never even seen a cleaning rod, hell, most of the people carrying them probably don't even know what a cleaning rod even is. And, they still fire. They're junk, no doubt, but they still fire. The M4 could never stand this level of abuse and lack of maintenance.

There's enough existing 7.62x39 steel cased, berdan primed, ammo laying around the world to arm every army for the rest of eternity. Plus, the Russians crank this stuff out by the billions. So, ammunition is widely available. In just about every theater 5.56x45 ammunition has to be brought to the fight.

So, sure, just comparing the two firearms in isolation will see the M4 come out on top. However, when put into a real world environment, and from a strategic military perspective, the AK is far from "garbage".

Surely the weapon specifics and ammunition type should suit the fight in question?

Against an army something like the 5.56 is ideal, more bullets down range, more casualties and more of a logistical nightmare for the enemy, tying up of resources to care for the wounded and dying.

Fighting drugged up radicals? Yeah, you want stopping power.

Then again there's international norms and regulations regarding ammunition used in conflict so it's not just as simple as picking the most devastating round.

It was to my understanding the US wanted to go the route of smart bullets anyways, with modern manufacturing techniques it wouldn't be too difficult to have fully customised rounds for any firefight.

I fully realise I'm the idiot in the room full of people with actual hands on experience regarding these issues, I just wanting to throw out my opinion. It's an interesting topic... I also imagine in the next 10 years or so there'll be a lot of international work in regards to regulations and international law regarding firearms and weaponry, hell with the nature of warfare these days they should've already done a lot of work.

Like what human rights does a nation-less terrorist have?

Several comments...

originally posted by: RAY1990
...

Then again there's international norms and regulations regarding ammunition used in conflict so it's not just as simple as picking the most devastating round.

The US and NATO countries are among the few who shackle themselves with these restrictions by actually following them. The only reason some other countries typically use FMJ ammunition is purely one of economics. War is about winning. There really aren't any other rules. This is why conventional warfare is just stupid in the modern era.

It was to my understanding the US wanted to go the route of smart bullets anyways, with modern manufacturing techniques it wouldn't be too difficult to have fully customised rounds for any firefight.

If this idea wasn't so incomprehensibly idiotic, and didn't smack of special interest lobbying at the federal level, it would be laughable, hysterical even! Yeah, let's take a consumable which costs pennies and replace it with a consumable which costs dollars per unit! Tell me this doesn't smack of some greedy defense contractor drooling over the billions of dollars they can harvest from the American taxpayer if they're stupid enough to fall for this unbelievable nonsense! Just the availability of 5.56 ammunition in comparison to 7.62x39 is staggering, then add in the availability of some kind of 'smart' ammunition in comparison to the same thing. Yeah, let's handcuff our troops even more; that sounds like a good idea (not)!!

Case in point, right now we have troops fighting against Islamic extremists in Iraq and Asscrackistan. These same enemy combatants are the ones who use antiquated weapons and livestock such as donkeys to move troops, weapons and ammunition. The most advanced fighting force in the free world hasn't been able to defeat these combatants, and why is this? Because of all the rules. The enemy doesn't play by any rules. Yet, we're going to add more rules in the form of "smart" ammunition??? How crazy is this??? We're already fighting an enemy who is armed with technology which is nearly a century old...what good is smart bullets going to do???

I fully realise I'm the idiot in the room full of people with actual hands on experience regarding these issues, I just wanting to throw out my opinion. It's an interesting topic...

And your opinion matters, and is appreciated.

I also imagine in the next 10 years or so there'll be a lot of international work in regards to regulations and international law regarding firearms and weaponry, hell with the nature of warfare these days they should've already done a lot of work.

I suspect you are correct, and I can guarantee you with about 100% certainty, not one single bit of any of this legislation will be good for the warrior on the battlefield. It will only help the people who don't follow the rules!

a reply to: Anathros

I'm a little to new to these boards to just flat out argue with you, But the M4/M16 is absolutely a DI system I have know idea what you mean by modified, I took that rifle apart uncountable times it is a straight forward Direct impingement system.

Also you stated above you liked the HK-416 so you should know it is a piston driven rifle, As far as moving parts are concerned the piston itself is providing a few more moving parts other than that its pretty much the same as a DI rifle.

The XM8 and G36 are two of the lightest assault rifles ever manufactured, the SCAR is a little larger yes but I still loved it and used it when ever I was given the opportunity. I never fired an AUG as it is Austrian and the ARX160 is Italian so I cant speak to those, its interesting that you can though. As far as piston driven rifles having more issues than the M4 I have to completely disagree with you.

For someone who has been to the "sandbox" you should know all this

a reply to: Zaphod58
That Sig Saure MCX in the video is nice and all but the most basic models run right next to $2,000. This is even discounted for big purchases going to be a minimum of twice the cost of an M4. Other than I have owned a number of Sig pistols and liked them. My niece has one for her CCW. It is tiny but mighty and she loves it. I think it is a good rifle platform but I don't see it being widely adopted in the regular Army but it will doubtless be an important weapon fielded by a lot of countries.

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
AK is garbage. Very inaccurate. M4 is accurate super versatile. Can be used long range, close quarters, ability to modify with scopes, grenade launchers. I retired with 20 years. I know that weapon like the back of my hand. It's a great general purpose weapon. Anybody who thinks an AK is better does not know weapons. It's more powerful but that's about the extent of it.

A common cookie cutter quote parroted among the regular Army, the AK-47 is not less accurate it is in fact up to the shooter just how accurate the weapon is. Admittedly the 7.62x39 has less velocity, less range and more recoil but none of that makes the round less accurate. It just requires the shooter to actually train with the weapon, over all the AK-47 is operated by a long stroke piston and has more room among the internals making the weopon unbelievably reliable. The 7.62x39 is far better at killing than the 5.56x45, and in the hands of an experienced operator an AK-47 is devestating .

I would go into combat with an AK-74 the 47's smaller cousin with out question before I would an M4-Carbine.

Thank you for your 20 years of service , I regret not finishing my 20.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The US and NATO countries are among the few who shackle themselves with these restrictions by actually following them. The only reason some other countries typically use FMJ ammunition is purely one of economics. War is about winning. There really aren't any other rules. This is why conventional warfare is just stupid in the modern era.

We (the west) don't exactly fight other militaries though, nothing that can be considered an actual modern army because if we did the conflict would be over in weeks or months. Most nations are signatories of the same pacts. I'm just somewhat glad I live in an affluent nation in those regards if shtf.

Case in point, right now we have troops fighting against Islamic extremists in Iraq and Asscrackistan. These same enemy combatants are the ones who use antiquated weapons and livestock such as donkeys to move troops, weapons and ammunition. The most advanced fighting force in the free world hasn't been able to defeat these combatants, and why is this? Because of all the rules. The enemy doesn't play by any rules. Yet, we're going to add more rules in the form of "smart" ammunition??? How crazy is this??? We're already fighting an enemy who is armed with technology which is nearly a century old...what good is smart bullets going to do???

It's my opinion that the rules should've been worked on a while ago, there's been so many issues that are glaringly obvious over the last decade that are seemingly being ignored. I think some human rights shouldn't apply to some people within certain situations... But that's a damn tricky line to walk and this isn't really the thread for it. You're probably well aware mercenary armies and such being used these days though.

Back to smart bullets, I've seen some crazy designs that can be easily machine worked and I think 3D printed too. I remember the US army working on a round for it's tanks that'll replace 3-4 different types of round. I know for a fine fact it's very possible to design bullets for multiple jobs effectively, although it might not be cheaper I'd like to say that bullets are the pennies in regards to the pounds of infrastructure and logistics involved in getting those bullets in a position to even be shot in anger.

I suspect you are correct, and I can guarantee you with about 100% certainty, not one single bit of any of this legislation will be good for the warrior on the battlefield. It will only help the people who don't follow the rules!

I do agree although our more recent approach has been smart bombs and targeted overwhelming force. That's costly as hell but spares lives. Quite frankly our boys shouldn't be put into unnecessary risk though. And we cannot forget about the potential for civilian casualties.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Socom and everyone who actually knows anything about terminal ballistics disagree with you.

Additionally, everything the OP said in their first post is just plain wrong to a degree that's easily considered fractally wrong.

So to cover the first thing, if any of you had actually done anything like your research you'd know that in extremely intensive studies done by doctors and coroners it's found that it's basically impossible to tell the difference between a 5.56 and 7.62 round visually. To make matters worse for your and the OP's assertions the m193 round from the m16a1 was known for doing absolutely horrific damage to humans far beyond 7.62x39's capabilities. There were the m855 dark times where the 5.56 wasn't nearly as reliable of a killer but they have long since passed after the discovery of the fleet yaw phenomena and subsequent development of rounds like the mk318 series and the m855a1 epr round.

Both of which are not only extremely reliable killers but also more than solved the issues that the already terrible m855 round had with barrels less than 20 inches. They are both now extremely potent out of even the super short barrel mk 18 to say nothing of the 14.5" bbl m4a1.

Now I know some genius on here is going to come in and try to use the same old very dated and wrong talking points about m855a1 "destructively high peak pressure", "barrel extension destruction", and "ridiculously high cost per round.

So here's the breakdown:

High peak pressure: yeah, that was a very few early batches only with peak pressures having now settled down to very reasonable levels well within the engineering strength of the relevant affected weapon components and not much more than m855 if at all!

Barrel extension/general gun destruction: Early on the increased length of the m855a1 projectile and it's construction was causing some feed ramp gouging in m4's & m4a1's. That was very quickly solved by a slightly modified replacement mag follower at a cost of like a whole $2 per mag to alter the presentation angle upon chambering. Aka, less significant than a fart in a tornado.

High cost per round: Congrats to all you geniuses who believe the pre production and early serial production costs per round (which tend to amortize production standup costs as fast as possible) has any bearing on what the round will cost once production really gets rolling! As of the last report released to the civilian world the cost per round is now down to between 25 & 30 cents per round which is HEAVILY competitive with even the last runs of m855 production even before inflation adjustment! In other words it's very likely actually cheaper than m855 was if you actually compare prices on an equal footing!

It's also more accurate and consistent than m855 by a fair bit to boot.

So once you get past the at least almost valid 5.56 complaints listed above you get down to things like

1. It's only a 200 to 300 meter round: if you can't be accurate and consistent past those ranges even with cheapass steel case, you suck at shooting and you're blaming it on the gun period full stop! I shoot my 14.5 to 500 meters without issue on the regular and I have a friend who can ring steel like it's easy at 900 yards. As far as terminal performance goes, actual good shooters are stacking bodies with m855a1 out past 600 meters regularly even with mk18's.

So to reiterate, if you think 5.56 is only a 200 to 300 meter you just suck and are blaming it on the gun and ammo.

2. DI sucks and is a jam factory etc: hah, you're just plain wrong and suck at actually keeping the simplest system out there running. I have two AR's that are both now well past 5000 rounds since last detail cleaning and I've went 1000 rounds between CLP lubrication spraydowns with nasty cheap steel case more than a few times. Also, in tests to destruction AR's have went almost 30 magazines before the gun failed while 5.45 AK'S make it around 19 mags before failure! That's a substantial difference and puts the lie to DI inferiority rather forcefully.

Finally:

On top of ALL OF THE ABOVE, the 5.56 DI AR is still lighter than all western competitors on an equal configuration basis while having equal or better engineered expected service life by round count (50,000+ for the m4 guns versus 30,000 rounds for akm and ak74m just as an example) AND an often massively lower unit cost for large contracts!

That lower weight is unspeakably important now that your average service rifle runs several pounds of optics lasers clip on NV and etc!

As an example, an hk416 as actually equipped by a modern western military is much heavier than a comparable m4 or m4a1. And both of them are as heavy or heavier than an m1 garand!

P.s. bad news HK 416 fan girls, your beloved boat anchor is not only heavier and far more expensive than an m4a1 it's also very incompatible and beats itself to death when running m855a1. Even worse for you can girls though, it's gonna beat itself to death with any military grade round designed and finalized after 2009-2011 because it's "superior piston operating system" is very incompatible with the technology that will be used in ALL truly modern cartridges!

In other words guys, 5.56 And the AR have stuck around because there's literally nothing out there to this day which bests them or even really comes close.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

We aren't using anything better, openly, because current politicians and the vocal left winged nut jobs, won't stand for any soldier to be better armed than anyone else! Lest the left cry foul and unfair, and whatever else nonsense they spew while worshiping America's enemy feet.

a reply to: roguetechie

Socom and everyone who actually knows anything about terminal ballistics disagree with you.

Are you JSOC ? Because in fact no they would'nt disagree.

Additionally, everything the OP said in their first post is just plain wrong to a degree that's easily considered fractally wrong.

Everything I said is based on actual combat experience in country, where do your claims come from? It seems they come from what other people said not first hand experience .

So to cover the first thing, if any of you had actually done anything like your research you'd know that in extremely intensive studies done by doctors and coroners it's found that it's basically impossible to tell the difference between a 5.56 and 7.62 round visually. To make matters worse for your and the OP's assertions the m193 round from the m16a1 was known for doing absolutely horrific damage to humans far beyond 7.62x39's capabilities. There were the m855 dark times where the 5.56 wasn't nearly as reliable of a killer but they have long since passed after the discovery of the fleet yaw phenomena and subsequent development of rounds like the mk318 series and the m855a1 epr round.

Ok so your basing your opinions on doctor and coroner after action reports of dead bodies , The job is done there dead the problem is the MD's your placing faith in were not there to see the firefight, they didn't see the actual effectiveness of the rounds in the moment. Again I have seen Its not something I want to talk about or remember , but JFK and his "wiz kids" made these same assertions about the AR-15 when they decided to place it into prooduction, assertions made based on optimal range conditions , when the AR-15 was placed in to combat in Vietnam it failed miserably, even after several improvments i.e. the chrome lined chamber and forward assist which was added because the weapon jammed up so often.

1. It's only a 200 to 300 meter round: if you can't be accurate and consistent past those ranges even with cheapass steel case, you suck at shooting and you're blaming it on the gun period full stop! I shoot my 14.5 to 500 meters without issue on the regular and I have a friend who can ring steel like it's easy at 900 yards. As far as terminal performance goes, actual good shooters are stacking bodies with m855a1 out past 600 meters regularly even with mk18's.

First off the average infantry shooter is only accurate out to 300 meters because after 300 meters spin drift , wind drift and the overall drop of the round begin to take affect. And the average infantry shooter has difficulty making these adjusments on the fly. Hints why its called a 300 meter round, the rounds over all light weight makes it unreliable to say the least past 500meters when it comes to dropping actual human targets. 900 yards with a scope a bipod and someone calling his dope for him all while he is in prone position yes maybe then its possible to hit 900 yard targets, but it is in no way easy with a 5.56x45. And mk18's are exclusively used by JSOC / SPEC OPS so yea hitting 600 yard targets are pretty standard for them.

2. DI sucks and is a jam factory etc: hah, you're just plain wrong and suck at actually keeping the simplest system out there running. I have two AR's that are both now well past 5000 rounds since last detail cleaning and I've went 1000 rounds between CLP lubrication spraydowns with nasty cheap steel case more than a few times. Also, in tests to destruction AR's have went almost 30 magazines before the gun failed while 5.45 AK'S make it around 19 mags before failure! That's a substantial difference and puts the lie to DI inferiority rather forcefully.

There is absolutly no way in hell you put 1000 rounds through a DI rifle with out cleaning it , nope it would jam guaranteed. DI rifles are made standard with a FORWARD ASSIST which was added because the rifle had such a tendency to jam, no other rifle on earth requires an actual function on the rifle to prevent jam/failures except for DI AR-15 rifles. I have been in desert conditions with my M4-carbine and had the weapon fail before I could make it through a single combat load, if it was not for the oil I had I would be dead.

TextIn other words guys, 5.56 And the AR have stuck around because there's literally nothing out there to this day which bests them or even really comes close.

Wrong again its simple economics my friend , the manufacturing infastructure is in place for the M4/M16 and it is more economicaly and logistically feasable to keep that out of date rifle than to give our troops a proper piston driven rile, And why you keep mentioning the HK-416 I dont know, other than JSOC/SPECOPS using it our actual regular military would never use it simply because it is way to expensive . But the HK-416 while marginally heavier yes , is still far and away superior to the COLT M4-Carbinebest . There are plenty of rifles that could easly best the M4/M16, but some general in charge of small arm purchases is making way to much money from Colt to actualy consider it.

a reply to: roguetechie

Why do AR-15 actions have a tendency to freeze-up in clean conditions...when AK's do not?

Thanks...

Erno

a reply to: roguetechie

If the M4 is such a superior weapon and the 5.56x45 cartridge such a superior cartridge, how do you account for all the militaries around the world deploying with the AK-47 and 7.62x39mm cartridge???

originally posted by: Stupidsecrets
AK is garbage. Very inaccurate. M4 is accurate super versatile. Can be used long range, close quarters, ability to modify with scopes, grenade launchers. I retired with 20 years. I know that weapon like the back of my hand. It's a great general purpose weapon. Anybody who thinks an AK is better does not know weapons. It's more powerful but that's about the extent of it.

The inaccurate AK thing is a myth. The AK is comfortable at 500m. It is one of the reasons the US and UK militaries had to up the use of 7.62x51 rifles in Afghanistan - Taliban were able to engage at 400m+ while the 5.56 weapons we had were struggling at that range.

If you want to get an idea of AK accuracy, YouTube 9 hole reviews who do a practical accuracy series. One of these was a vid of an old Chinese type 56 AK with stock sights, and they were comfortably hitting torso sized targets at 500yds. The main concern with the AK is the quality of military ammo, particularly Eastern Block stuff. With decent ammo it is happily minute of man accurate at 500m.

The main problem with the AK/AKM series...is that the rifle barrel is not free floated, whereas an AR15 barrel can.

originally posted by: Erno86
The main problem with the AK/AKM series...is that the rifle barrel is not free floated, whereas an AR15 barrel can.

Military M4s don't though.

As I said above, the AK is capable of acceptable accuracy out to 500m with decent ammo. It isn't designed as a sniper rifle. It is supposed to be a rugged, reliable weapon allowing the soldier to own the Infantry quarter mile. It can achieve this.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Neither is designed to be a sniper rifle.

Wrong cartridge in both cases.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: PaddyInf

Neither is designed to be a sniper rifle.

Wrong cartridge in both cases.

Not saying they were. My point relates to the level of acceptable accuracy. Some posters have stated that the AK is inaccurate. My point is that it is accurate enough to do the role it was designed for.

It is honestly unfair to compare the accuracy of an AK-47 with an M-4 , an M-4 is firing a light weight low recoil high velocity round , while the AK is firing a heavy moderate recoil round with moderate to even subsonic velocity's in some cases.


Its not the rifle at all that is less accurate, its the round but even that is not true if the rifle is in the hands of someone who actually knows how to shoot.

Its like saying a 45acp is less accurate than a 9mm , its simply not true the 45acp may lack the range of a 9mm so an argument could be made that over long range the 45acp loses accuracy. The same could be said of the 5.56x45 and 7.62x39 in comparison .

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: PaddyInf

Neither is designed to be a sniper rifle.

Wrong cartridge in both cases.

I have two Russian 4x rangefinder scoped, designated squad marksmen rifles in the AK/AKM configuration, both with long pencil thin barrels and flash hiders.

One is an Russian 4x24mm scoped Iraqi Tabuk semi automatic rifle in 7.62x39 --- Which is really sweet.

And the other is a Russian 4x24mmscoped Romanian PSL-54 in 7.62x54R --- Which is such a beast.

The accuracy trick...is to not let the barrel and receiver heat up or the groups will tend to string.

I get about 3 m.o.a. at 100 yards from both of them, while using com-block ammo.

Both still serve as sniper rifles in the Middle East.