The outdated M4 carbine and M-16 why is our military still using them?

But I'm still waiting for a viable replacement, as we all have been for decades now.

a reply to: ADVISOR

Which weapon system/s is/are less obsolete that can replace the tens of thousands of rifles already in armories and service?

Look I understand that the colt manufacturing facilities are in place , there are probably millions or billions maybe trillions of rounds of 5.56x45 stock piled in ammo dumps on military bases all over the world .

"If it aint broke dont fix it" yea I get that mentality I get it. 5.56 is light weight , easy to shoot yes

But all of the aboved mentioned are just cop outs when you really look at it, our military needs a new rifle it is time the advancements in light weight materials used to make new ammo's makes using a larger heavier round a viable option now.

Also there are dozens of developed modern countries with Standard issue piston driven rifles , bulpup designs , traditional forward mag designs etc etc. There have been AR-15 type rifles with piston systems since the early 2000's any of which we could have adopted and adapted to our needs. We can develop new cruise missles and Aircraft carriers and drones and on and on and on year after year but we cant issue a new standard battle rifle?

Our Militaries JSOC/SOCOM section has been using everything they could get there hands on that isn't an M4 since the " war on terror " began . And why is that? because they actually put rounds through there rifles in combat situations on a regular basis , they know all to well how an M4 performs under real operational stress.

Take a look at the SIG MCX that is one of the best designed rifles I have ever seen , it really is a piece of genius .

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Last Centurion kind of fits the Coronavirus outbreak going on now. The section on "Trust" is dead on.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Yeah, I noticed that too. For being fiction, he did a hell of a job with that book and hit dead on in several places.

originally posted by: ADVISOR

Carrying 700 5.56 versus 700 7.62 is why we use the smaller caliber's. Also wounding an opponent versus killing them, is a more effective way of removing more bodies from the Battle.

1 Kia or 1 wounded and two others to secure and treat...

I can't believe people still spout this. The 5.56mm was never designed to wound rather than kill. There is no doctorine or training publication that advocates this, and it completely goes against operational law.

If I fight through a position (5th section battle drill) the enemies wounded left in that position are now my responsibility. They are clogging up my CASEVAC chain, not the enemies. An opponent with any sort of organisation will have a reserve and CASEVAC plan that does not draw from the fighting force.

If I fight through a position (5th section battle drill) the enemies wounded left in that position are now my responsibility. They are clogging up my CASEVAC chain, not the enemies. An opponent with any sort of organisation will have a reserve and CASEVAC plan that does not draw from the fighting force.

a reply to: PaddyInf


And so it is , and so it ever was , and so it ever will be. Because we are the only ones playing by the rules when it comes to war. I mean they dont even let our armed forces use hollow points, I guess there considered cruel or something I'm not sure. Which makes no since to me , I mean an MP5 or Kriss V pouring out JHP at 900-1000 rpm is going to end life way quicker than any FMJ.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Lol the Sig mcx that's now on it's third iteration and now named "virtus" which has limited parts compatibility with its first two mcx iterations which both had rather severe problems with them?

(For those keeping score, the virtus is still too new and too expensive to tell whether said issues are actually fixed yet... They're hilariously more expensive than a midgrade m4gery just like the 416, I did not that right?)

Or since we already brought it up, what at the m27/hk416, the messiah of the piston gun world?

Yeah, the 416 which beats itself to death with even m855 to say nothing of more modern 5.56 like mk318 mod1 and m855a1 because the idiots at hk designed out absolutely all the dwell time inherent to the properly designed gas system the weapon was designed for!

Here's a reality check, the hk guns have drastically reduced parts and receiver lifespans with the exception of the barrel. This is why you hear about nothing but that "miraculous barrel life" which isn't actually miraculous since the steel maker who makes barrel steel for hk will make it for anyone.

(Bonus fun 416 fact: it being able to "shoot underwater" and not explode is due to a whole 5 holes drilled in strategic locations... 5 holes other manufacturers don't drill for very good reasons btw)

Also just ranting about "piston operating systems" and how they're so successful is absolutely nonsensical since the AR itself is piston operated even if your average rabid "pistons are superior" fanboy is unaware of it, but also the "piston systems" of the "dozens of successful other guns around the world" are wildly disparate in how they work and every other possible variation to include being long and short stroke which are completely different.

And this is really the core objection I have to you and your opinions is that they are wildly uninformed and have very little to do with reality.

In point of fact, you are so uninformed and ignorant of the very basics of the subject matter you hold such strong opinions about that it's literally impossible to have a constructive conversation with you about this subject because you quite frankly just flat do not possess the basic knowledge to discuss it constructively.

a reply to: roguetechie

Yes the Sig MCX is a new rifle and yes it hit some speed bumps along the way just like any new rifle design tends to do, a prime example of this would be the AR-15 herself that rifle had a plethora of issues that became glaringly obvious during the Vietnam War. They were ironed over and the Grunts using her in Vietnam learned to work around and with those issues, Now back to the SIG MCX it is expensive yes and you know perfectly well why that is , its because it has no Government contract covering the R&D trial and error needed to smooth out all the issues with what is basically a whole new rifle platform. The AR-15 had unlimited Government funding , in short the Government was gong to make sure that rifle made it through initial productuon regardless of how many issues it had, and there were many. Considering the SIG MCX was built from the ground up , designed , tested and fielded to the civilan market and some Military use if im not mistaken , it has done very well. And its final iteration is like I said previously a brilliant rifle .

Secondly I do not know why you keep bringing up the HK-416 , Have any of my post since my original post had some sort of HK-416 fan boy theme to them ? Ill look back but I'm sure they dont. I have not done much research on the HK-416 for two reasons 1. its an overpriced rifle just like everything else from HK. 2. its completely non-compatible with any parts or upgrades that arent specifically designed by HK. Yes the HK-416 was one of the first designed AR's with a piston , that does not make it the sole proprietor of Piston driven AR's , all of which you keep conveniently skimming over. A few examples being Barrets line of Piston AR's and Remingtons R4 both are excellent rifles. I will admit though the AR-15 was not and is still not meant to run a piston , which is why I point towards the SIG MCX as an example of a better rifle its external design is basically a mimic of the AR-15 besides the stock of course, while its internals are a complete redesign i.e. the dual glide recoil springs are genius and make the rifle very stable and accurate while firing.

Is it really nonsensical to say Piston rifles are more successful ? Then answer me this why does the rest of the worlds Militaries use Piston Driven rifles ? The United States is the only military to field DI rifles , now of course other countries buy and use AR's from us but that is besides the point. The truth of the matter is our military got sucked into a contract with the AR-15 design back in the 60's and we have been stuck with it ever since .

since the AR itself is piston operated even if your average rabid "pistons are superior" fanboy is unaware of it

Wrong , flat out wrong and you know it.

but also the "piston systems" of the "dozens of successful other guns around the world" are wildly disparate in how they work and every other possible variation to include being long and short stroke which are completely different.

Gas pushing a rod , its not that complicated. , Long stroke pistons are attached permanently to the bolt an example being the AK-47 . A short stroke piston is not attached permanently an example being basically any Piston rifle that is not the AK-47.

You say I dont know what I'm talking about, then your not paying attention to my post and every reply I have written. You my friend are blinded by your love of the AR-15 , I know full well the in's and outs of that rifle and I still have no love for it

a reply to: roguetechie

I just read through the whole original post , and all my replys too you.

Let me first apologize for constantly trying to undermine you, while giveing no credit to what you were saying.

You make excellent points, and you obviously have an in-depth knowledge of the AR-15 and other small arms, You have given me another view of the AR-15 while I stand by what I say I appreciate your wisdom on the subject.

Also forgive my constant bantering about my Military experience, I should never throw that in anyones face all in all those memories are better left alone.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

It's all good man. We're all doing this mostly for entertainment anyway.

Also, I just want to make it clear that at the points where I've said this is hard to discuss with you because you don't have the knowledge you'd need to understand... It was not meant to be derogatory, rather some of this stuff is just incredibly specialized and far from common knowledge.

I've probably read an easy 5000+ pages of pure technical reports and things like testimony from the ichord commission on the m16 alone!

(My M16 data archive is well over a couple gigabytes and includes the technical data packages for all but a very few DOD m16 product lines. Specifically I'm missing the m4a1, M231, MK12 SPR, and the mark 18 ones)

Additionally I have patents and other technical documentation of varying amounts on most of the genuine improvements out there for the m16/AR15 system.

This is far from the only firearm I have an interest in and large amounts of technical documentation for though.

I also understand your frustration with the system as misplaced as it is in my view.

The DOD has done a terrible job of actually making the guns they issue our people nearly as good as they could be with shocking ease.

This is to say nothing of what the gun could be if they really went all out! (Leroy James Sullivan has an update all ready to go which corrects and far beyond all the legitimate issues the design has!)

On the subject of the 5.56 round itself especially in the context of military use, 5.56 kinda sucked until fairly recently.

That said though, at this point we now have ammunition that makes 5.56 extraordinarily potent and very much one of if not the best rounds in existence for an individual weapon there is or has been. (That said, if they redesigned the round now they could have a lighter even better round that would still fit in the stanag magazine but require at minimum new follower and barrels chambered to accept the revised design. More than likely/ideally they'd also redo at least the barrel extension and bolt too... Possibly a few other things to really make it sing)

On the piston thing, some of my favorite designs use short and long stroke piston and or hybrid short/long stroke DI operating systems. I don't hold DI sacred in any way that way. It just so happens that within the constraints of designing an individual weapon the stoner/Johnson/Sullivan operating system is freakishly hard to outdo for a number of reasons. (It is possible though even if people aren't doing it currently)

It's long over due. I can't recall ever having the M4 not jamming at some point every time we went to the range to keep are qualification up to date(I did ASF while in the NAVY). That was under controlled conditions at a range. I had the same issues with the M9 Beretta.

Our servicemen need to be better armed than the enemy. It amazes me that with such a bloated military budget, we can't get better standard issued rifles and handguns.

a reply to: jrod

...while I'm sure that was frustrating for you personally here's some points to consider.

1. YOU WERE IN THE NAVY: there was no incentive whatsoever to give you guys fresh brand new guns or even well looked after old ones... And so they didn't.

2. YOU WERE IN THE NAVY: I can tell you for sure without even having to ask questions about when or where you served that you were also getting old USGI spec aluminum mags that were almost certainly old enough to have bad springs and feed lip deformation to say nothing of actually having even the original upgraded followers that has now been replaced by 4+ subsequent revised upgraded followers!

I could go on with further points to consider but really these two should give you a general idea of how that will go. Combine very old guns often cobbled back together from the remains of multiple broken guns with magazines (and likely ammo) that are well past needing to be replaced due to wear etc and you're not going to have a good experience with the gun!

Especially in an AR where the overwhelming majority of stoppages are magazine induced as confirmed by decades and probably a couple million rounds easy worth of test data.

It's not fair to the weapon system, or in any way smart to be doing, when you blame problems with the Navy itself on the weapon system.

To a certain extent all the branches did it but the Navy is particularly egregious in it's history of running small arms so far past when they shoul have been replaced that they're just practically unusable all because they don't consider having working small arms for their personnel even a blip on the bottom of their list of priorities!

The reality is had it been basically any other guns at all in the case of both the m16's and m9's you just would have had completely inoperable weapons had it been say a g3 and a colt 1911 instead of those two had the Navy not recapitalized their small arms to the same degree they did with the m9 and m16!

The reality is everything from the receivers your guns were built on to the magazines were almost certainly ran so far beyond any reasonable round counts that the real miracle is they even functioned at all. You are damn lucky the DOD picked those two guns in truth because they're insane longevity at least resulted in semi functional weapons being available to you.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Wait? You think the 416 was one of the first successful piston ar conversions?

The Taiwanese, the Koreans, Colt, and many many other people will be sad to hear their successful conversions don't count...

Also I bring up the 416 because in some ways it's one of the better piston conversions, and obviously the most well known judging by your belief it was first which is not an uncommon belief btw, and it's still phenomenally bad.

For the record I actually like the Sig mcx system better than the other piston abortions, but it's still not great.

No the internal piston statement I made is in not a lie in any way, it's God's honest truth! The ass end of the bolt actually functions as a very clever inline piston which actuates the firing cycle... Hence the gas sealing rings and the gas vent holes in the side of the carrier!

This is actually one of the primary secrets of what not only allows you to make them so damn light AND well behaved when it comes to recoil characteristics. The "piston" being directly inline and concentric to the bore means you only have to engineer the gun to deal with forces in more or less a straight line on a single axis allowing for much lighter construction.

As far as piston guns being "more successful" that's really pretty debatable when it's more of an even split worldwide with DI AR's and the whole herd of various short stroke piston designs (g36, l85, FN FNC, short stroke AR's of various flavors, the AUG, & at cetera) coming in a relatively close 2nd and 3rd place with long stroke piston guns coming in first by an absolute landslide (AK family to include INSAS galil etc AND the Chinese type 95 all being long stroke piston actuated and I'm sure I don't need to tell you that with China India the Russians and everyone who uses their weapons or evolutions of them is the majority of countries out there!)

With that said though, the Chinese also use DI and hybrid DI systems in several of their 12.7x108 hmg's specifically because it allowed them to make their guns much lighter than other 50 cal mg's (check 'em out sometime, they're pretty neat)

Finally, for what it's worth I far from hate piston guns...

If you only knew the trouble I'm going through right now to design and fab up a polymer and steel hybrid AUG receiver so I can build up my stash of AUG parts kits you'd realize it's not about loving or hating a certain operating system but rather I just plain intimately understand the differences strengths and weaknesses of them.

a reply to: roguetechie

No the internal piston statement I made is in not a lie in any way, it's God's honest truth! The ass end of the bolt actually functions as a very clever inline piston which actuates the firing cycle... Hence the gas sealing rings and the gas vent holes in the side of the carrier!

I understand full well that the bolt acts like a self contained piston unto itself and I kinda figured thats what you meant, but just to anyone that does not understand the difference while you can say an AR-15 technically has a piston bolt . It is still not to be confused with an actual Clean Piston operating system which uses a rod to move the bolt instead of just raw dirty gas like the DI system on a AR-15.

This is actually one of the primary secrets of what not only allows you to make them so damn light AND well behaved when it comes to recoil characteristics. The "piston" being directly inline and concentric to the bore means you only have to engineer the gun to deal with forces in more or less a straight line on a single axis allowing for much lighter construction.

Very true the over all design of the AR-15 is beautifully simple , All of its working parts are in a controlled straight line essentially the entire weapon is one long metal tube , with a stock and a grip . You can almost see the gears turning in Eugene Stoners mind while he designed the rifle , though still while the weapon was almost perfect Stoner should have designed a piston into the weapon initially instead of going with DI. I understand DI is lighter , less moving parts and over all simpler . I still maintain that the rifle would have been absolutly perfect with a piston instead of DI.

barrett.net...
that ^^rifle is damn near perfect.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

The real question is, why does it need to be a "clean" operating system" if the weapon will go thousands of rounds dirty provided you occasionally clear bbl fouling and make sure crud doesn't build up in or on the locking surfaces?

This is another one of those problems the DOD causes that get blamed on the gun!

The obsessive, and not only unnecessary but downright detrimental, fixation on keeping the guns ridiculously clean inside in areas where it really doesn't matter actually hurts the weapon!

One of the things us civvies, and Marine DI's, have learned is that running the b*****s damn near wet with CLP and keeping only areas that truly need it passably clean makes for happy guns.

(Again the sopmod bolt upgrade kit, proper middy gas system on a 14.5", good magazines which are not wore out and have followers that present rounds correctly, and a buffer/spring combo best suited to your ammo of choice are massively helpful here but not die in the dirt necessary)

And therein lies the problem, the DOD actively insists on policies and parts combinations which make the gun work less well than it should!

My question is, do you honestly believe the DOD would engage in any less stupidity with any other system? Especially where those other systems are going to be more complex and less tolerant of bureaucratic or other forms of stupidity?

And you should note that in the absence of DOD mandated stupid I can do almost silly abusive stuff to my AR's and they will chug right through it.

I have taken multiple guns of mine beyond the several thousand round mark without a detail cleaning of any sort by doing the things I've described and my experience is not unique.

OTOH doing things the DOD way on DOD bureaucrat mandated gun configurations also produces depressingly consistent bad results like you and others experienced...

This strongly suggests that the gun itself isn't the issue at this point.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Also the 5.56x45 round used in the AR-15 variety rifles is a joke in and of its self, requiring that our soldiers be trained to fire in controlled pairs so as to ensure enough damage is done the target because one round falls short a high percentage of the time. Now 5.56x45 has its positives it’s a low recoil round coupled with high velocity making it very controllable and easy to shoot, also it’s a small light weight round allowing for a high ammo capacity with the average combat arms load out. The kinetic energy of the round is pathetic carrying almost no punch behind it while at the same time its high velocity gives the round a tendency to pass through the target causing minimal damage hence the controlled pairs. Compared to the 7.62x39 the 5.56 is a varmint round, the 7.62 is designed to cause maximum damage to soft tissue, it’s a heavy slow moving round making it very very effective at stopping human targets.

You forgot one of the main reasons behind the 5.56x45. It was selected because it maims (not eliminates) so that an injured victim would need to be removed from the field with assistance, thus occupying more enemy combatants.

a reply to: redmage

How many times -

NO IT WASN'T!!!

Please see my response to the same tired statement further up this page.

a reply to: ADVISOR

But some things never change because why fix what's not broken.

But, but...that's not how the military works!

Can anyone say...Bradley Fighting Vehicle? Beretta M9? (might as well bolt some scuba diving weights on your hip!) How about V-22 Osprey? Littoral Combat Ship? The obsession with standing down the A-10? And the hits just keep on coming.

a reply to: roguetechie

My Makarov and Kalashnikov(both a made in Russia, elsewhere as many are) have a much longer life expectancy and overall functionality that the M9 and M4, (though only an 8 round magazine thay is tough to drop for a quick reload with the Makarov).

Some of the magazine's for the M4 were old, and the rifles varied in age and condition. Even the newer ones were prone to jamming. The magazine's were certainly not the issue with the the M9 Beretta, possibly old ammo would cause frequent jams/stove pipes. That said, our of 50 round at least one would jam. I've fired countless rounds through my Makarov, some with obious signs of corrosion due to wet salty air on my boats and never had a jam.

Though it is a different beast, my grandfather's 30'ot'6 that is older than my parents never fails us grandkids when we go shooting(yeah I know bolt action).

While you are knowledgeable, I disagree with you especially with the M4/16. It has been an inferior rifle since it was issued and never should have been the standard issued rifle for so long. There are situations where it is effective, especially with 3 round bursts in a home invasion raid but there are many better options.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Because Phased Plasma Rifles in the 40-watt range are not a thing yet?

On a more serious note, i imagine its down to monies and red tape.

a reply to: PaddyInf

No one said that one caliber is right tool for every job, and the same goes for the 5.56mm.

Yes, there are absolutely scenarios, like the one you've stated, where such maiming goals are not optimal, but that doesn't change one of the stated benefits/features given regarding the initial choice of 5.56mm vs the larger 7.62. Tactics and warfare have changed immensely since its initial design and adoption.