Military’s gun of choice under fire

Military’s gun of choice under fire

This is an interesting article from msnbc about some of the concerns over the M4 rifle our troops are using.

A few things that bother me, that is '94 Colt got a no-bid contract and we have dumped hundreds of millions into their coffers.

And since the Sept. 11 attacks, sales have skyrocketed. Basically, when 9/11 occured a bunch of their execs hit the lotto.

I am no weaponry expert but it seems that HK and others have had some alternatives worth a look but the bureaucracy wouldn't allow a stray from the norm.

Any ex/current military with thoughts on this?? My cousin is in Afghanastan
I will have to ask him.





www.msnbc.msn.com...

The glorified pea shooter adopted by the us a few years ago should be scrapped.
The M16 was adequate when it was chamberd in 7.62. At least you got some impact on target.
The DOD in it's wisdom descided that the average infantry grunt was carrying too much weight in ammo, and the average grunt was not adequately trained to control recoil for acuracy on full auto.
Thier solution was to go to an inferior weapon rather than go for a superior soldier.
I personaly carried a Ak for a variety on reasons.
First because it's an excellent piece of machinery
second, in a fire fight, my weapon sounds like a friendly to the bad guys which has been advantageous on many occasions.
last but not least, I could resupply my ammo from the enemy after they no longer had use for it.
The current 223 typicaly fires in a 3 round burst, most probably because it takes at least 3 rounds to get the bad guys attention.
I personaly never liked full auto as it tends to burn alot of ammo with little or no accuracy.
I much prefer picking my target, putting one in center mass, and moving to the next target.
Speed without accuracy is just being in a hurry to miss. much better to pace yourself and hit your target.
In the words of the immortal Wyat Earp, " the trick is to take your time in a hurry "

reply to post by 1ShotDeal


Interesting feedback.

What conflicts were you involved in? I think intentionally giving our troops inferior weapons to line the pockets of the DOD buddy CEO's is treason.

reply to post by 1ShotDeal


When was the M-16 chambered for 7.62 ammunition?

With whom did you serve and when?

reply to post by SoundFX


I think the military has plans to replace the M-4 when the right technology comes on line.

I hate to say this, but I think this boils down to a pork issue and not a tactical one.

Colt's contract is up next year and I really can't see that the Congress could get it's act together before then anyway.

Why should the Pentagon be forced to waste money on a study now, when they will be doing one anyway in a year or so?

The M-16 has been criticized for being prone to jams as a result of sand and grit since the war in Vietnam. I experienced it myself, but the fact remains that the firearm has served well for more than 40 years.

Look how long the BMG .50 has been in service.


[edit on 2008/4/21 by GradyPhilpott]