RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html

"There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

This quote is from a SpecOps acquisition notice about the HK416. This quote isn't entirely true. In fact there are several companies producing revised gas operating systems for the M16/M4 Carbine. They range from kits that retrofit current upper recievers to complete drop on upper recievers like the HK416. One company, Ares Defense Systems, Inc. offers both a retrofit gas system called the "GSR-35 Black Lightning" as well as a complete upper reciever replacement called the "Shrike 5.56 Advanced Weapons System" that is far more advanced than the HK416. Like the HK416, the Shrike AWS utilizes a more dependable barrel mounted gas operating system. This greatly increases the 'reliability' of the weapon in the field, but the Shrike AWS doesn't stop there. It also increases the 'firepower' of the weapon by adding belt feed capability. The Shrike AWS is modular and can be easily reconfigured as needed to feed from clips and belts or clips only or belts only dependent on mission requirements. That makes it more versatile than the HK416 that is refered to in the quote. I know that I am just nit picking here, but as any combat veteran knows, without accurate comunication and full situational awareness... your f*cked.

I agree.But why does the military Aquosition Program keep buying these defunct weapon's .Is it because of the company that makes these weapons have the upper command personnel in their back Pocket's .

y'all right. The Army is spending a lot of money on some useless stuff, but when it comes time to listen to somebody that is killing for a bussiness...they won't listen and keep spending on useless, dumb s*it!!! Oh well, what can we do....

I have used the M4 in OIF and I was nothing but
pleased with its performance. As long as you maintain this weapon and keep it cleen it won't
let you down. I have never held a xm8 but colt
rarely screws up but this new weapon may have its faults that may show up later. I say issue
a bulk of these to certain mos qaulified soldiers and give it time.

Wow. This is some of the shittiest writing I have seen in a professional article in a long time. How is it that someone with such poor grammar and structure as Christian Lowe can work write for a publication like military.com? And what editor didn't notice the blatant errors! I'm a first year college student and I and each of my peers could do a better job than this. Consider re-hiring.

im not in the military, but I think it's unacceptable that our government is sending troops to combat with weapons that jam in critical moments. The insurgents have better weapons than coalition forces! I can list many ways that their weapons are superior to ours. One, they're a larger caliber. Two, they are way more reliable. Three, they are inexpensive. And four, they have less parts.
It's like buying a ford pick-up over a toyota pick-up. It's plane stupid, yea the ford may look better but in the long run, who's going to have to replace thier transmission first? the frieking ford! our leaders have to grow some balls and admit that the m-4 SUCKS! It just does. If they don't think so then send "THEM" to the damn "sand box"!andwhen they come back, they're going to think differently about what they buy, and don't buy for our troops that are risking their lives.


and I dont care if my "Grammar is wrong". what matters is that my point got across! these messages are used to discuss the issue, not the grammar.

PEOPLE MAKE MISTAKES. LIVE WITH IT YOU LITTLE GIRL!

quote:

The insurgents have better weapons than coalition forces!

thats not true... if an m-4\m-16 whatever mod if properly kept clean it will work better then anything... the ak are not better but more "dumb proof" you dont need to clean it all that much to get it working... i bet the majority of problems our troops are having with their rifles are cleaning issues....

I would say that it is smart for the military to wait if the idea is to use the money to develop a new weapon to give our soldiers a considerable edge in the near future. The M-4 is a good weapon....granted there could be some improvements but it is still a good weapon. I used it in Iraq and I was very happy to have it.

For people who have never served in the military, I ask that you look at articles like this objectively (meaning: determined by the realities of the thing dealt with rather than the thoughts of the writer or speaker....without bias or prejudice.) Everyday we all are exposed to information that is provided to us with a certain amount of prejudice and opinion. In the civilian world we have it and also in the military world…let’s say scientists did a study on planetary exploration. The scientists did all these studies and came up with conclusions. They present the information to a board to receive funding. The individuals providing the information need to persuade the board to get a grant. The board members want to feel like they are giving money to a sure thing. These people asking for the money have all these positive examples and probably provide very few negatives. This is my example of spin…to spin is to gain confidence. I think the writer of this article is providing facts that are probably true…but not entirely true. I used the M-4 and I liked it…but there are other people who may not like the M-4. Right now the M-4 is doing a good job for many of our soldier. As for the bad guys…..have you seen their so called better weapons? Bigger caliber will usually do more damage but that doesn’t mean their weapons are better. So in closing, don’t get upset and don’t entirely believe the negatives….don’t entirely believe the positives…..we don’t know all the ins and outs of all decisions made….and have faith that our soldiers are doing good with good equipment….granted there is always better but at what price?

Take this article with more than just a "grain" of salt. Stories like this are usually the idea of somebody with an ax to grind who talks to a reporter who thinks he can "sting" the Army. Selecting a standard rifle for over half a million men is a complicated business. A LOT of testing needs to be done under a LOT of different conditions. There are a lot more issues involved than mentioned in the article. Over the last couple of hundred years the Army has developed procedures designed to take all these issues into consideration and give them their proper weight before contracts are let. Mistakes do happen. Replacing the M-1 Garand with the M-14 comes to mind. But the Army usually corrects these mistakes fairly quickly as it did with the M-14. Rather than let a small part of the Army (SpecOps) decide what the entire Army should be firing, I think we'd be well served to let the Army make it decisions based on what's right for the entire Army and National Guard.

Well, call me a pariah, but I've never been a great fan of the M16/M4 line of weapons. I hear ya' about keeping the weapon clean. All well and good in a field training environment, but just how practical that is in actual combat is a matter of opinion. Yes soldiers should maintain their weapons, yes they do need to clean them, yes, officers and NCO need to ride herd on this at all times. Question is, "why introduce a weapon in an environment where there is a known fatal defect?".

Lets be serious. THe M16 was initially designed as a Cold-War weapon with the threat corridor being eastern Europe. The weapon will function quite well there. It just isn't the best suited for dusty, gritty environments.

Maybe I'm biased, but I prefer my good ol' M14. Of course, troops today have enough junk on their backs to worry about a 9lb hunk of furniture, and heavy basic load. So, give 'em the HK, and give 'em a better chance.

God Bless Our Boys and Girls!!

C/T out...

Here is what it boils down to folks, its the same issue that we have been facing for some time now. Big wigs get wrapped around the axle and enamored with bright flashy systems and the newest most highly marketed equipment out there. Anyone who has been to an AUSA convention would know this. They would also know that the government will spend millions of dollars on researching into various systems and take forever developing in them and then toss the project out. One example of a long and drawn out project has been the Land Warrior system. As a kid my father would take me to AUSA conventions and I saw the soldier milling around with the Land Warrior system which at that time was just a mock up. I was still in grade school then, and just now is it seeing real feild time and I am 24 years old and have several years of service under my belt.

The most important thing the government could do at this point, is start listening to the soldiers, especially our special units and special operators. These soldiers put equipment that is currently in the inventory through more abuse and use than any regular line dog unit soldier would ever dream of. If there is a system that is better than the current one available, and you can procure it at a fairly cheap price as an upgrade or a kit, It should be seriously looked at.

Soldiers on the ground know what they need. Not people at the very top who hear things after being filtered through a plethora of yes men who can't be the honest broker that people who can make changes need, put some CW4s and 5s up there to cut through the Bull.

What is the matter with the M-4? What isn't it doing that it should be doing? I have read stuff on the internet about piston guns and how they are supposed to be better but I have also read that thier isn't a problem with the gas system on the M-16 family of weapons. I asked the guy at my local gun range and he said that his department in his law enforcement career never had a problem with carbon build up causing a malfunction. So what is the answer? I know I don't know. Thanks

RE: Army Wont Field Superior Rifle.

The Army wont field because they riding on the same corrupt train as the politicians they are doing business with and somebody (all the above mentioned along with the manufacturers of the M-16 & M-4) is/are making a tidy little profit at the soldier's expense! It's back door politics at their finest boys and girls and take a look around at who stands to make out on these deals like the Kennedy family who owns quite a bit of stock in certain weapons manufacturers (like Colt) that are the current and long term providers for the military! Weapons like the XM-8 and the new Israeli weapon the TAR 21 will never make it in to the ready hands of our US Soldiers. We will just have to continue to use the crap that the rest of the world (including the bads guys) wouldn't even consider wasting their money on!

I was an infantryman in the Persian Gulf war and I must say, I was very dissapointed with the M16 A2. M4 is anything like the M16 I used, that damn thing jams up a lot. It just cannot handle the sandy environment of the middle east. Others, you can say what you want about the lack of cleaning, you can clean the hell out of these weapons and have the slightest breeze throw a tad bit of sand up into the bolt area while firing and the damn thing will jam.

Keep in mind, I'm not slamming the weapon as a whole, just the reliability in certain environments. In a ideal situation (no sand or dirt) this is a wonderful weapon of choice.

Corruption and burocracy at its finest right here.

quote:

Originally posted by 14277171:
I was an infantryman in the Persian Gulf war and I must say, I was very dissapointed with the M16 A2. M4 is anything like the M16 I used, that damn thing jams up a lot. It just cannot handle the sandy environment of the middle east. Others, you can say what you want about the lack of cleaning, you can clean the hell out of these weapons and have the slightest breeze throw a tad bit of sand up into the bolt area while firing and the damn thing will jam.

Keep in mind, I'm not slamming the weapon as a whole, just the reliability in certain environments. In a ideal situation (no sand or dirt) this is a wonderful weapon of choice.

Not a whole lot of smallarms ammunition fired by U.S. forces in Desert Storm .. probably more so .. in preperation .... I think that .. dad was a better tactician

I have worked with the HK 416 and I can tell you everything they say about its reliability is true. The special forces community has a more stringent set of requirements that the M4 just wasn't meeting. The barrel life wasn't long enough and reliability was a problem. The 416 is more accurate, has a longer barrel life, is more reliable, and is much easier to maintain because the bolt isn't cooked with hot propellant gases every time it fires. In fact the bolt will stay cool to the touch through hundreds and hundreds of rounds. It does not malfunction under the worst operation environments and there is even a 7.62 version called the 417 or "big brother". There is a 417 at HK headquarters that is still shooting MOA after over 15,000 rounds. I have been to weapons demos and the soldiers trying the HK for the first time in all kinds of range scenarios preferred the 416 to both M4 and SCAR. Also HK's new grenade launcher module, glm 320, clips right on with no tools and no shift in zero every time. The Army is procuring the 320. The only reason the boys in the field are being kept from this rifle is that Colt has a very sweet contract that they are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to. The 416 is by far the better weapon system, I encourage you to check out the future weapons episode featuring it; the clip is on youtube. I witnessed the torture tests again and again through a few hundred rounds and there was never any hiccups whatsoever in conditions that would make an M4 literally explode.

There has been blowback designs in the AR-15/M-16 family of weapons ... since at least the early 80s ... one was by Rhino , another in the 9mm ,.45 cal setup ! .. why the Military does not incorperate the system for the majority of the weapons ... who knows ... they must know something ... we don't .

But from reading all this .. Im beginning to think that for the majority ... they need a much more simplified rifle ... on the line of a Garand action ... or Kalashnikova action ... the AR-15 action seems to be ... far to complicated for most .

Hi Folks, not here to "push" my product... however I think its fair to push people to at least look at what Ive spent alotta time, money and effort into.
The Wor4 tacrail brings the beretta up to, and into this century........ allows for not only a "cheap"way to bottom mount a light , but also gives the operater the opportunity to mount an optical, "get it done", sight.........
If you wanna look, again, no trying to sell anything. I'd be interested in your feedback
see www.survivalconsultants.com and look at the TacRail...... Best to all of you, keep you six covered.....Best, David Woroner, President SCI