RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,143790,00.html
BUY AK-47ns

Sounds like you subscribe to the "pray and spray" method.

Yeah, you got to clean the M-16 series more often, but you get a much more accurate weapon in the deal.
Best thing is a compromise of designs....getting rid of the gas system on the M-16/M4 is a good starting point.
That system is the main reason why it gets so damN dirty so quickly.
That and the heat from the tube goes right back into the action and plays havoc with longevity.

The M-4 carbine, when properly maintained, is an adequate enough weapon for most of us. My primary concern is its 5.56 round, but it's not worth the trouble and money for us to switch at this point.

Elite troops can always get the weapons they want and need.

ALOHA, WE'RE GOING TO TEST THE M-4 NOW!!??
JMJ, WHY NOT IN A MONTH, WHY NOT NEXT YEAR??
WE'VE ONLY BEEN IN IRAG FOR WHAT 4 YEARS!!!
NOW WE'RE GOING TO TEST THE M-4, YOU GOTTA BE
KIDDING. WHY DON'T WHOLE UNITS USE THE AK-47.
USE THE AMMO THE INSURGENTS ARE USING. SEEMS
LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH STOPPAGES!!
THIS IS LIKE WE ARE BECOMING SO TECHNICAL AND
OVERWHELMED WITH LAWYERS, AND TECHNO SMART GUYS
WE ARE KILLING PEOPLE WITH OUR OWN SLOW MOVING
FACADE CONCIOUS STUPIDITY. MAYBE WE SHOULD
THINK SOME MORE ABOUT THE RIGHT GUN TO USE.
LIKE BLUNDERBUSS'S WITH METRIC THREADED SCREWS
AND NUTS. IF THE GENERAL'S ARE TOO WRAPPED UP
IN THEIR OWN WELL BEING FOR NOW AND IN THE
FUTURE, MAYBE THEY SHOULD LEAVE. TURN THE WAR
OVER TO SOME LIFER SERGEANTS,WITH BAD ATTITUDES, AND TOTAL DISLIKE FOR EVERYBODY, LET THEM USE WHAT THEY FIND IN COUNTRY AND STOP TESTING STUFF.
THE SOLDIERS AND MARINES SHOULD BE THOROUGHLY
CONVINCED THEY ARE USING THE BEST STUFF, CAUSE
THAT'S WHAT'S BEING USED ON THEM.
I KNOW WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. STOP SCREWING
AROUND AND HIRE KALASHNIKOV HIMSELF, BUILD US
A GUN THAT WILL SHUT ALL THE TECHNO SPOOKS UP
AND WILL LAST AS LONG IN THE ARSENAL AS THE
AK-47 LASTED IN RUSSIA. THIS TESTING STUFF,
IS STARTING TO MAKE US LOOK LIKE WE DON'T KNOW
WHAT THE HELL WE ARE DOING. DO WE KNOW WHAT WE
ARE DOING??? WE DO KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING???
DON'T WE??? WELL DON'T WE?????

If they continue to use "washed beach sand" as a test media, the whole thing will continue to be irrelevant. The particle size of the dust is what is causing most of the problems. At 1 micron particle size it is causing all kinds of rethinking from filter types for equipment to how we lubricate things.

The M-16 and M-4 are proven reliable weapons when properly maintained. I personally own numerous variations. I even have some fully loaded with all the railed equipment. But, as stated the 5.56 round has become ineffective in most scenerios. Therefore, the bump-up to the 7.62(.308) round would be a most effective choice. The frame I would use would be Armilites AR-10 with additions as needed. I too have this weapon that I built from the lower receiver out and found that it is a most effective weapon. In fact, I do believe R. Lee Ermy would love to get his paws on this one for a go around on his watermelons. As far as bringing back the M1-A, that would be an excellent choice with a lightweight fiberglass stock. These are tried and true, why does the Pentagon always have to have some new design that costs a fortune and then may not even work?

I couldn't agree more. I would carry an M1A any day of the week over the M16/M4. I'll trade some extra pounds for improved range, accuracy, reliability, and stopping power.

I had absolutely no problems with my M-4, but if someone wants to give me back my M-14 I won't complain at all!

quote:

Originally posted by rkgtactical:
The M-16 and M-4 are proven reliable weapons when properly maintained. I personally own numerous variations. I even have some fully loaded with all the railed equipment. But, as stated the 5.56 round has become ineffective in most scenerios. Therefore, the bump-up to the 7.62(.308) round would be a most effective choice. The frame I would use would be Armilites AR-10 with additions as needed. I too have this weapon that I built from the lower receiver out and found that it is a most effective weapon. In fact, I do believe R. Lee Ermy would love to get his paws on this one for a go around on his watermelons. As far as bringing back the M1-A, that would be an excellent choice with a lightweight fiberglass stock. These are tried and true, why does the Pentagon always have to have some new design that costs a fortune and then may not even work?

Morning Commander! I qualified on the M-1 in Navy basic training in August 1970......hot weather, hot weapon!

Let's equip our Troops with the best.

Its not only a question of which system is the best, but also how quickly can ordinance get the weapons to the guys on the ground.
If past history is any example, acquisition and supply will take months to finally make a decision and months further to finally get the purchase funds through congress and then there is the process of fabricating the weapons in the necessary numbers. It would be nice if, after several weeks of testing a decision is made and the pentagon could call the manufacturer and tell them to send 250,000 to our troops by overnight express post, but in the real world, the military and government does not work that way.
I understand that the ordinance department finally got the last shipment of muskey flints to Washington at Valley Forge last month!!!

Before you loose your mind trying to figure this disaster out.
You have troops in the field, you have over 100 years of military leadership of ground troops. The weapon you have, is there from actual live fire in the field fighting a war. It is heavy, uses a cartridge and projectile which the in the field fighting a war live testing has found to be most effective. Can you get a better one? Probably you can but this is the best and it works well. It's the M1 Garrand. What your enemy needs for cover (not concealment) cover. Is thick dirt berms, solid concrete walls, heavy steel plating, etc. This might keep him safe. Concealment? He can do that behind a sheet of news paper. This is truly and offensive weapon, multi purpose also. You can go defensive and guard something with it.
Bring on the Air Force. You has some stuff here that really don't like foreign objects. Dust, dirt, rain, sunlight, rocks, rags, clothing, hand tools, the list is endless. Any of these items in the wrong place and you have a disaster on your hands. Some guy marching around these things "guarding" them with a what?????? A high powered rifle and a bullet that will go right through one of these things. I think not. How would you "guard" one of these things and other stuff around it. Easy. Go to an air craft manufacturer and get something. The AR-15 looks like it is a nasty weapon, strapped on an AP. White hat, white gloves, white scarf, brass spit and polish, standing there like a beacon. This guy don't blend with anything, he is not suppose to. Strap a buck rogers looking thing on this guy and you have a space age guard. If he fires this buck rogers looking thing the round is so small it won't do too much damage to the "stuff" he is guarding, in fact it won't even penetrate too much of the stuff he is guarding. A pure defensive weapon and not a very good one, but looks impressive, with all the brass and the flash. One size fits all Bob McNamara when better car are built ford will build them. Takes charge here. This is truly the weapon for the entire United States military. Designed through years of field testing buy ground troops???? Haven't got the time, we do it all on paper now and recycle that in the toilet facilities. What does your enemy need for cover in the field now? a few inches of something. Even a mattress will work as cover now. Stuff a few in a van, make a hole in the sheet metal so you can poke a muzzle out of it. Find some U.S. troops defending something with their space aged now M16A2. Drive up and open fire on them. Their rounds won't penetrate the mattresses light easy armor. Start a fire fight with them and wait for the jams. While they are clearing their weapon, you can charge in the open, your's is still working and will go right through the concrete wall they are hiding behind.
TEST?????? another weapon? Our ground forces have tested this one to death. Live in the field under actual combat conditions. IT'S LESS THAN SATISFACTORY!!!!!!!!! It's not working. Sand or powder residue jams. How many of these are considered as tested. The ground troops have documented 1000s of them. Load up all the Humvees with all the M16A2s and M4s and melt them down, like we should have done 20 years ago. Get our military real weapons and vehicles, we have been "testing" that junk in the field long enough. Move beyond the B.S. stop hiding as a bureaucrat. Place an order with H&K for 10,000 of their H&K M416 conversions and get them in the field. Lets have a look at that test. While the real troops are testing that one get yourself a plastic pail and scoop and build a few sand castles.

Why not use the AK47 like everyone else uses. You can inmerse them in mud and they will still fire. The ammunition is readly avalabile. Their firing mechanics are about the easiest to maintain.

All it comes down is simply politics. For some reason the Brass has been brainwash to thinking that only an American made rifle by an American arms manufacture can be the service's choice of the standard issue rifle. Thats funny considering all our belt feed weapons are made by a Belgium based company.

quote:

Originally posted by 18Bravo74:
I understand that the ordinance department finally got the last shipment of muskey flints to Washington at Valley Forge last month!!!

It's so true. I'm laughing, but I'm laughing at my self. I just stood there as part of this military and watched it destroyed a purchase at a time.
It's as you have said it takes years to get anything done. Those guys took out the twin towers with light duty planning a couple of box cutters in just seconds. We couldn't even get a national defense organized to counter the attack the red tape was blinding us as usual, so they got the pentagon and who knows what other target was next. Brave stand up Americans, took that option away. The only people that fought back that day. While the nation was busy doing damage control and shuffling more paper, they took the fight to the enemy. I'll bet no one knows their names and they were the heroes that gave all.

I'm SSG. Cagle when I was in Iraq in 05 I cleaned my M4 maybe five times within that one year while I was there. And I had no problems with my M4 rifle.

Because most ak47s are 3-5 MOA weapons at best...

But, direct impingement weapons can pose a problem. True enough if maintained constantly and with the proper picks, brushes, pipe cleaners, lubes etc, the operator can expect reliability. However that doesn't allow for the murphies law aspect of combat.

What if the warfighter is in a situation where he has to fire 1000+ rounds without cleaning?

What if the warfighter is in a situation where specialized cleaning equipement and chemicals arent available?

What if the warfighter has a demanding, non-combat MOS that ends up taking time away from maintence of the personal weapon??

Piston driven weapons like the AK series, 416 and scar can go thousands of rounds with just the occasional wipe down with a little kerosene dabbed onto an oily rag...

Luckily, these extreme performance situations aren't the norm in our military, but you engineer for the worst case scenario...

quote:

Why not use the AK47 like everyone else uses. You can inmerse them in mud and they will still fire. The ammunition is readly avalabile. Their firing mechanics are about the easiest to maintain.

quote:

Originally posted by MSGDaleEBuck:

quote:

Originally posted by rkgtactical:
The M-16 and M-4 are proven reliable weapons when properly maintained. I personally own numerous variations. I even have some fully loaded with all the railed equipment. But, as stated the 5.56 round has become ineffective in most scenerios. Therefore, the bump-up to the 7.62(.308) round would be a most effective choice. The frame I would use would be Armilites AR-10 with additions as needed. I too have this weapon that I built from the lower receiver out and found that it is a most effective weapon. In fact, I do believe R. Lee Ermy would love to get his paws on this one for a go around on his watermelons. As far as bringing back the M1-A, that would be an excellent choice with a lightweight fiberglass stock. These are tried and true, why does the Pentagon always have to have some new design that costs a fortune and then may not even work?

Morning Commander! I qualified on the M-1 in Navy basic training in August 1970......hot weather, hot weapon!

You are making sense. I started with the Garand up to and including the m-16 in RVN, and the M-1 Garand was the superior weapon by far and away over all the others.

AS many of the members who have posted here, I believe that the greater problem is with the ammo itself. The 5.56mm generates too litle kinetic energy! Always has. Always will.

It is bull-headed, stubborn and obstinate to the extreme for the Army not to put other weapons, using larger calibers, into the test alongside these light weights. I contend that a variation of the M-14, with a pistol grip and a 3-round burst option, would run over any of the 5.56mm variations. H-K has such a weapon in its inventory.

I just hope that no senator or congress person gets involved with this.