|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Experienced Member |
M-4s All Around
August 7, 2008: The U.S. Army is now distributing the M4 Carbine to support troops and commanders in units not operating in the combat zone. The M16 is still the standard infantry weapon, but the shorter M4 is replacing it in situations where weight and size is a factor, and long range shooting isn't. In some cases troops who were previously armed with a pistol, now have a more powerful M4 to tote around. The M-4 has been around since the early 1990s, when a special version of the M4 was adopted for use by SOCOM (Special Operations Command). SOCOM often takes the lead in developing new weapons, or versions of existing ones (like the M4, a modified M16 design). Once SOCOM has demonstrated that a new item works in combat, the army and marines are inclined to consider adopting it as well. The M4 is much more compact than the M16, not just because of the shorter barrel, but because of the telescoping stock. This makes the M4 much easier to use by people in vehicles, or for combat support people who must carry around, but rarely use, a rifle. The M4 is 33 inches long and weighs 6.9 pounds (with a 30 round magazine.) In contrast, the M16 weighs 8.5 pounds and is 39.5 inches long. The M4 has a 14.5 inch barrel, while the M16's is 20 inches. The other main difference between the two weapons is that the M16 is more effective at longer ranges (over 300 meters), because of its longer barrel. But combat experience in the 20th century demonstrated time and again that most (over 90 percent) of the time, your average infantry soldier did not need a personal weapon that was optimized for long range shooting. Almost all combat took place at shorter ranges. It was more effective to have specialized weapons (light machine-guns and larger caliber sniper rifles) for the long range stuff, and a lighter and handier weapon for close in work. For years, there have been controversies over the wounding power of the 5.56mm bullet used in both the M4 and M16, as well as the reliability of the firing mechanism for both rifles (which have 80 percent compatibility of components). The army has surveyed the troops several times, and conducted many tests, to try and settle these disputes. The basic finding is that 89 percent of the troops had confidence in the M4, but did have complaints about jamming and the hitting power of the 5.56mm round. Changing to a new weapon would cost several billion dollars, and none of the proposed candidates, as far as the generals were concerned, had a dramatic advantage over the M4 (and could end up introducing new problems.) So, for the moment, the M4, a smaller version of the 1950s M16 design, remains. The U.S. Marine Corps is sticking with the M16 for most of its troops, but has junior grade officers carrying the M4 instead of a pistol. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20080807.aspx In an ADA unit all officers carried a M-16 except the commander and he carried a pistol. |
||
|
|
Member |
About time they got something like the M4 to tote instead of a pistol. Extra firepower is always welcome, IMHO. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Anybody familiar with the .45 'grease gun' the tankers used to carry? submachine gun with a folding stock? Assuming the reliability was there, think I'd prefer it in close quarters over the M-4 or 9mm.. any old tankers have an opinion?
|
|||
|
Experienced Member |
I remember the M3A1 grease gun. SPAT crews in the 101st were issued it back in the day (60's). It was cheap and reliable and it's accuracy was fine for QCB. The wire stock was a rifle rod, magazine loader, and barrel removal tool and it carried an oiler in the handle.
It was fully automatic but it's slow rate of fire meant that with practice it could be fired single shot. It was pretty easy to control on full auto. All in all, an ingenious little weapon. I think it only costs about $30 - $40 bucks to make. Since it's practical, low cost, reliable and easy to make means it's totally unsuitable nowadays.  |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yeah.. and i guess the knockdown power of the .45 makes it politically incorrect too.. just thinking if I was in an alley or a living room with some guy jumped up on ephedrine I'd rather have that than a 9mm or a .223. which if I may jump on a soapbox.. why are 'frangible' bullets ok for urban combat to avoid 'over-penetration' but hollow points that are cheaper and would have the same effect are not?
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Well .45 hollow points make the terr you just dusted all ugly and stuff. And totally dead. Wouldn't want that video on the 6:00 news now would we? Nowadays we must kill them with love and kindness.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
 "Imagine all the people, livin' for today..." |
|||
|
 Multiple accounts to evade suspension. AKA SheepdogA39, and some that haven't been used... yet |
Yes. I had the M3A1. It had no charging crank like the M3. You actually reached in the ejection port and pulled the bolt back with your finger to charge it. If all I were going to do was clear rooms and bunkers, it would be awesome. But you need more, and M203 grenade launchers won't mount to the grease gun. The article outlines the intended use of the M-4. It's use in practice is much different. Due to the newer ammo it's Max effective range is equal or better than the M-16. Frontline troops use it in the Army, most notably Infantry. It's your average grunt/crunchy's weapon. Ironically the M-16 is the weapon now given to support troops and in this war, has earned the nickname "FOB musket". Only Marines use the M16 in front-line infantry units now. M3, M4, or M-16? I prefer the M-16. Because I'm old, and it's the only weapon left that can effectively become a club or serious bayonet mount when all the bullets are gone. |
|||
|
|
Multiple accounts to evade suspension. AKA SheepdogA39, and some that haven't been used... yet |
I hear that. Also the full auto aspect of it scares the Army/Guard. We did get to where we could squeeze off single shots, but... When the Cal Guard deployed to the Rodney King Riots, stopping the looting was behind the prevention of another Kent State on the list of priorities. We were told "No Automatic weapons", and had to have full auto inhibitors placed on the M16A1s. One tank company commander in the 185th AR was actually relieved for bringing his rack of M3A1 grease guns. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Good info. That's an aspect I hadn't considered. Also the need for an integrated grenade launcher. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Hell, have one man per squad given the old bloop gun.. M-79? Aside from our troops, as the GWOT progresses there may arise a need for very poor countries to be left in our wake with 'constabulary' forces, that can be cheaply outfitted and maintained by the host gov'ts or by the American taxpayer on their behalf.. of course it's all locale specific, some may have urban areas to patrol, others more rural areas where M-24s and M-16s would be necessary
|
|||
|
|
Multiple accounts to evade suspension. AKA SheepdogA39, and some that haven't been used... yet |
A Colonel Ralph Peters (ret.) has said things like that. He is a columnist for the New York Post, and I think he's brilliant. It floors me that his Op-eds aren't posted in Military.com. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I'll look him up.. I was gonna say never heard of him.. but the name vaguely rings a bell.. may have been a guest on a radio show or something,,
|
|||
|
|
Si vis pacem, para bellum  |
M-16 or M-4. Same crap.
We need to abandon the whole Stoner line and the 5.56 too. Know Your Enemy. Do not react to him. Make him react to you. |
|||
|
|
Multiple accounts to evade suspension. AKA SheepdogA39, and some that haven't been used... yet |
<---It's on pu ss ycats.
I heard we were locked into offering Colt first crack at contratcts from here on out by a deal Clinton made with them. Something about Colt gets first consideration for all military contracts if they curtail or reduce civilian sales. I don't know if it's true but if it is, it explains alot. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Isn't that illegal? Pretty much gives them a monopoly. |
|||
|
|
973 prior posts as "GENTLELEADER" 159 prior posts as "16332659" |
I LIKE THE m14 over the 16.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
M-14 was my iron. First time we saw M-16's (AR-15's) was from some SF guys we captured during a little war game. We called 'em "Matel-o-matics". |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
I saw a picture once of an M-16 where the Colt logo had been replaced by the Matel logo.. pretty funny.. I liked my M-16A2, and REALLY liked my 203.. I just wonder if 7.62 wouldn't be a better way to go.. especially in this day and age of walking less and riding more....
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
It's funny now that I look back on it but all things are relative. When I was a buck looking for my mosquito wing, we were humping M1's and BAR's. So when we got the "lightweight" M14, we were happy as rats in a cheese factory. Weapons guys were humping the .30 so when they got the Pig they were all smiles. Of course we were all ammo mules but that's how it was back in the day. We didn't know any other way so it was all good. And we humped a lot. 7.62. When that ****ker absolutely, positively needs to be dead. |
|||
|
