RE: Awsome!Wepons sure have changed ,durning my time as a GRUNT The standard wepon was the tried but true M-14 it was heavy had a strong recoil but it got the job done and in 72 we got our hands on the M-16 . Now our Marines carry wepons we would never dreamed of, that was 33 years ago ,so what will the future of wepons be? I guesss we shall see! Good hunting Marines aim straight carry lot's of ammo and kill the Bas*****! oldskool 70-77 http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89046/m4-carbine.html?eq_id=89046

ok i am in iraq and i got a m4 and i have been in for about 10 years and i consider myself a expert on weapons i, read and researh every thing gun i dont know it all but i have put most of my life in the world of guns so i have got to say the m4 is just ok and just like the m-16 its to small of a round i am looking foward to when we convert to 6.8 its comming but its a long time still. days of shooting a man on the battlefeild and his buddies having to take care of the wounded is over we are fighting crazy people who dont care if his buddy gets shot and on the ground bleeding cause hes going to alli. thats why we need a round that drops a man in one shot. and what i have seen on the 6.8 it can do the job all that is needed is rebarreling and a extractor that is all the the same m16 mag will work with 6.8

quote:

thats why we need a round that drops a man in one shot. and what i have seen on the 6.8 it can do the job

This topic has been worked over from the time that the Krag-Jourgensen was used. Soldiers have ALWAYS wanted a bigger bullet that will "kill with one shot" - but I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing.

I'm sure you'll agree that the 5.56 is capable of just as much as the operator. Placement is key, regardless of the caliber of the small arm used.

To rebarrel, rechamber, and buy new stocks of ammunition would be spending money that would be better off used to help keep the troops firing what we've got now, and sharpening those proficiencies, increasing THEIR lethality rather than the weapons platforms. The true weapon is the soldier/Marine etc.
Just some thoughts.

I totaly agree that Americans need a larger caliper weapon. Anyone who shoot knows that you can kill almost anything with a .22 but you can kill everything better if you have a bigger hunk of lead going down range.

i agree with 22lr, did you know that the worlds largest polar bear was killed with a 22lr from a eskmo it was comming though her door when she shot it the head.i still dont want to go huting polar bear with a 22

I agree with all who think that the M4 is a good if not excellent weapon. As with all firearms, in my opinion shot placement is the key. I used the older equivlent of the M4-the CAR16, and to this day I believe this is one of the finest weapons a Shooter can take into combat.

Large caliber weapons equates to many things, the most distinguished though has to be a reduced rate of fire.

I've fired all sorts of ammunition. From 22s all the way up to a .300 Remington Magnum. And anyone who has done so will tell you the same thing: You can't shoot a .300 all day long. You CAN shoot a 22 all day long.

Recoil ladies and gentleman, does take it's toll on the shooter both physically and mentally. With shooters who are not intimately familar with their weapons, who lack the familiarity gained through countless hours of firing, you're going to hesitate at the thought of pulling the trigger on that big .30-06 or .308.
And physically? Well any shooter experienced with large caliber weapons can tell you that that your shoulder is going to hurt after a couple hundred rounds.
Let's also consider the fact that for smaller shooters (those scrawny, 150lb marathon runners out there) the recoil from those larger caliber weapons is hard to control. Hell, a .300 is scary for ME to shoot and hard for me to control and I'm 5'8'' 190lbs.
Let us not forget that larger rounds mean a reduction in the amount of ammunition that an infantryman can carry with him. Larger rounds mean more weight, and more weight means quicker fatigue.

There is nothing wrong with the 5.56 x 45 round. Though yes, it is true that it is the same caliber as the world famous .22, it is a larger round length wise. It is also a very, very fast round. Take a look at your standard .223 round and you see a tiny bullet with a relatively large powder charge behind it. That equates to a high velocity, ACCURATE round. The high muzzle velocity translates directly to decent range and outstanding accuracy.
Besides that, the round is designed to tumble upon impact with its target. At impact, the bullet, due to it's high velocity, will tumble and fragment inside the target, wreaking grevious damage.

In sum, the .223 is a good all purpose round. It is fast and accurate. Because of it's light weight, more ammunition can be carried (I'd rather have 1,000 rounds of .223 with me than only 500 .308s any day.)Because of it's low recoil, any shooter despite body type can effectively operate their weapon in auto or semiauto. Because of its low recoil it also enables shooters to fire all day long and not flinch when required to fire all day the next day.

Shot placement is key, not caliber size. If you're an infantryman and you can't kill your counterpart with an M4 or M16, there is something wrong with you, not the round. He doesn't go down after you hit him? HIT HIM AGAIN.

I really never was much for anything in the M16 family. Until I saw a man shot 2X2Xin the sternum by my buddy with an M4 at 20 meters and live to tell about it. Now i am dead set against carrying anything smaller than a 249 with a long barrel. The M4 while making P.O.G.s look cool and all, never allows the puny .223 round to reach terminal velocity due to it's short barrel. The main goal with the .223 was to reduce the combat load on the Infantryman. If you have to shoot these guys 17 times to kill them you might as well make everyone in a fire team an AR and give 'em all SAWs.

squeezing off 2 rounds center mass with an m-4 ought to do it. the SAW uses the same 5.56 round. its where you hit the target most of the time. the Israeli Tavor is super-accurate up to 300 meters. same NATO rounds. German SF switched from the mp-5 to the smg -p-70 a1 that fires a 4.6x30 mm round. at 200 mtrs it penetrated a thin layer of titanium, and 20 layers of kevlar. this debate will go on and on. and thats good. would you go into a cqb situation with a MP-5, P-70, or say an UMP? OR the M-4? tough choices....

got hold of an H&K catalouge, and that 416 looks pretty good. it has pic rails, you can attach a 40mm under, scope on top...its just too expensive to equip the armed forces with them. same with the g-36. money. h-k makes great weapons, its just not in the budget for weapons like this. as long as the m-16, m-4 series keep working, there will be no change. Spec. Ops is a different ballgame. they should get watever weapons they need to keep them alive and complete thier missions. i keep seeing on here that the UMP has, or will replace the mp-5. is there truth to this?

carry as much ammo as you can, and if you hit ur target in the chest, or even the belly, the damage internally is ugly. travel lite and fast,a must for urban warfare. grenades, C-4, AT-4'S, and a good mix of weapons for a fire team should help get it done. urban combat is the worst.

quote:

Originally posted by oldskoolmarine:
RE: Awsome!Wepons sure have changed ,durning my time as a GRUNT The standard wepon was the tried but true M-14 it was heavy had a strong recoil but it got the job done and in 72 we got our hands on the M-16 . Now our Marines carry wepons we would never dreamed of, that was 33 years ago ,so what will the future of wepons be? I guesss we shall see! Good hunting Marines aim straight carry lot's of ammo and kill the Bas*****! oldskool 70-77 http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89046/m4-carbine.html?eq_id=89046

Well...we where kind of hoping to see the XM8 replace the M4's and M-16's but the contests for the possible future replacement got canceled sometime in 2005...or 6. Why? You might ask? I think it kinda had something to do with the fact that future assult rifles like the OICW ended up making a soldier too expensive to risk on the battlefield. :/ Go figure.

What I would like to see is a new assult rifle that can fit 7.62 rounds from an AK-47 variant so terroist ammo can be salvaged from our boys and girls in the field. I think SOCOM came up with a rifle like that, but in the end they ended up scrapping the project. Now I think I know how the great General George S. Patton felt when he constanly lost faith in our government's buraucracy, inefficiency and thick-headedness.

Rest in peace general...though you must be spinning in your grave for a load of reasons by now.

well, i think there is a version of the SCAR that uses 7.62. and the new versions of the M-14, the SOCOM 2, is available too. it comes in different variations, but it may be too heavy for close qaurters.

There is a version of the M-14, the SOCOM II. It is 7.62. I have one and it shoots great, I have an M-14 also, with the new syle flash supressor the SOCOM II dosen't kick as much as the standard M-14. It's reletively light. However I don't know the weight differences between the M-16 and the SOCOM. I would rather have the SOCOM II because of the 7.62 cal as to the 223 cal of the M-16.

wat weapons are JSOC using now? it was said here a SF group ordered 416 uppers, and the SCAR is in use also. M-4 is a nice weapon, in that sandy environ, it can jam quick. we need a more reliable assault rifle/carbine. the complaints are overwhelming. wat about that upper made in Tennessee? the 468? im not sure if its called that, so someone enlighten me. there has gotta be a better way.

having served in VietNam as well as Korea I still think the M-14 was the better weapon one shot took out a target with the M-16 it took more than 2 or 3 burst and then the target was gone just my point of view used both all M-16's were subject to jam like M-14 much more 7.62 has it all over m-16 ammo also perfer 45 to all other hand weapons just more power and better kill power

M-4 was going to be replace with the M-8 but some senators got hands into it. FN maker of M-4, M-16A2, m-249, m-240's complain that thier new weapon was better than the hk M-8, its weighs more, needs tools to take apart. only comes in 20/30 rds mags. Since its made in Maryland.( M-8 no tools, lighter, 30/45/100 mags.)But since the contract was stopped for the M-8 a new order for the M-4 was made.

i read in a lotta mags the m-8 was a great weapon, destined to replace the m-16, m-4 series. i saw it on here also. Popular Mechanics showed the variants..i thought done deal. well, didn't think about the pols and the money they can make, and thier buddies too. Politicians are all crooked, and the m-8 is dead.

What is that mounted on the bottom of the M4 ? If its a grenade launcher like the ones I had in Vietnam, 1968, its a big "ZERO". I did many tests using the grenade launcher in 1968. I'd fire it at the base of a bush that had a bird in it at 3 foot off the ground. I made sure the round hit and exploded about 2 feet from the bush. I did that at least 100 times... and not one bird was disabled or killed. They all just flew-off undamaged. Yep, if you hit a man direct and exploded, it would kill, but that weapon is not for direct hits.

I can't believe the US military is still using it. Its totally worthless and a waste to even carry into battle.... hinders combat operations more than it does enabling... a waste of military money and combat efforts.... totally ineffective.

i have heard nothing of the SCAR being used. i saw pics of soldiers with the M-8 in thier hands, maybe a field test? or maybe a pic to put in a mag? anyway, it was charcoal color, and looked like it belonged. i think the m-4 is proven, you can put lotsa goodies on those rails, and it is an advantage.