Senator tells Army to reconsider M4 [Archive]

SBL

04-30-2007, 02:03 PM

Senator Tells Army to Reconsider M4
Military.com | By Christian Lowe | April 30, 2007
http://images.military.com/pics/FL_m4_043007.jpgThe debate over the Army's choice to purchase hundreds of thousands of M4 carbines (http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89046/m4-carbine.html) for its new brigade combat teams is facing stiff opposition from a small group of senators who say the rifle may be inferior to others already in the field. In an April 12 letter to acting Army Secretary Pete Geren, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (http://capwiz.com/military/bio/?id=483&lvl=C&chamber=S) said purchase of the M4 - a shortened version of the Vietnam-era M16 (http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89049/m16a2-5.56mm-rifle.html) - was based on requirements from the early 1990s and that better, more reliable weapons exist that could give Army troops a more effective weapon.
Coburn asked the Army to hold a "free and open competition" before inking sole-source contracts worth about $375 million to M4 manufacturer, West Hartford, Conn.-based Colt Defense - which just received a $50 million Army contract for M4s on April 20.
"I am concerned with the Army's plans to procure nearly half a million new rifles outside of any competitive process," Coburn wrote in the mid-April letter obtained by Military.com.
A Geren spokesman said the secretary's office is putting together a reply to Coburn's letter, but provided no further details.
Take Action: Tell your public officials how you feel about this issue. (http://capwiz.com/military/issues/alert/?alertid=9691256&type=CO)
Coburn has banded together with a small group of like-minded senators to push the Army into a competition to determine whether the M4 is the best choice to equip newly-forming brigade combat teams, a top Coburn aide said.
The senator's concerns grew out of media coverage that showed the M4's design fails in critical situations and that special operations forces prefer other designs.
"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote. "A number of manufacturers have researched, tested and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability."
Related Article: Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4 (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html)
Special operations forces, including "tier one" units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Development Group - or SEAL Team Six - have used their own funds to purchase the Heckler & Koch-built 416, which uses a gas-piston operating system less susceptible to failure than Colt's gas-operated design.
"That's significant, because these guys don't screw around," the aide said.
In fact, Colt included four different weapons in the competition to build the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR, none of which used the M4s gas system, the aide said.
In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003386.html) that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.
Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.
According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."
Yet the Army has still declined to buy anything other than the M4 for its regular troops, requesting about $100 million in the 2007 wartime supplemental to buy M4s for its Soldiers.
The office in charge of equipping Soldiers said in a March 30 statement the service has no plans to purchase the HK416.
"I am certain we can all agree that America's Soldiers should have the best technology in their hands," Coburn wrote. "And there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon - not just a weapon that is 'good enough.' "
The Army has not yet responded to Coburn's letter, but his aide said if the senator doesn't receive a response to the letter by Monday, Coburn plans to call Geren personally to address the issue.
"Our feeling is once people see the facts on the face of it they're going to say that this is ridiculous and demand that the Army does it right and competes the contract," the aide said.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,133962,00.html

James

04-30-2007, 02:29 PM

Now look what you did.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6962/cryingbabyje7.jpg

06USMC02

04-30-2007, 02:54 PM

SBL

04-30-2007, 02:55 PM

Now look what you did.

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6962/cryingbabyje7.jpg

Ahahahahaharofl

James

04-30-2007, 02:57 PM

That makes sense. The green-tipped NATO 5.56 round was designed specifically for a 36 inch barrel.

36 inches? I'd like to see that! Too bad Jabroni has left us, otherwise he could photoshop us a picture!

big_les

04-30-2007, 03:04 PM

That makes sense. The green-tipped NATO 5.56 round was designed specifically for a 36 inch barrel, for the M-16, not the M4. The shorter barrel on the M4 is not sufficient for the ammo that US forces are using. Good call.

36" barrel?? I don't think so. But otherwise yeah, the M4 is sometimes lacking in so-called "stopping power", when it fails to tumble (and therefore fragment) after hitting the human body. With the 14.5" barrel, this can happen at anything over 100yds based on some reports - resulting in .22 calibre holes and minimal wounding. 16 or 20" barrels are much better at medium-long range, and yes, arguably the gas rod system of the 416 would add another advantage to a similar package.

But every piece of military equipment is procured in a certain fashion (often lowest bidder, often to misguided criteria). And by and large, the M4 does the job. So of course they won't spend to change it yet.

Freibier

04-30-2007, 03:06 PM

Now buy those damn foursixteens already and get over with it

maghrib

04-30-2007, 03:28 PM

Now buy those damn foursixteens already and get over with it

i know im a plebe, but has anyone ever considered adopting a bullpop design, i mean, china, france, UK, and israel are some of the countries that already adopted the design

California Joe

04-30-2007, 03:30 PM

This has a 36" barrel.....

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(oebgvp55f3bo0z55ptv0p055))/imgPart/aad-737_1.jpg

Macs.

04-30-2007, 03:32 PM

Now buy those damn foursixteens already and get over with it

I tell them since months.

Baden-Württemberg will build some nice new Autobahns with the tax-money.

jonoskarinn

04-30-2007, 03:33 PM

What is the prise of those weapons hk-416 and m-4 ... ?
Becours u must pay for what u bought

California Joe

04-30-2007, 03:35 PM

Quit telling us what to do Macs. We are not your gun wielding monkey butlers.

06USMC02

04-30-2007, 03:40 PM

California Joe

04-30-2007, 03:50 PM

06USMC02, Just busting your balls.

I am not in combat, but we get lots of posts from men in combat, and they all have personal preferrences that never seem to agree. Some of them think the M4 is the dogs bollocks, some talk as if the AK series should be carried. I do know that a lot of this boils down to politics and who has the best lobbyists among manufacturers. As usual the men on the ground will have to live with it and still get the job done.

James

04-30-2007, 03:52 PM

This has a 36" barrel.....

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(oebgvp55f3bo0z55ptv0p055))/imgPart/aad-737_1.jpg

That's what I'm talking about.
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w264/jtbeaty0311/Kip.jpg

Freibier

04-30-2007, 03:55 PM

I tell them since months.

Baden-Württemberg will build some nice new Autobahns with the tax-money.
Those pesky amerikaners are bad customers, I tell you.
No sense for quality, always trying to save money in ze wrong places :|

James

04-30-2007, 04:01 PM

8thidpathfinderpower

04-30-2007, 04:04 PM

I stand corrected. The 20 inch barrel on the M16 and the 14 inch barrel on the M4. I agree with the fact that the procurement process doesn't necessarily get the best piece of equipment. I wasn't in favor of dumping the .45 ACP for the 9mm...

I was going to say....36"? do you know how long that would be? What were you planning on doing...reaching out and bopping the enemy to save ammo?rofl

But seriously....I remember when they dumped the .45, biggest mistake they ever made in my opinion...9mm is a standard nato round, but it sure does lack the stopping power...maybe the military should go to either .40 or 10mm caliber pistols

8thidpathfinderpower

04-30-2007, 04:06 PM

Ordie

04-30-2007, 04:09 PM

Bring back the M-14's

Simple, rugged, accurate, less moving parts.

The .45 and M-14 were weapon of choice in the USN up until the 1990's.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 04:40 PM

what about a bull pop design, they can be shorter than the conventional rifle and still be mor accurate, or are they too expensive?

James

04-30-2007, 04:48 PM

6.8mm... SCAR... 416... XM8... 7.62mm... headache... M14... AK47 rocks... dejavu... piston upper... bullpup...

http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w264/jtbeaty0311/BulldogWithHeadache.jpg

GoSka37

04-30-2007, 05:01 PM

WarriorMonk

04-30-2007, 06:20 PM

XM8 or bust!

(or HK416...)

Durandal

04-30-2007, 06:23 PM

I know I am in the minority here but SCREW HK.

There are half a dozen American companies that are going to have or currently offer a piston upper. One or two before HK ever did...

I am so very tired of "we need to buy the 416."

Bottom line is...IF the M4 sucked SOOOOOOO badly I think we would be hearing Vietnam style horror stories and we aren't. 40 years ago, things sucked balls and LOTS of good men died because of bull$hit that COULD have been avoided.

Is that going on? Can someone prove that we have lost hundreds of guys because the M4 blows?

I've got buddies over there children of buddies. I haven't heard a single bitch .

That said, this is sort of ranking up there with the Air Force pistol thread. Why are BOTH of these coming out of the emergency funding?

I am starting to think we need to work this crap into REAL budgets, not these BS budgets where the tax payers get blind sided.

Macs.

04-30-2007, 06:26 PM

mcc-dano

04-30-2007, 06:28 PM

Isn't there a HK plant in Sterling, Virginia? Or am I thinking of something else?

angry cow

04-30-2007, 06:54 PM

Negative, 2x4 with a rusty nail on the end is the best tool for the job.

Honestly, this thing will just go round and round and round. A new upper might be worth the increase in reliability, but I'm sure there are companies that can do it alot cheaper than HK and just as good.

Its not worth all the time, money, and testing just to add another weapon to the inventory that will get issued here and there until everyone has one decades from now. Simplicity has a quality all its own, having one standard weapons system used in Basic, AIT, CONUS, in-theatre, National Guard, Active, pays off big-time in regards to soldiers having great familiarity with the weapon.

Until the US military decides it is time to adopt a revolutionary rather than evolutionary design, (maybe a new caliber, maybe caseless, different feed mechanism, different magazines, different ergonomics, and a can opener built into the trigger housing or whatever else they decide works best) it just isn't worth it to replace a tried and true system.

James

04-30-2007, 07:03 PM

Isn't there a HK plant in Sterling, Virginia? Or am I thinking of something else?

I think that's Sig.

TehSuig

04-30-2007, 07:25 PM

The 416 that was on the cover of the Army Times 2 months ago deffinately had a stamp on it that said, "Sterling, VA."

http://www.armytimes.com/xml/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/070221HK416_story2.JPG
You can sort of make it out in that picture. The "Sterling, VA" is the bottom most part of the stamp.

And as far as bitching goes, we had 6 M4s in our platoon quit firing more than one round without a stoppage in the last firefight we were in. Once you get some dust, water, and mud on your weapon then add about 6 magazines worth of carbon on your bolt - some things start to go to crap. They worked fine until the carbon got all up in them and stopped the bolt up. Wouldn't have happened with the 416.

And before someone says it, yeah cleaning the things would've fixed it. But sometimes you have no time to clean your weapon. Like when you infil and walk through fields and clear compounds for 10 hours, then get into a 5 hour skirmish. It's times like that you need a better weapon.

Yarrick2

04-30-2007, 07:45 PM

the sterling, VA thing may be the import mark.

James

04-30-2007, 07:48 PM

I think Sterling is HK.

Ratamacue

04-30-2007, 08:15 PM

Until the US military decides it is time to adopt a revolutionary rather than evolutionary design, (maybe a new caliber, maybe caseless, different feed mechanism, different magazines, different ergonomics, and a can opener built into the trigger housing or whatever else they decide works best) it just isn't worth it to replace a tried and true system.For what it's worth, there's a US Army program being headed by AAI called "Lightweight Small Arms Technologies" that is developing a new 5.56mm polymer- and telescoped-case or caseless round along with a light machine gun that fires it. According to the last I'd read on it, with the LMG and 600 rounds of caseless ammo, they'd managed to achieve a 40-50% weight reduction over the M249 and 600 rounds of 5.56 NATO.

8thidpathfinderpower

04-30-2007, 08:35 PM

For what it's worth, there's a US Army program being headed by AAI called "Lightweight Small Arms Technologies" that is developing a new 5.56mm polymer- and telescoped-case or caseless round along with a light machine gun that fires it. According to the last I'd read on it, with the LMG and 600 rounds of caseless ammo, they'd managed to achieve a 40-50% weight reduction over the M249 and 600 rounds of 5.56 NATO.

That program is old. Began in the 80's...and they are STILL trying to get it right.

What gets me is huge lobbying effort by H&K. They have managed to get a small group of senators to sign off on that weapon.

I have my own opinion about the M4/16 series. And, from personal experience, good weapon. But, it has to be cleaned.

The 416 is a good weapon....but, will it be as effectiveas the colt design for the cost?

Ratamacue

04-30-2007, 08:42 PM

That program is old. Began in the 80's...and they are STILL trying to get it right.Not exactly. Caseless ammunition is certainly nothing new, but the LSAT program wasn't initiated until 2004.

SMGLee

04-30-2007, 08:54 PM

The 416 that was on the cover of the Army Times 2 months ago deffinately had a stamp on it that said, "Sterling, VA."

It just denote that HK USA, the importer of the HK 416 is based in VA. that is all. all 416 components are currently made in HK Germany.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 08:57 PM

What gets me is huge lobbying effort by H&K. They have managed to get a small group of senators to sign off on that weapon.

thats why in military matters, especially concerning weapons, dont trust politicians, politicains may start the wars, but brave soldiers have to fight it, and it should be they who decide what they feel most comfortable w/, i personally like the hk416 over the m4, but whatever is best for the military should go.....or remain

James

04-30-2007, 08:58 PM

thats why in military matters, especially concerning weapons, dont trust politicians, politicains may start the wars, but brave soldiers have to fight it, and it should be they who decide what they feel most comfortable w/, i personally like the hk416 over the m4, but whatever is best for the military should go.....or remain

You like the HK416 more than the M4 in this thread, but you're asking for advice about what branch you should join in another? Weird.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 09:04 PM

You like the HK416 more than the M4 in this thread, but you're asking for advice about what branch you should join in another? Weird.

that is weird? i prefer the look of th 416, im a big fan of hk, and ive heard that it is slightly better than the m4. when it comes to weapons, im not plebe, well, i know all the basic rifles and their calibers, but i mean, im really just stuck betweem USMC and USA, both are great combat platforms, but, to tell the truth, im leaning more towards USA,

now to get back on topic, whatever gets the job done, is cost effective, and the soldier is comfortable w/, the military should adopt/keep

but a previous guy made the comment that he and fellow soldiers were having problems w/ the m4, maybe there should be a army wide survey to see if there are widespread problems,

because i think if there were, soldiers wouldnt have time to complain about them, nor would the military have time to address such an issue?

Nano

04-30-2007, 09:16 PM

I wonder how much of a commission HK is offering these Senators to be their salesmen the old standard of 10% or the new standard of 15%. The political maneuvering involved in arms procurement is astonishing from generals, admirals making favor with companies and their civilian masters for "real money" after retirement. This is really starting to become a far more apparent national security issue than most would ever want to admit, but as the story in this thread Army Officer Accuses Generals (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=110724) proves it has very real and lasting consequences when military officers blend their own self-interests with their work.

Durandal

04-30-2007, 09:20 PM

maghrib

04-30-2007, 09:20 PM

I wonder how much of a commission HK is offering these Senators to be their salesmen. The political maneuvering involved in arms procurement is astonishing .

yes, all high brass is politiks, and im very weary of politicains, dems and reps....there seems to be no way around em....

Robbee

04-30-2007, 09:27 PM

yes, all high brass is politiks, and im very weary of politicains, dems and reps....there seems to be no way around em....

Is that why you're planning to run for President?

RECON DOC

04-30-2007, 09:39 PM

This has a 36" barrel.....

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/%28S%28oebgvp55f3bo0z55ptv0p055%29%29/imgPart/aad-737_1.jpg

That's what I was issued back in "The Day". Crossing water obsticles could be a bitch if you didn't have a good, oiled buffalo scrotum to keep your powder and caps in though.

Ratamacue

04-30-2007, 09:40 PM

that is weird? i prefer the look of th 416, im a big fan of hk, and ive heard that it is slightly better than the m4. when it comes to weapons, im not plebe, well, i know all the basic rifles and their calibers, but i mean, im really just stuck betweem USMC and USA, both are great combat platforms, but, to tell the truth, im leaning more towards USA,It's weird because you're displaying a preference toward the 416 over the M4 as a combat rifle, yet you obviously have absolutely zero experience with either weapon.

Nano

04-30-2007, 09:46 PM

It's weird because you're displaying a preference toward the 416 over the M4 as a combat rifle, yet you obviously have absolutely zero experience with either weapon.
The HK416 is cool man and the "in" thing nowadays didn't you get the memo.p-)

California Joe

04-30-2007, 09:51 PM

that is weird? i prefer the look of the 416, im a big fan of hk, and ive heard that it is slightly better than the m4. when it comes to weapons, im not plebe, well, i know all the basic rifles and their calibers

Yep, pretty much sums it up.

Miles.

04-30-2007, 09:59 PM

That Senator posts here.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:18 PM

Is that why you're planning to run for President?

you>:slap: <me, lol, yes, you got me there

there are a few basic goals i have in running for POTUS

1. would just like to see if america would vote for a nonchristain, not-completely-"caucasian" person

2. see if i can do a better job than most of the dem.s and rep.s ive never been satisfied w/, but history is always critical of people

3. i would not expect you to trust me either

Robbee

04-30-2007, 10:22 PM

you>:slap: <me, lol, yes, you got me there

there are a few basic goals i have in running for POTUS

1. would just like to see if america would vote for a nonchristain, not-completely-"caucasian" person

2. see if i can do a better job than most of the dem.s and rep.s ive never been satisfied w/, but history is always critical of people

3. i would not expect you to trust me either

And if everyone looks under their seat now....yes, you get a 416, you get a 416!, you get a 416!!!......

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:23 PM

It's weird because you're displaying a preference toward the 416 over the M4 as a combat rifle, yet you obviously have absolutely zero experience with either weapon.

you are right, i have not had a fortunate opportunity to experience either weapon, my personal preference would be for the 416 because i have heard from people more fortunate than me that it is better, and it has a free floating system that i would prefer over a traditional m4,

however my personal preference is different than what i have suggested the military do in trying to chose between getting new weapon systems and staying w/ current ones

and when i said i have not tried out the m4, i have tried out a simulation of it, while in an engineering program of the school i attend, but that sums up any experience i could play off as having

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:24 PM

And if everyone looks under your seat now....yes, you get a 416, you get a 416!, you get a 416!!!......

guess i will have to cover this once again, if you looked at the suggestions i made, i never suggested anything about giving out new rifles, i would like the people who have to work w/ the rifles to make the decision, if it was a joke, sorry, sometimes im too serious

D-gin

04-30-2007, 10:28 PM

you are right, i have not had a fortunate opportunity to experience either weapon, my personal preference would be for the 416 because i have heard from people more fortunate than me that it is better, and it has a free floating system that i would prefer over a traditional m4,

How can you say what your personal prefrence is when (as you stated) you have never fired ether weapon?

and when i said i have not tried out the m4, i have tried out a simulation of it, while in an engineering program of the school i attend, but that sums up any experience i could play off as having

I bet you could bullseye whop rats with that bad ass simulator.

James

04-30-2007, 10:40 PM

I'm going to play Flight Simulator now to help myself decide what's the best airplane out there.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:40 PM

How can you say what your personal prefrence is when (as you stated) you have never fired ether weapon?

I bet you could bullseye whop rats with that bad ass simulator.

ok, i have said i have not really fired either q, and i have not said i had extensive experience w/ the m4, i actually responded sarcastically to how much inexperience i have w/ the m4 when i related to the simulator,

but my personal preference, or lack there of, has nothing to do with trying to determine what kind of weapons platform our boys in uniform need, i have openly said that maybe we should openly investigate the widespread use of the m4, if only to protect our soldiers from potentially malfunctioning rifles, and i have also warned against trusting politicians and top military brass in issues that directly deal w/ how the soldier on the frontlines operates,

now if you can find fault w/ my proposal of how to best insure the contentness of our soldiers and ability to fight, please attack that so we can have an intellegient conversation on how best to apporach the issue at hand, we have already established that my preference, or opinion, or lack there of, has no ultimate bearing, and i agree, thats why im trying to be logical in my proposal....

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:42 PM

I'm going to play Flight Simulator now to help myself decide what's the best airplane out there.

please read my last post....

Yarrick2

04-30-2007, 10:47 PM

I'm going to play Flight Simulator now to help myself decide what's the best airplane out there.
its kinda funny that you use that annalogy because you can log a third of your hours for a pilots lisence in flight sim... just pointing that outp-)

D-gin

04-30-2007, 10:49 PM

[QUOTE]but my personal preference, or lack there of, has nothing to do with trying to determine what kind of weapons platform our boys in uniform need, i have openly said that maybe we should openly investigate the widespread use of the m4, if only to protect our soldiers from potentially malfunctioning rifles,
Well the military has this little thing called R&D that does just that.

and i have also warned against trusting politicians and top military brass in issues that directly deal w/ how the soldier on the frontlines operates,
Welcome to the real world.

now if you can find fault w/ my proposal of how to best insure the contentness of our soldiers and ability to fight, please attack that so we can have an intellegient conversation on how best to apporach the issue at hand, we have already established that my preference, or opinion, or lack there of, has no ultimate bearing, and i agree, thats why im trying to be logical in my proposal....

Wrong, Your discussing about a possible weapon(s) that you have no experience with while also making claims as to which one would better suit the troops.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:49 PM

its kinda funny that you use that annalogy because you can log a third of your hours for a pilots lisence in flight sim... just pointing that outp-)

trust me, i dont plan on being a pilot

Yarrick2

04-30-2007, 10:50 PM

didn't say you were

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:53 PM

[quote=maghrib;2470741]
1. Well the military has this little thing called R&D that does just that.

2. Welcome to the real world.

3. Wrong, Your discussing about a possible weapon(s) that you have no experience with while also making claims as to which one would better suit the troops.

1. ? does the R and D guys get effective feed back from frontline troops (this is a serious ? by the way)

2. thanx! woot

3. exactly, thats why i have openly admitted that my opinion doesnt count, and hence why i have proposed a position you refer to as R&D, from which i would like further elaboration on their abilities to gather intel from troops in the $#!+

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:53 PM

didn't say you were

i know, just reassuring others....

Durandal

04-30-2007, 10:55 PM

I'm going to play Flight Simulator now to help myself decide what's the best airplane out there.

rofl rofl rofl

Robbee

04-30-2007, 10:56 PM

If only HK made airplanes.....

Nano

04-30-2007, 10:56 PM

i know, just reassuring others....
hahahahaahroflroflroflrofl

Ratamacue

04-30-2007, 10:57 PM

I really hope that Ngati is taking note of this thread.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:58 PM

If only HK made airplanes.....

or how about beretta? im sure they could get a pretty accurate spinoff of the harrier-1 of the easiest aircraft to master (j/k)

Nano

04-30-2007, 10:58 PM

If only HK made airplanes.....
There was a rumor just started about HK doing a joint venture with Airbus....

maghrib

04-30-2007, 10:59 PM

but seriously, i hope im not making enemies, just trying to have conversations, i mean, the more debates we get into, the more i learn about how much i dont know

D-gin

04-30-2007, 11:03 PM

1. ? does the R and D guys get effective feed back from frontline troops (this is a serious ? by the way)

2. thanx! woot

3. exactly, thats why i have openly admitted that my opinion doesnt count, and hence why i have proposed a position you refer to as R&D, from which i would like further elaboration on their abilities to gather intel from troops in the $#!+
To save myself a headache I'll make it easy and give you a quick and easy example in the fact that limited numbers of H&K's are being fielded in Iraq by certain units along with uniforms, comms, etc.

I'm not going to start digging up old threads about this topic as it has been beat to death.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 11:07 PM

To save myself a headache I'll make it easy and give you a quick and easy example in the fact that limited numbers of H&K's are being fielded in Iraq by certain units along with uniforms, comms, etc.

I'm not going to start digging up old threads about this topic as it has been beat to death.

not what i was asking, i was asking is there proper infrastructure amongst the RandD guys in order to see if frontline troops are happy w/ the equipment they have or if they could get suggestions, im not even concerned about the 416, im purely asking just to see if the R&D can properly address issues brought up earlier by a guy who does have experience w/ the m4

Roanoke

04-30-2007, 11:20 PM

That Senator posts here.

Wait... seriously? Or are you joking around?

maghrib

04-30-2007, 11:25 PM

Wait... seriously? Or are you joking around?

theres an ad for a presidential candidate, maybe this isnt too farfetched, but yes, i would like to see his profile out of curiosity

Heazy

04-30-2007, 11:26 PM

not what i was asking, i was asking is there proper infrastructure amongst the RandD guys in order to see if frontline troops are happy w/ the equipment they have or if they could get suggestions, im not even concerned about the 416, im purely asking just to see if the R&D can properly address issues brought up earlier by a guy who does have experience w/ the m4

These guys are resposible for soldier input and development-
https://peosoldier.army.mil/

D-gin

04-30-2007, 11:26 PM

not what i was asking, i was asking is there proper infrastructure amongst the RandD guys in order to see if frontline troops are happy w/ the equipment they have or if they could get suggestions

I can't find the breakdown or programs I was looking for but from my understanding that is how it works i.e. Troops have problems they report them and up the chain they go to the R&D people then the problems get addressed and worked out.

EDIT:Heazy found the link.

Miles.

04-30-2007, 11:50 PM

maghrib, what are your thoughts on the AK-series as opposed to the M-16/M4?

Just curious.

D-gin

04-30-2007, 11:51 PM

maghrib, what are your thoughts on the AK-series as opposed to the M-16/M4?

Just curious.

Good god Miles why did you do it. rofl

Rakki

04-30-2007, 11:55 PM

It all comes down to whether the 416 action is more reliable and requires less cleaning than the M4/M16 action while offering the same level of performance (at least).

If the answer is yes, then it should be adopted.

maghrib

04-30-2007, 11:57 PM

maghrib, what are your thoughts on the AK-series as opposed to the M-16/M4?

Just curious.

well, to be serious, if you mean how they perform, i wouldnt know. and you have to be more specific if you want to get a good answer out of someone who knows better than me. i know some factual basics such as the '47 is 7.62 and the '74 is 5.56, i know that the ak rifle has been reproduced a million times over by a million different countries, i know that the world market is flooded w/ them, so much so you can go into a war torn country like somalia and get them very cheap, and i know they are the poor man's rifle, and they are particulary popular amongst poor countries, and countries who have had communist relations

but im sure im not telling you something you dont already know, like said before, i have admitted im not an authority on which guns are better or a soldier....i think that would be the 3rd time (?)

Miles.

04-30-2007, 11:59 PM

I like you, maghrib.

Nano

05-01-2007, 12:21 AM

Seriously, guys, the only way regular military units will ever end up with the 416 is if HK builds a plant in the U.S. and Americans are actually putting the things together. Our government might buy foreign designs, but I don't think they will ever let foreigners take those jobs away from Americans. That is a really big deal here in the States, and our politicians are usually most concerned about staying in office, which means making their constituents happy (the jobs thing).

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, (I think it's wrong, If I was an American politician I'd just steal the HK design and make it here ;) )but it is reality.

The issue in part like you noted is jobs and to a degree an issue of having a secure supply of weapons and not being reliant on a foreign country to supply them. Political issues aside having a continued domestic capability to supply our own forces is not only politically sound, but a national security matter of its own. HK may build all the plants it wants in the U.S. to overcome the domestic politics, but the issue now really is does the Army have the time to be putting up to competitive bidding a contract for new rifles before it needs them.
If HK wins how long will the army have to wait for them to establish manufacturing capacity in the U.S.? I think the Senator's attempts to put the contract up for bidding seems to be well intended if not just simply politically savy. How much of a significant benefit in terms of cost reduction and improved reliability can the Army see in doing so if any? Not to mention the fact that the Army will have essentially two infantry weapons, however identical it may prove unwise to deploy something that will add more complexity to logistics, training etc. during a war where the regular infantry weapon is not a problem that needs fixing.
I hope our member Senator will chime in on this on the forum and provide some of his insights on the matters outlined above.

MEGR

05-01-2007, 12:28 AM

Umm.. Like Durandal said, there are already numerous local companies that make the same type of rifle. In fact, Ares Defense is working on, or possibly producing drop-in piston kits for existing non-piston-operated AR-15s. Why not just buy a bunch of kits and have the armorer put them in?

Frankly, I don't think the existing system needs to be changed, but the technology is out there to do it much more cheaper than buying a bunch of 416 uppers.

velvet-cream

05-01-2007, 05:34 AM

The issue in part like you noted is jobs and to a degree an issue of having a secure supply of weapons and not being reliant on a foreign country to supply them. Political issues aside having a continued domestic capability to supply our own forces is not only politically sound, but a national security matter of its own. HK may build all the plants it wants in the U.S. to overcome the domestic politics, but the issue now really is does the Army have the time to be putting up to competitive bidding a contract for new rifles before it needs them.
If HK wins how long will the army have to wait for them to establish manufacturing capacity in the U.S.? I think the Senator's attempts to put the contract up for bidding seems to be well intended if not just simply politically savy. How much of a significant benefit in terms of cost reduction and improved reliability can the Army see in doing so if any? Not to mention the fact that the Army will have essentially two infantry weapons, however identical it may prove unwise to deploy something that will add more complexity to logistics, training etc. during a war where the regular infantry weapon is not a problem that needs fixing.
I hope our member Senator will chime in on this on the forum and provide some of his insights on the matters outlined above.

As for having a foreign arms manufacturer producing weapons in the US, aren't there already precedents like M9/beretta, M249/M240/ FN etc. Did they have problems setting up plants in the US?

Vandervahn

05-01-2007, 06:38 AM

Moreover, I seem to remember that these deals usually work out in the way that the Military permits abroad production UNTIL the US plant is ready to take over. And there also was the case of the latest installment of RFP for new weapons that did not specifically require US manufacture.

Of course thats rather unusual for the US, but noone says it cant happen again. And while all the Colt lobbyists tell horror stories about how the USA is going to hell and fall to dictators when they shift to non-american (read:Colt) suppliers, the fact still remains that the american weapon companies have had to compete with foreign products (and often lost to) for a long time, and it didnt seem to hurt their capability of maintaining their pro ante technical excellency much.

Lastly, any foreign company achieving a deal of the magnitude to equip the US armed forces is bound to open an US plant simply because the market prospects dictate it, it doesnt even really need a specific clause in the contract.

++++

On a related note, I think the discussion is always a bit too centered on the piston-or-not aspect. While I am certainly not going to debate whether the HK416 piston is the shiznit or not, I fail to see why all the other piston systems available would be able to compete solely based on the fact that they have a gas piston, too. There are hundreds of piston driven weapons in history, and I think we can agree that not all of them worked exact similarly well.

So simply stating that the HK416 is nothing special because Company XYZ has had one, too (and that 20 years earlier) is not a really conclusive argument. Though that works the other way around as well, the HK416 has also received enough praise for other technical virtues (e.g. its barrel).

Its like equalling an Edsel and a M6 Beemer based on the fact that both (can) have an automatic transmission.

velvet-cream

05-01-2007, 08:04 AM

On a related note, I think the discussion is always a bit too centered on the piston-or-not aspect. While I am certainly not going to debate whether the HK416 piston is the shiznit or not, I fail to see why all the other piston systems available would be able to compete solely based on the fact that they have a gas piston, too. There are hundreds of piston driven weapons in history, and I think we can agree that not all of them worked exact similarly well.

So simply stating that the HK416 is nothing special because Company XYZ has had one, too (and that 20 years earlier) is not a really conclusive argument. Though that works the other way around as well, the HK416 has also received enough praise for other technical virtues (e.g. its barrel).

Its like comparing an Edsel and an M6 Beemer based on the fact that both (can) have an automatic transmission.

Makes sense. People seem to forget that it's about the whole weapon system. If you had a choice (I know it's not possible, but lets just say you can hypotheticaly) between the original SA80, and the HK improved A2 version, what would it be?

The change between the SA80/L85 is not as radical in design/concept as an M4 to M416. The brits swallowed their pride and recognised HK designers could improve their design. Similarily people should recognise that HK may improve the design of a weapon (M16) that was conceived so many decades ago.

There's no such thing as a perfect weapon. There may be a weapon that is the best design for the time, but technology is progressive. And sometimes another country makes a better weapon.

Umm.. Like Durandal said, there are already numerous local companies that make the same type of rifle. In fact, Ares Defense is working on, or possibly producing drop-in piston kits for existing non-piston-operated AR-15s. Why not just buy a bunch of kits and have the armorer put them in?

Frankly, I don't think the existing system needs to be changed, but the technology is out there to do it much more cheaper than buying a bunch of 416 uppers.

Try buying an ARES Shrike. The manufacturer isn't accepting orders anymore as they don't have the production capacity.
I'm not saying small businesses are sh|te. They are good for innovation etc. But don't expect a small company to suddenly crank up production and produce quality products at the volume required by the US military. ARES would probably have to sell its design to another manufacturer if it landed a large US military contract.
HK on the other hand are willing, and I dare say capable of supplying arms to an entire military organisation such as the US. They almost did with the XM8, until it was cancelled.

oregongrunt

05-01-2007, 09:03 PM

That makes sense. The green-tipped NATO 5.56 round was designed specifically for a 36 inch barrel, for the M-16, not the M4. The shorter barrel on the M4 is not sufficient for the ammo that US forces are using. Good call.
I packed an M4 for 15 months in Iraq in the infantry so I think that I would know. The M4 is a really great weapon for tight places and enables a soldier to have quicker reflexive firing. This saved my life several times. Please quite making wild speculations, the M16 sucks and should be saved for the REMFs.

Limeyfellow

05-02-2007, 12:03 AM

The change between the SA80/L85 is not as radical in design/concept as an M4 to M416. The brits swallowed their pride and recognised HK designers could improve their design. Similarily people should recognise that HK may improve the design of a weapon (M16) that was conceived so many decades ago.

Well the L85 had so many problems with its reliability, getting dropped from the NATO approved list and so on and really did need fixing. Its more like the work between the original release of the M16 and the M16a4 with a progression into two working platforms. The current ar15 based systems the military are using don't have the substantial problems with reliabilities that the prechromed barreled M16s or early L85s had.

Seiran

05-02-2007, 01:39 AM

I feel compelled to correct maghrib on his earlier statement about the 74, and to express my shock that several others haven't done this already.

The Ak-74 IS NOT 5.56mm. It's 5.45mm.

James

05-02-2007, 02:32 AM

I feel compelled to correct maghrib on his earlier statement about the 74, and to express my shock that several others haven't done this already.

The Ak-74 IS NOT 5.56mm. It's 5.45mm.

Maghrib has been banned, but thanks anyway.

Durandal

05-02-2007, 08:02 AM

And sometimes another country makes a better weapon.

This is not a better weapon its a replacement part on a weapon that changes so simple mechanical elements.

It does not make the weapon more accurate, easier to operate, or lighter weight. You will still have failures.

That's what drives me nuts about this whole thing.

You want to replace every M4 with a 416. When all you have to do if you want to make these changes is replace parts.

I am offended that some general thinks we need to pay a German company a crap load of money to replace an entire weapon or an entire upper receiver.

By doing so, we expand our logistical foot print (unless you plan on taking all the M16AXs in all branches). The last thing our military needs is yet another parts list. That alone is a nightmare...not as bad as adding another ammunition type but bad enough to be a headache.

velvet-cream

05-02-2007, 09:04 AM

This is not a better weapon its a replacement part on a weapon that changes so simple mechanical elements.

It does not make the weapon more accurate, easier to operate, or lighter weight. You will still have failures.

That's what drives me nuts about this whole thing.

You want to replace every M4 with a 416. When all you have to do if you want to make these changes is replace parts.

I am offended that some general thinks we need to pay a German company a crap load of money to replace an entire weapon or an entire upper receiver.

By doing so, we expand our logistical foot print (unless you plan on taking all the M16AXs in all branches). The last thing our military needs is yet another parts list. That alone is a nightmare...not as bad as adding another ammunition type but bad enough to be a headache.

So is it a mere "replacement part" or an "entire upper receiver"? I don't think there are many interchangeable upper receiver parts between the M4 and the HK416. It's a bit more than a simple parts change.

I thought the 416 system had a free floating barrel as opposed to the standard M4, (which I've been told makes it a little bit more accurate). (Note - I am aware there are fore end options out there to make a "standard" m4 barrel free floating).

I don't have experience on the M4 or 416. But literature indicates a less intensive cleaning regime with the 416. Any reasonable advantage to the operator is worth considering.

As for the logistical nightmare. Yeah, its a problem... for the blanket folders. :)

velvet-cream

05-02-2007, 09:13 AM

I'm not saying the US should scrap the m4 and move onto the 416. But if it were to replace worn out m4s with a new weapon....

Durandal

05-02-2007, 09:46 AM

So is it a mere "replacement part" or an "entire upper receiver"?

Both actually. Depending on who manufactures it.

I don't have experience on the M4 or 416. But literature indicates a less intensive cleaning regime with the 416. Any reasonable advantage to the operator is worth considering.

Then why are you commenting? I've shot M16/4 platforms chambered in at least 9 different calibers from .22LR to .50 BMG, gas tube and piston, semi-auto civvie and army issue.

As for the logistical nightmare. Yeah, its a problem... for the blanket folders. :)

You are an idiot. You put a little smily face on your comment like its some sort of joke. A smaller logistical footprint is essential. You have less support personal, quicker deployment times, less down time, less costs, less casualties, and a sharper combat force.

What happens when you cannot get supplies to troops because you have a unit that has both 416 and M4s?

Do us a favor and shut up.

mohica

05-02-2007, 10:14 AM

The LWRC piston system should be in the running if there was acutally a test. If that were the case, Colt would probably win anyway so it is moot. Anyway, the LWRC system is lighter and simpler. I have shot both it and the HK and prefer the LWRC weapon. HK being the large company with the $$ behind it and connnections it has is of course going to get the press, but which system is actually the "better" one? I don't know that one is better than the other, but as I stated the LWRC is simpler and lighter which means allot. It also has less effect on accuracy because of less mass moving in it's system versus the HK. HK initially had to go to a heavy barrel to correct some of these issues. Now they do offer a lw barrel. I am not real excited about anything HK to be honest. I know this might raise a few eyebrows for the HK pundits, but I can't think of anything they make that someone else doesn't make a comparable weapon better and/or cheaper.

Allot of the weapons procurement is based on who you know. Look at the Knight's M110 ordeal. Remington/DPMS came in "second place" and complained about some of the alleged behind the scenes activities and now they are investigating Reed Knight and his company. The Rem/DPMS entry was according to reports at least the equal of Knight's and possibly better in some respects. The kicker is it was quite a bit cheaper.

James

05-02-2007, 11:56 AM

^^^ I've heard good things about LWRC.

http://www.lwrifles.com/

Seiran

05-02-2007, 04:25 PM

Maghrib has been banned, but thanks anyway.

Oh. Well damn now I feel bad.

velvet-cream

05-02-2007, 10:03 PM

Both actually. Depending on who manufactures it.

Guess you're still looking at it as a piston vs direct gas impingement issue. I like Vandervahn approach a bit more, the HK416 system (even if it's just the upper) versus the current M4.

Then why are you commenting? I've shot M16/4 platforms chambered in at least 9 different calibers from .22LR to .50 BMG, gas tube and piston, semi-auto civvie and army issue.

I purposely and humbly laid down my cards and said I didn't have experience on the M4, 'cause I knew other people on this forum have years of experience on the M4. I had hopes that this won't become a p|ssing contest on who has done what etc. Guess I failed on that part..

Durandal

05-03-2007, 08:14 AM

Guess you're still looking at it as a piston vs direct gas impingement issue. I like Vandervahn approach a bit more, the HK416 system (even if it's just the upper) versus the current M4.

That IS the issue. Piston vs. gas tube.

I purposely and humbly laid down my cards and said I didn't have experience on the M4, 'cause I knew other people on this forum have years of experience on the M4. I had hopes that this won't become a p|ssing contest on who has done what etc. Guess I failed on that part..

This isn't a pissing contest.

Most literature (your source) out there has a massive bias, either as a result of marketing, a high signal to noise ratio (usually as a result of airsoft or game nerds), and politicians/contractors (defense contractors) muddying up the waters.

What you have left is experience. Some people here have LOTS of experience at the sharp end of the stick, some in the defense industry itself, and some smatter of shooters and law enforcement.

I piston system will still get cruddy and dirty (the desert is one of the single worst environment for ANYTHING mechanical besides salt water), mags will still fail because of bad springs, and ammo will still fail to go off.

What you are suggesting is that with your VAST knowledge of AR style platforms be they piston or gas tube it is your WELL FOUNDED and EXPERT opinion that the armed forces of the United States AND its tax payers, should spend the money (LOTS OF IT) and the time (LOTS OF IT) integrating a new weapon system, that ultimately does nothing more than decrease the amount of cleaning time a soldier spends on his weapon. We are not gaining a measurable amount of increased force projection (not that I think anyone has done a study), training is no different ultimately and rounds are targets do not change at all and we still have the same caliber.

Or do you think the government simply buys a weapon and issues it?

Hey its just LIKE an AR so it should be cool.

You got to zero equipment, in theory test it, gadget it up, issue it to soldiers that know how to field strip it (but they don't do they, so you need to train them), get parts to supply depot, get them in the chain and in the ready, and then you need to get ALL your armorers on the same page, manuals written and printed and issued, training regime developed, and so on. Things get lost in the process, so I am sure there will be new sights, designators, illuminators, vertical foregrips, etc etc. that need to be worked up and added

Or we could use your idea of simply replacing an M4 with a 416 every time one breaks or is destroyed.

Now, is this a pissing contest or do I need to be politically correct give you a hug and tell you that we all have different opinions yours in no more or less valid than anyone else's?

California Joe

05-03-2007, 10:03 AM

My son has an airsoft 416. Sometimes when he's at school I play with it.

Hydro

05-03-2007, 10:03 AM

Poser^^^.....

velvet-cream

05-03-2007, 10:59 AM

That IS the issue. Piston vs. gas tube.

Well if you think so that's fine with me. There are others on this thread who think this thread/issue is the M4 vs HK416. But in a happy peace loving PC way we are allowed to think differently.

What you are suggesting is that with your VAST knowledge of AR style platforms be they piston or gas tube it is your WELL FOUNDED and EXPERT opinion that the armed forces of the United States AND its tax payers, should spend the money (LOTS OF IT) and the time (LOTS OF IT) integrating a new weapon system, that ultimately does nothing more than decrease the amount of cleaning time a soldier spends on his weapon.

Durandal I think you might have me mistaken for another person on this forum/thread. Read my posts, as I never purported to have a "vast knowledge of AR platforms" or "well founded and expert opinion" on US govt policy. The one thing that I did suggest on US govt spending is that it is okay to buy foreign designed weapons if they are better. And that has been done in the past with the m249/m240/m9.

We are not gaining a measurable amount of increased force projection (not that I think anyone has done a study), training is no different ultimately and rounds are targets do not change at all and we still have the same caliber.

You got to zero equipment, in theory test it, gadget it up, issue it to soldiers that know how to field strip it (but they don't do they, so you need to train them), get parts to supply depot, get them in the chain and in the ready, and then you need to get ALL your armorers on the same page, manuals written and printed and issued, training regime developed, and so on. Things get lost in the process, so I am sure there will be new sights, designators, illuminators, vertical foregrips, etc etc. that need to be worked up and added

Well there will be costs involved with a new manual, considering the HK416 uses a piston system. But a change to any other type of piston system (incl LWRC or other US manufactured item) would require new manuals anyway.
I also acknowledge the burden on logistics and training of armourer.

However, as you said, "training is no different" for the warfighter/end user. In my (non expert opinion) the IAs, handling etc are still the same and the only functional differences are the piston and folding sights. Do you think the US soldier/marine would require more than a couple of hours to transition from a M4 to the 416? I'm not going to treat them like idiots.

Upgrades/modifications to weapon systems are nothing new. Look at the M249 when it came out as opposed to the latest incarnations. The gas collar/regulator has changed to a fixed/closed system, some of them now sport picatinny rails, vertical foregrips, oil buffers, chopped barrels, collapsible stocks and optic sights etc. Did US military logistics and training have a cardiac arrest from that change? Did the average soldier/marine have trouble adapting to it?
(tell me if they did, that would put me in my place)

And as for all the add ons, that's the advantage of Picatinny rails.

Or we could use your idea of simply replacing an M4 with a 416 every time one breaks or is destroyed.

I wasn't clear on that point, my bad. I didn't mean replace each individual m4 as they are worn out.

What I should have said was, it would be foolish to replace a brand new (or recently refurbished) M4 that is in service. That weapon would still have an adequate life. The smarter approach is to replace worn weapons in blocks for each unit/brigade etc. So if a unit is in theatre, or just left theatre and a large portion of weapons are extensively used/worn, then it would be appropriate to replace all the weapons in that unit with the upgrade. (if the upgrade/weapon system were to be adopted)

No one is going to be stupid enough to trickle in a new (or modified) weapon system in a piecemeal fashion. I would never entertain the thought of having half a section (squad) carrying M4s and the other half carrying 416s.

Hollis

05-03-2007, 11:35 AM

No one is going to be stupid enough to trickle in a new (or modified) weapon system in a piecemeal fashion. I would never entertain the thought of having half a section (squad) carrying M4s and the other half carrying 416s.

I agree. The logistical issues of introducing a new firearm, training, support, supplies etc would probably be as expensive as buying all the rifles a Army needs. There is a term, Cost/benefit ratio. Is it sufficient to jusitfy a major change over?

The other aspect, the weapon has be untilized by a very wide range of people with different physical, mental and oother abilites effectively.

Specific small units or groups don't fit this situtation and some can use what ever the group decides is necessary to do the job. For Army with divisions to be filled, that does not happen. Remember a chain is as strong as it weakest link, a weapon has to be designed so even a drafted liberal anti-gun cross eyed gurly-man can use it with some effectiveness.

Case in point, read about the SVT40 and the Mosin Nagant, what the average Soviet soldier thought, then compare the opinons of German soldiers on the SVT 40.