Joined
·
1,316 Posts
The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
This is only a small part of the story, though. The inclusion of XM8 into the testing is very telling. The XM8 program was canceled because the gun wouldn't function to the Army's expectations. At the same time this was happening, H&K developed the HKM4 (which is now the 416) but certain people within the Army command structure actually tried to prevent the HKM4 from reaching military hands. Why? Because there was a fear that the simpler, less expensive HMM4 would outshine the XM8 ... and too many people's careers were tied to XM8.
For example, HK was convinced not to submit the HKM4 for the SOCOM "SCAR" test, but instead submitted the XM8 even though SOCOM had indicated they did not want the XM8 and didn't consider it suitable for their needs. There are quite a few folks who believe the 416 would have walked away with the SCAR contract if only H&K had submitted it.
I'd also guess -- and this is just speculation -- that some of what we're seeing is a backlash to earlier cries by Colt that too many units were buying 416's with emergency discretionary money rather than going through existing contracts for M4s ( = Colt) or going to competition. The result is that the Army put a stop to much (though not all) of the H&K 416 proliferation within the US Military.
For example, HK was convinced not to submit the HKM4 for the SOCOM "SCAR" test, but instead submitted the XM8 even though SOCOM had indicated they did not want the XM8 and didn't consider it suitable for their needs. There are quite a few folks who believe the 416 would have walked away with the SCAR contract if only H&K had submitted it.
I'd also guess -- and this is just speculation -- that some of what we're seeing is a backlash to earlier cries by Colt that too many units were buying 416's with emergency discretionary money rather than going through existing contracts for M4s ( = Colt) or going to competition. The result is that the Army put a stop to much (though not all) of the H&K 416 proliferation within the US Military.
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
I don't think they were trying to tell the entire story of everything occurring with the XM8. They have other articles on that subject.
Colt seems to be ready to get on the piston bandwagon with the M5.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88956
Personally while I think anything is an improvement over direct impingement I think we need a new rifle and round, not tweaks to the old.
Colt seems to be ready to get on the piston bandwagon with the M5.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88956
Personally while I think anything is an improvement over direct impingement I think we need a new rifle and round, not tweaks to the old.
Disagree that a new round is needed. Most of the claims that the 5.56 is ineffective have been traced back to misses, not inadequate hits. It's a lot like the clamor for a .45 ... people assume it's just better and why not complain about your gear when you're stuck in a war zone and the perception is that it's not good enough? I don't blame the troops. But I do blame the people who should be doing a better job informing the troops rather than let them crawl into their cots every night with low confidence in their fighting equipment.
Both green tip and the 77 OTM have been very successful when they hit people in the upper chest.
It's funny, so many people in the military think the 5.56mm is inadequate while U.S. law enforcement is absolutely thrilled with its performance. I sat in on an after action report a few years back where a BG shot in the ankle by an M4 was described as being "completely incapable of continuing aggressive action."
![]()
And a 20" AR-style rifle runs pretty well, even in dusty environments. It's the tacti-cool need to shave five and a half inches (or eight and a half, or ten!) off the front of the gun that results in both reduced reliability and reduced terminal effectiveness. While certainly there are some specific units performing specific missions that need shorter carbines, the general issue of M4s is, in my opinion, fueled by (a) politics and (b) a desire among the rank-and-file to have the same gear as the ninjas.
Both green tip and the 77 OTM have been very successful when they hit people in the upper chest.
It's funny, so many people in the military think the 5.56mm is inadequate while U.S. law enforcement is absolutely thrilled with its performance. I sat in on an after action report a few years back where a BG shot in the ankle by an M4 was described as being "completely incapable of continuing aggressive action."
And a 20" AR-style rifle runs pretty well, even in dusty environments. It's the tacti-cool need to shave five and a half inches (or eight and a half, or ten!) off the front of the gun that results in both reduced reliability and reduced terminal effectiveness. While certainly there are some specific units performing specific missions that need shorter carbines, the general issue of M4s is, in my opinion, fueled by (a) politics and (b) a desire among the rank-and-file to have the same gear as the ninjas.
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
You can disagree all you want. Ever been a grunt? Ever shot someone with an M-16? I've been there. Many times. Nothing funny about it and I will want to hear some military combat experience in your background before you talk smack what people in the military do or should think. I'm not interested in what a cop thinks about the M-16. Its apples and oranges to the infantry. While I'm at it tell me when in your past you have been in constant combat without the ability to brush your teeth let alone clean your weapon. Then tell me how well the 20" runs in "dusty" conditions.
Dude ... thanks for the chest beating. Nope, never been a "grunt" in combat. I rely on the expertise of the SOF folks I talk to all the time who have had great success, and the people at military R&D facilities that have collected the info I mentioned above. You might notice, btw, that with all the talk of switching rifles it's still going to be 5.56mm.
But thanks for the kind words.
![]()
edited to add: I remember five years ago when a certain Army unit came to us (I was at SIG at the time) telling us that the 6.8mm was a done deal and we had to develop our rifle in that caliber if we were ever going to have a chance selling rifles to the military. Five years later ... I'm happy to say we saw what was really going on and decided not to waste the money.
But thanks for the kind words.
edited to add: I remember five years ago when a certain Army unit came to us (I was at SIG at the time) telling us that the 6.8mm was a done deal and we had to develop our rifle in that caliber if we were ever going to have a chance selling rifles to the military. Five years later ... I'm happy to say we saw what was really going on and decided not to waste the money.
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
Yeah. Thats what I thought.
Todd, you didn't know passing the Army qualification for the M16 made you an expert on terminal ballistics???
I thought that was common knowledge...
To be serious, though...talk to enough .50 gunners, and you'll find someone who can tell you about someone who needed a second hit from a .50BMG to go down for good.
Obviously, since there has been failure to stops with the .5OBMG cartridge, we should all be carrying a cartridge more powerful than that.
I thought that was common knowledge...
To be serious, though...talk to enough .50 gunners, and you'll find someone who can tell you about someone who needed a second hit from a .50BMG to go down for good.
Obviously, since there has been failure to stops with the .5OBMG cartridge, we should all be carrying a cartridge more powerful than that.
synergy said:
Really off-topic, but this line reminded me of something I heard from an FBI SWAT guy a couple years back: "We use the .45 because even a near miss will knock a guy down." I swear it's true, he said that.
I don't doubt that there are people who get hit by M193 or M855 or even Mk262 and keep fighting. It's the suggestion that "if only the bullet had been a little heavier/faster/whatever" that magically the same exact guy, shot in the same exact place, would have turned into a puff of pink mist that I just can't rationalize.
A friend of mine ran an experiment for an Army research lab related to the need for better range and rangefinding on the M4. They brought soldiers in who were back from the battlezone and had them do range estimates. It was very informal, sitting in a windowed office and asking them to identify how far away a car was in the parking lot, or how far away the next building over was, etc. What they discovered is that the soldiers were regularly guestimating 50-150% more distance than actually existed. So people were taking, for example, a 600m hold on a target that was less than 300m away ... and therefore shooting over their heads.
Also remember this... i'm pretty sure that I can take a 50BMG in the foot and live... i'll be in pain... but live.
Looking at the average distance that 50BMGs are used at vs the average distance 5.56 NATOs are used at, may shed some light on this situation, since 50BMGs are often used at extremely long range... and eventhough they can carry out and hit targets at extreme distances, even the best shooter will have a hard time hitting a "killing blow" with each round shot.
Please consider all options before comparing 2 different rounds.
Looking at the average distance that 50BMGs are used at vs the average distance 5.56 NATOs are used at, may shed some light on this situation, since 50BMGs are often used at extremely long range... and eventhough they can carry out and hit targets at extreme distances, even the best shooter will have a hard time hitting a "killing blow" with each round shot.
Please consider all options before comparing 2 different rounds.
synergy said:
Considering that the debate is on caliber, how is it not appropriate to discuss two rifle calibers at opposite ends of the spectrum?
You kinda helped make my point though, as you brought up the fact that shot placement is paramount.[/quote]
I'd say, because the comparrison is apples to oranges? That is why.
And I had to state it b/c I thought shot placement was never stated specifically. Thought it was a key point of the arguement.
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads/showf...mp;page=2#51565
Larry Vickers
Re: The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy [Re: Fred Larson]
#51639 - 08/02/07 05:38 AM
If you study history you know that this type of situation is not new (M1 Garand vs M1941 Johnson for example) - what normally happens is the military/Army is very reluctantly being forced to adminster this 'test' and in the end status quo will rule the day
In my opinion they are missing the point - we should have had a new service rifle in the 1980's and the guns we are currently using are 1960's technology - even if that weapon was an M16/M4 with a new gas system and a new magazine - in my mind that would be a great place to start
Bottomline here is the US military as a whole puts very little importance on small arms and marksmanship (with some notable exceptions) and if the M16/M4 situation does not prove that I don't now what does
Larry Vickers
www.vickerstactical.com
Larry Vickers
Re: The USA's M4 Carbine Controversy [Re: Fred Larson]
#51639 - 08/02/07 05:38 AM
If you study history you know that this type of situation is not new (M1 Garand vs M1941 Johnson for example) - what normally happens is the military/Army is very reluctantly being forced to adminster this 'test' and in the end status quo will rule the day
In my opinion they are missing the point - we should have had a new service rifle in the 1980's and the guns we are currently using are 1960's technology - even if that weapon was an M16/M4 with a new gas system and a new magazine - in my mind that would be a great place to start
Bottomline here is the US military as a whole puts very little importance on small arms and marksmanship (with some notable exceptions) and if the M16/M4 situation does not prove that I don't now what does
Larry Vickers
www.vickerstactical.com
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Join the discussion
