M4 "Loses" Dust-test

[Spurholder]

WS6, like Dano said, I think you need to throttle back and choose your battles a little more carefully.

The article you mentioned references a survey (linked earlier on this thread) was an attempt to find ground truth. Having said that, it was an attempt. The guys posting here are 100% correct - it's about experience, it's about perception, and it's about getting the very best equipment of ALL types into the hands of our soldiers.

In my opinion, the Chief of Testing for infantry weapons ought to be a experienced Sergeant Major with an MOS of 11Z, and officers need to stay out of the individual soldier business. It's not just because the GO that was quoted has a right sleeve as bare as the newest PV1 in Basic Training. The same condition applied to the guy he replaced, IIRC. That's part of the overall problem, though.

[Matt Edwards]

Brett,
EUA's. I like that. Good on ya.

I am also not surprised that the M4 "did the worst", like I wasn't surprised when the 1911 did the "worst" back in the 80's.

[DocGKR]

WS6,

As previously discussed, PEO Soldier is referencing the Center for Naval Analysis Study conducted for the Big Army: “Soldier Perspectives on Small Arms in Combat” (CRM D0015259.A2 / Final December 2006, Sara M. Russell). If you look at which Soldiers are being asked to complete surveys, NONE are from the Ranger Rgt, SF Groups, or Tier One Units; few are very experienced, and many are not even from combat arms branches. How can the average "Joe Soldier" whose only limited shooting experience is with an M16 or M4, make any comparison with other systems he is not familiar with?

Again, it is telling that our nation's most experienced warriors choose the 416 rather than the M4, whenever possible.

You really need to read more and gather all the facts before making unfounded comments.

As noted, Moran was bad; BG Mark Brown is worse...

[Larry Vickers]

My 2 cents;

no surprise on the results - we should have had a new service rifle in the 1980's - 40 years plus with essentially the same weapon is lunacy - the Air Force damn sure ain't fielding front line fighter aircraft that is 40 plus years old - on that note just a few less aircraft would pay for new rifles across the board

take an M4 and change the gas system (HK416) and change the mag to a different/better design and that is a good place to start for a new weapon

last thought - big Army ain't gonna do jack shit about this unless congress forces them - if you believe in the cause call your congressman and demand a program to field a new rifle testing all available candidates

be safe

Larry Vickers

www.vickerstactical.com

[R Moran]

As noted, Moran was bad;

No relation.

Larry, I'm trying to recall all the info from the "full Larry Vickers expieriance" up in Colorado in Sept.

But, I thought you had said, "its still an AR" referencing the 416. Which led me to believe that you felt another complete operating system would be better, not just a piston drive. The AR18 was mentioned, but, while the carrier is different, doen't it use a similar bolt?

So, what is, if there is an is, the answer? Something like a Sig55X in 6.8-7mm type round?
Is there anything viable right now off the shelf, for us regular guys?

I'm still a fan of the M4 and the 5.56, as imperfect as they are. Considering the amount of ammo I've got, AR's I have, mags, training etc, I'll probably stick with it for now, and it will likely be my duty gun for the forseeable future.

I'll just file this info away, for reference, and drive on.

At least I didn't see a call for the return of the M14, like on other sites.

Bob

[TY44934]

My 2 cents;

take an M4 and change the gas system (HK416) and change the mag to a different/better design and that is a good place to start for a new weapon

Larry Vickers
www.vickerstactical.com

I agree with you.

Many mistakenly refer to the 416 as an entirely new weapon "system." The 416 was merely intended to be an up-grade to our existing M16A2 and M4 rifles; it utilizes the existing lower half and would even fit under the M4's plastice hand-gaurds (which as we all know are generally replaced by a number of railed systems). Existing optics would also be retained. Why adopt a new system when money can be saved by simple upgrades easily accomplished as the armorer's level?

What is also frequently misunderstood is that the 416 always specified the use of a hammer-forged barrel - which the AT artlicle also called for.

[ffhounddog]

Well alot of good thoughts and discussions here.

I have never had any issues with my M4, M9 or M16A2 in the field. I think the fact of the matter is I learned to clean and make sure it was good to go verse others. I have never had a new weapon issued to me but I can tell you my rounds were true in both I use in Iraq. Like I told a person before a warrior uses the weapons he has at his disposal to the utmost of his ability.

Ok speech off.

[pryde]

bleh.

[variablebinary]

So, what is, if there is an is, the answer? Something like a Sig55X in 6.8-7mm type round?
Is there anything viable right now off the shelf, for us regular guys?

From a military perspective it makes zero sense to go from a 40 year old design to a 30 or 20 year old design, so that rules out the FNC, 55x/556, Famas, and any other Euro 5.56 carbine. They are all inferior to the AR15 as is

Even the 416 is a bad idea from a features standpoint. Put it up against the Masada, XCR and SCAR and the 416 sceams "STOPGAP WEAPON!!!", which is what happened to the M14

Off the shelf for regular guys who dont want a step backwards, I would go XCR, or wait for the SCAR and Masada. I would like a 416 for the collection but who knows if HK is really making a civilian 416.

[Matt Edwards]

Saying M14 and 416 in the same same sentence, makes me through up in my mouth a little.

OK, so in the end, we can say that the M4 is an acceptable combat weapon. I don't think ANYONE will dispute that. We agree that the guys who shoot more need something else and that some of them already have it. We agree that we don't much care about what E-1s think, but must take what the pro's and experainced GI's think. I think we can also agree that there are better guns out there.
No matter what happens, we also know that the M4 will MORE then be able to hold the ground untill the "new" gun gets there. At least that is one thing that we KNOW.
Next up...the M9!!

Matt