View Full Version : M4A1 as Standard Issue
KalashniKEV
09-04-12, 15:34
http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_d5178284-f2f4-11e1-8aa5-0019bb2963f4.html
Looks like Bastogne is putting full auto capability in the rifleman's hands for their next rendezvous with destiny...
PA PATRIOT
09-04-12, 15:40
Other then being full auto with a milled forearm and being manufactured by Remington what else is different from the standard M4 rifle?
Pistol Shooter
09-04-12, 15:49
From The Fort Campbell Courier:
"Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”
Makes sense to me.
Ah.. heavier barrel and better trigger.. a wash
Nice to see a PFC and 1st SGT competing for most ignorant quotes.
for your reading pleasure....
Soldiers of Company B, 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, went to the range Tuesday to test out the new M4A1 Carbine, 5.56mm rifles issued to the unit last week.
“We are preparing our Soldiers with more capabilities with continuous rounds to return fire with the enemy by training and qualifying with our new weapons for our upcoming deployment to Afghanistan,” said Capt. Marci Hanson, the commander of Bravo Company, 1st STB.
The newly upgraded M4A1 rifles will replace the M4 and M16A2 rifles for the Soldiers deploying over the next few months.
In April 2012, the Army announced that they would begin purchasing 120,000 M4A1 rifles for front line units deploying to Afghanistan. The contract runs through 2014 with the first 24,000 of these rifles being manufactured by the Remington Arms Company.
“The three round burst option on the old rifles no longer exists and was replaced with what is now an automatic option,” said Sgt. 1st Class James Stanley, Co. B, 1st STB, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the fielding for the M4A1 range.
“The point of impact will be more effective for the Soldiers deployed and that has been heavily anticipated for many Soldiers returning for another deployment with the new features,” said Stanley.
“I think the new M4A1’s automatic feature was excellent and I can definitely feel the difference against my shoulder when firing from three rounds to a continuous effect of ammunition being released,” said Pfc. Bryan Chapman, Co. B, 1st STB.
Chapman said that it is understandable not to use weapons such as the M4A1 during training and peacetime because of the possible waste of ammunition, but for down range it is different.
Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”
The M4A1 provides the individual Soldier operating in close quarters the capability to engage enemies at extended range with accurate, lethal fire.
“It is important that we get the training needed with these weapons before deployment because there is definitely a difference between the three round burst and shooting a weapon in an automatic setting,” said Chapman.
Hanson said that she can hear the difference and see the excitement with her Soldiers but also looks forward to using the M4A1 rifle as well.
Fully automatic fire is, aside from very specific instances, a complete waste of ammo.
"Squeze, squeeze, squeeze", ie making accurate and effective hits is what works. 1 bullet snapping past a guys head is infinately more effective than 10 rounds whizzing by 3-4 meters above their heads.
Burst and auto are only there for certain situations. If that need arises I'd rather have full auto.
Grand58742
09-04-12, 17:01
If this has been asked before, forgive as it's a fairly vague set of keywords in a search...
Has anyone every designed or thought of adding both burst and full auto to the M16 FOW? Kind of like the FN FNC has.
I mean besides the lowers having to be remarked, is that even possible with the way an AR action works?
karmapolice
09-04-12, 17:06
unless its belt fed and on a mount or tripod, full auto is a complete and udder waste. The army needs to retool it s firearms training completely but it will probably never happen.
Auto triggers have fewer parts and a single pull weight. It's better than burst though I see little need for auto.
A bigger improvement would be ordering the Block II.
sinlessorrow
09-04-12, 17:24
Ah.. heavier barrel and better trigger.. a wash
Nice to see a PFC and 1st SGT competing for most ignorant quotes.
for your reading pleasure....
Soldiers of Company B, 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, went to the range Tuesday to test out the new M4A1 Carbine, 5.56mm rifles issued to the unit last week.
“We are preparing our Soldiers with more capabilities with continuous rounds to return fire with the enemy by training and qualifying with our new weapons for our upcoming deployment to Afghanistan,” said Capt. Marci Hanson, the commander of Bravo Company, 1st STB.
The newly upgraded M4A1 rifles will replace the M4 and M16A2 rifles for the Soldiers deploying over the next few months.
In April 2012, the Army announced that they would begin purchasing 120,000 M4A1 rifles for front line units deploying to Afghanistan. The contract runs through 2014 with the first 24,000 of these rifles being manufactured by the Remington Arms Company.
“The three round burst option on the old rifles no longer exists and was replaced with what is now an automatic option,” said Sgt. 1st Class James Stanley, Co. B, 1st STB, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the fielding for the M4A1 range.
“The point of impact will be more effective for the Soldiers deployed and that has been heavily anticipated for many Soldiers returning for another deployment with the new features,” said Stanley.
“I think the new M4A1’s automatic feature was excellent and I can definitely feel the difference against my shoulder when firing from three rounds to a continuous effect of ammunition being released,” said Pfc. Bryan Chapman, Co. B, 1st STB.
Chapman said that it is understandable not to use weapons such as the M4A1 during training and peacetime because of the possible waste of ammunition, but for down range it is different.
Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”
The M4A1 provides the individual Soldier operating in close quarters the capability to engage enemies at extended range with accurate, lethal fire.
“It is important that we get the training needed with these weapons before deployment because there is definitely a difference between the three round burst and shooting a weapon in an automatic setting,” said Chapman.
Hanson said that she can hear the difference and see the excitement with her Soldiers but also looks forward to using the M4A1 rifle as well.
Part in green is facepalm worthy. Part in red is what I call effective fire.
I think the auto trigger is a huge upgrade over a burst trigger though, proper trigger pull that is the same every time will increase accuracy and be a huge upgrade over having three different trigger pulls.
why do people think firing in automatic will be more effective than semi? because someone shooting at you does it?
Auto triggers have fewer parts and a single pull weight. It's better than burst though I see little need for auto.
A bigger improvement would be ordering the Block II.
Block II is a SOCOM thing, I doubt the Army would ever see it. They are working on getting a FF rail issued though, as we speak testing is taking place on the entrants. I think I read middle of 2013 will be the selection of them?
I mean is this really what is being trained? shoot at the enemy at cyclic rates?
sinlessorrow
09-04-12, 17:34
From The Fort Campbell Courier:
"Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”
Makes sense to me.
I hope that is sarcasm?
USMC_Anglico
09-04-12, 17:35
No burst trigger and a FF rail are GTG in my book. FA and heavy barrel, I could take it or leave it. None of it will improve qual scores or general marksmanship, that would take actual time and ammo....
KalashniKEV
09-04-12, 17:48
I have completely mixed feelings on the issue, but I'm leaning towards "Bad Idea."
If more volume is truly needed, they should be incorporating more SAWs into patrols.
Look for this to turn into more black-on-ammo KIAs, which will turn into dudes (willfully or not) carrying a completely retarded number of mags with them.
Funny that it's the STB too... I wonder if they practice their "Death Blossom" in garrison? :D
No burst trigger and a FF rail are GTG in my book. FA and heavy barrel, I could take it or leave it. None of it will improve qual scores or general marksmanship, that would take actual time and ammo....
The Marine Corps experience with the M27 and qualification has shown that either we were giving our M27 to all the best shooters in the Battalions or the increase in accuracy potential actually was showing increase in average scores.
For the record, the US Army Marksmanship Unit formally recommended the Army adopt the standard M16A1 trigger (full auto) or the 2-stage Geiselle Super Select Fire trigger, along with the Daniel Defense Omega free-float rail (no permanent alterations to the base gun required).
The A1 trigger is still in production, it has fewer moving parts than the A2/A4 trigger, and it has a single break rather than three distinctly different creepy pulls. Full-auto was NOT the defining capability (as all of USSOCOM's weapons have been full-auto since day 1 of M4A1 delivery).
vicious_cb
09-04-12, 18:08
For the record, the US Army Marksmanship Unit formally recommended the Army adopt the standard M16A1 trigger (full auto) or the 2-stage Geiselle Super Select Fire trigger, along with the Daniel Defense Omega free-float rail (no permanent alterations to the base gun required).
The A1 trigger is still in production, it has fewer moving parts than the A2/A4 trigger, and it has a single break rather than three distinctly different creepy pulls. Full-auto was NOT the defining capability (as all of USSOCOM's weapons have been full-auto since day 1 of M4A1 delivery).
Is the M16A1 trigger the same as the M4A1 trigger?
From that perspective the change to an FA group makes sense. It seemed the article focused more on the supposed increase in soldier effectiveness with a fully automatic gun.
Is the M16A1 trigger the same as the M4A1 trigger?
Yes, it is. The civilian who shoots a standard AR trigger has essentially the same thing without full-auto or all the three-round burst crap (a cam, two disconnectors, etc.).
vicious_cb
09-04-12, 19:04
Yes, it is. The civilian who shoots a standard AR trigger has essentially the same thing without full-auto or all the three-round burst crap (a cam, two disconnectors, etc.).
How about the SSF? As someone who has used both the standard A1 on auto and the SSF on auto whats the difference, is it really that much better? Or the main benefit of the SSF in the semi-auto pull? Ive got an SSA and the difference between it and the mil-spec trigger is night and day.
scoutfsu99
09-04-12, 19:33
Some of you guys need to realize exactly who is being quoted in this article. They're not talking to SOF guys, switched on combat arms guys, etc. Of course they're saying face palm worthy stuff.
M4A1 is a good thing, regardless of who is getting them.
If this has been asked before, forgive as it's a fairly vague set of keywords in a search...
Has anyone every designed or thought of adding both burst and full auto to the M16 FOW? Kind of like the FN FNC has.
I mean besides the lowers having to be remarked, is that even possible with the way an AR action works?
Yes, I've seen and worked on them.
sinlessorrow
09-04-12, 20:41
Some of you guys need to realize exactly who is being quoted in this article. They're not talking to SOF guys, switched on combat arms guys, etc. Of course they're saying face palm worthy stuff.
M4A1 is a good thing, regardless of who is getting them.
That is true, but shouldn't they be taught to avoid using auto during training?
scoutfsu99
09-04-12, 20:56
What training is that? The couple ranges they run per year? I don't know what they're official POI is but the one adhoc POI that I witnessed wasn't to par. I had to go down the line on a MICO range and fix, tighten screws, rotate 68's properly, turn a 68 around, etc.
I'm not trying to bash the STB's and soft skills but it's hard enough getting a line guy to care about his weapon/actually learn how to utilize it.
I wish everyone in the Army wanted to learn their weapon system and get good training on it. That's not the case.
But that is all besides the point. The M4A1 is a step in the right direction.....even though I think the outcome will be typical.
I think this post was correct -
Burst and auto are only there for certain situations. If that need arises I'd rather have full auto.
Heavy Metal
09-04-12, 21:09
Unrestricted FA strikes me as useful in something like establishing fire superiority in a near ambush and a few other limited circumstances. 99% of the time, it would only travel from safe to semi.
That said, it is stupid-easy to train someone to fire 3 round bursts on an M-16 FOW. That is an easy software fix to replace that atrocious 3 round burst hardware kludge.
uncle money bags
09-04-12, 21:43
unless its belt fed and on a mount or tripod, full auto is a complete and udder waste. The army needs to retool it s firearms training completely but it will probably never happen.
There is a time and place where full auto fire is useful in combat, e.g. Area suppressive fire when crew served weapons are unavailable, broke or otherwise engaged.
The Army didn't have to do a whole new R&D cycle to adopt the M4A1 to replace the M4 -- both are Standard-A (the heavy SOCOM barrel having been adopted in the 90s). All MILSPEC, all in the drawings, Mother Army just had to exercise the contract option.
SOCOM has already done the drawings and safety release for the Geiselle SSA, but it would add somewheres around $175 (retail) per gun.
If the Army were to standardize the 77 SMK, by law they have to buy all of US Army Special Operations Command's requirements -- something Leg Army hates to do.
Automatic rifle qualification with the M16A1 and clothespin bipod was an Army Infantry Advanced Individual Training graduation requirement in the 70s/early 80s before adoption of the M249 SAW. Not rocket science -- they used the same qual range as Basic Rifle Qualification, with the selector on auto.
sinlessorrow
09-04-12, 22:52
For the record, the US Army Marksmanship Unit formally recommended the Army adopt the standard M16A1 trigger (full auto) or the 2-stage Geiselle Super Select Fire trigger, along with the Daniel Defense Omega free-float rail (no permanent alterations to the base gun required).
The A1 trigger is still in production, it has fewer moving parts than the A2/A4 trigger, and it has a single break rather than three distinctly different creepy pulls. Full-auto was NOT the defining capability (as all of USSOCOM's weapons have been full-auto since day 1 of M4A1 delivery).
I have wondered why it has taken the Army this long to look into FF rails when things like the DD rail is right there waiting to be used, or even the VLTOR rail that allows use of the M203.
A LaRue rail isn't more expensive than a RAS. Same is true of the Omega. And a new trigger would do wonders for most soldiers. Ironically good triggers matter the most for the weakest shooters.
Magic_Salad0892
09-05-12, 02:16
Heavier barrel should have longer service life, help keep operating pressures down, allow sustained fire, and have less POI drift when suppressed.
AUTO trigger will have a consistent trigger pull.
Have a standard issue FF rail, and it sounds like a worthwhile upgrade. (I'd think KAC 7'' RAS, seeing as how they're probably not gonna make low pro gas blocks standard yet, if ever.)
Hell, slap an LMT Enhanced carrier, and VLTOR A5 and you have pretty much the perfect standard issue carbine. IMHO.
About time to kill the 3 rdn. burst crap.. should have never came about.. But the DoD/ MIL cut backs on training IE: shoot, move, communicate, estimate range, ect. was the problem in the first damn place. to much touchy freely crap training. The A1s had consistent trigger pull every shot. better front sight (thinner) so it don't cover as much of the Target(s) at longer ranges. STB unit w M4A1s ???? screen door on submarine for the most part. I carried A1s for first 6 years or so but was trained to use FA for special occasions. ambush, assaulting so on.
So call me behind the times here, but other than going from burst to auto, do we know for sure what has been changed/updated on the M4A1s big army is now using? I understand that SOCOM elements have been using these for a while, but did big army buy the same carbine, or did they do something different? I would just ask some friends at Ft Campbell, but they are currently deployed with more important issues to deal with.
sinlessorrow
09-12-12, 17:35
So call me behind the times here, but other than going from burst to auto, do we know for sure what has been changed/updated on the M4A1s big army is now using? I understand that SOCOM elements have been using these for a while, but did big army buy the same carbine, or did they do something different? I would just ask some friends at Ft Campbell, but they are currently deployed with more important issues to deal with.
the difference is its now the M4A1, this includes the SOCOM barrel, auto trigger that allows for precise trigger pull every time, and ambi safety selector.
Once the Forward rail PiP is completed it will phase out the KAC M4 RAS, but that will be next year.
So another dumb question, what exactly is a "SOCOM barrel"?
sinlessorrow
09-12-12, 17:51
So another dumb question, what exactly is a "SOCOM barrel"?
its thicker than a government profile barrel of the standard M4, but not quite HBAR but it also has cuts in it to allow for a M203 to be mounted. It can withstand nearly double the amount of rounds that the standard M4 barrel can.
http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/M4_Barrels.jpg
Great, something even heavier we have to carry.
sinlessorrow
09-12-12, 17:54
Great, something even heavier we have to carry.
It's certainly heavier, but I believe its 4oz difference.
It also makes it more rigid which should increase accuracy(doubt youd notice it without a FF rail) and will increase bolt life with a suppressor attached(again wont make a huge difference without a FF rail.)
If this has been asked before, forgive as it's a fairly vague set of keywords in a search... Has anyone every designed or thought of adding both burst and full auto to the M16 FOW? Kind of like the FN FNC has. I mean besides the lowers having to be remarked, is that even possible with the way an AR action works?
Yes, I've seen and worked on them.
Same here. They sometimes worked, too. Last one I recall was from DPMS, a four-position selector for safe, semi, burst, and auto. It was a nuisance.
Fortunately, I don't do that full time anymore. But having turned down a few barrels, that 4 oz feels a lot more when it's on the barrel. Pick up an A1 profile barrel, and you'll see what I mean. I have had some of my buddies handle my A1 clone and when my 20" rifle weighs less than their 16" carbines(without accessories) they take notice. Lightweight was the whole advantage of the M16 to begin with.
Big army doesn't get suppressors, so no real gain there. And in my experience any accuracy gained is going to be irrelevant for 2 reasons; a) most soldiers in the(big) army can't shoot well enough to notice a difference. And;
b) In my experience, when someone is actually shooting at you, your shooting ability declines rather dramatically. So even if you have a level of skill to notice the improvement a heavier barrel would give you, you're not going to shoot that well in combat situations. Granted, this may not apply to everyone, but it does apply to most.
vicious_cb
09-12-12, 18:21
Not to mention M855 has a very low accuracy standard.
sinlessorrow
09-12-12, 18:31
Not to mention M855 has a very low accuracy standard.
M855 is no longer being used, M855A1 is now the standard round and is I believe a 1.5MOA round.
everyusernametaken
09-12-12, 18:36
Fortunately, I don't do that full time anymore. But having turned down a few barrels, that 4 oz feels a lot more when it's on the barrel. Pick up an A1 profile barrel, and you'll see what I mean. I have had some of my buddies handle my A1 clone and when my 20" rifle weighs less than their 16" carbines(without accessories) they take notice. Lightweight was the whole advantage of the M16 to begin with.
In the case of the SOCOM barrel, that 4 ounces of weight is back near the chamber end of the barrel. That makes a big difference, if you're comparing it to a standard profile barrel of the same length. If it were out nearer to the muzzle, with leverage and the inertial force fighting moving it around, it might be significant, but the SOCOM barrel doesn't exhibit that problem.
Also note, for the M4A1, it's a 14.5" barrel, so balance is quite different from a 20" rifle configuration.
vicious_cb
09-12-12, 18:59
M855 is no longer being used, M855A1 is now the standard round and is I believe a 1.5MOA round.
Yeah, until it goes into full production. Do you really think they'll be able to consistently produce lots of M855A1 that shoot like match ammo?
Yeah, until it goes into full production. Do you really think they'll be able to consistently produce lots of M855A1 that shoot like match ammo?
http://i.reactionclips.com/tw7aQ.gif
Yeah, it's already been around for a while. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes or at what percentage of production capacity they are - although I assume they're at "full production" already, if that phrase even means anything in this context.
All I know is that in reality and in practice it's not 1.5 MOA ammunition. While I believe 5.5 MOA is the maximum accepted standard, in practice I've found it to be somewhat better. It's between 2 and 4 MOA depending on what lot it comes out of, and they are not consistent. They can't even get M118LR right; does anybody think the M855A1 will be consistently accurate? Refer to Oprah.
sinlessorrow
09-12-12, 19:49
http://i.reactionclips.com/tw7aQ.gif
Yeah, it's already been around for a while. I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes or at what percentage of production capacity they are - although I assume they're at "full production" already, if that phrase even means anything in this context.
All I know is that in reality and in practice it's not 1.5 MOA ammunition. While I believe 5.5 MOA is the maximum accepted standard, in practice I've found it to be somewhat better. It's between 2 and 4 MOA depending on what lot it comes out of, and they are not consistent. They can't even get M118LR right; does anybody think the M855A1 will be consistently accurate? Refer to Oprah.
I'm not sure, I know the few people who I talk to who use it are getting 1.5-2moa who are good shots but know telling how long that will last.
vicious_cb
09-12-12, 19:55
M855A1 is definitely more accurate than recent M855, about par with Mk318 and 70 gr Optimal “browntip”, while less accurate than Mk262. Current M855A1 is shooting about 2 MOA––however these are projectiles built on the old inefficient, more costly BAM. IF M855A1 is ever able to be successfully built on SCAMP, then who knows where accuracy will be. Unfortunately, since the contract allows 5.5 MOA, eventually lots will be accepted with reduced accuracy, exactly as occurred with M855 “greentip” and M118LR produced following the post 9/11 ramp up in ammo production and concomitant need to relax accuracy requirements to reduce the number of rejected lots…
By full production I mean production in SCAMP machinery. I do not know what current M855A1 is being produced on.
By full production I mean production in SCAMP machinery. I do not know what current M855A1 is being produced on.
Oh okay, I know essentially nothing about the machinery ammunition is produced on. Either way, what I've seen of the stuff seems to mirror DocGKR's statement.
But I can tell you emphatically that M118LR went to complete shit for quite a while as it became more in demand. Would not be surprised to see the same happen here. So I agree with you about it not staying down near anywhere close to 1.5 MOA.
GWOT demands and Lake Shitty short-cutting basically turned quite a few lots of M118LR into dog shit.
SCAMP is not the end-all solution, either. Those machines were built in the 70s and while still viable and cranking out ammo today are obsolescent. The US Army had to resort to off-shore production for much of its 5.56/small arms ammo surge requirements in the first half of the GWOT to date.
There is ONE military small arms ammo production facility today at Lake City. There's ONE military powder plant at Radford. HUGE difference between WWII and the post war divestitures when budgets were slashed and capacity was scrapped or sold off.
Higher and tighter acceptance standards (i.e., for SOCOM ammo like Mark 262, 316, and 318) mean non-Lake City production (Black Hills, Federal, etc.).
sinlessorrow
09-12-12, 23:51
GWOT demands and Lake Shitty short-cutting basically turned quite a few lots of M118LR into dog shit.
SCAMP is not the end-all solution, either. Those machines were built in the 70s and while still viable and cranking out ammo today are obsolescent. The US Army had to resort to off-shore production for much of its 5.56/small arms ammo surge requirements in the first half of the GWOT to date.
There is ONE military small arms ammo production facility today at Lake City. There's ONE military powder plant at Radford. HUGE difference between WWII and the post war divestitures when budgets were slashed and capacity was scrapped or sold off.
Higher and tighter acceptance standards (i.e., for SOCOM ammo like Mark 262, 316, and 318) mean non-Lake City production (Black Hills, Federal, etc.).
I was wondering, how would MK318 hold up under manuf if the Army was to adopt it?
M855 is no longer being used, M855A1 is now the standard round and is I believe a 1.5MOA round.
A1 has been adopted by the Army as its standard round, but they have billions of rounds of 855 to shoot off.
[QUOTE=Arctic1;1386444]Fully automatic fire is, aside from very specific instances, a complete waste of ammo.
The enemy hasn't run out of ammo yet is is still in the fight...
"Squeze, squeeze, squeeze", ie making accurate and effective hits is what works. 1 bullet snapping past a guys head is infinately more effective than 10 rounds whizzing by 3-4 meters above their heads.
Soldiers can still fire single accurate and effective hits that work. Now they can also fire FA :neo: when single shots are not getting the job done. You act like the new M41A is full auto all the time. Nothing lost, everything gained...win/win!
Magic_Salad0892
09-13-12, 06:06
M855 is no longer being used, M855A1 is now the standard round and is I believe a 1.5MOA round.
They need to get rid of that stupid shit. It's waaaay too high pressure.
Soldiers can still fire single accurate and effective hits that work. Now they can also fire FA :neo: when single shots are not getting the job done. You act like the new M41A is full auto all the time. Nothing lost, everything gained...win/win!
Oh yeah, that was completely lost on me :rolleyes:
Except for a few particular circumstances, FA is a waste of ammo unless fired from a belt-fed platform. My opinion. Sure, it's cool and all, but it has limited appliction for the most part except for reducing accuracy and throwing bullets to the wind.
I see the point Sinister made about the FA trigger assembly having a better, more consistent trigger pull. I disagree with the angle of the article that somehow FA capacity will make the soldiers that much more lethal on the battlefield.
What would be smart, while not the cheapest option, would be Block II M4A1's. Maybe with the FSB cut out RIS II's. Block II M4A1's with Geissele SSA/SSF triggers and Mk262 ammo as standard issue and we would spend alot less than trying to adopt something completely new.
1 bullet snapping past a guys head is infinately more effective than 10 rounds whizzing by 3-4 meters above their heads.
The point is supposed to be "Bang-smack-dead," not crack-crack/"Neener-neener," whether it's by an inch or a mile.
A fancy-dancy full-menu carbine is wasted on 95+% of the force, although it might give a bunch of folks in the acquisition field a warm fuzzy like they're doing something for the Soldier. Frankly I think they'd be better off putting someone like Pat Macnamara or Brian Searcy in charge of training the leg Infantry force to use what they have in-hand, today.
The guns and optics we have are pretty damn good and generally affordable to field to a good number -- unfortunately the individual and his first and second-line supervisors have no idea how to perform to the advertised (in our doctrinal manuals!) hardware capability. The American mentality of short-cutting to get immediate superior results without working for them stands out here.
Geisselle makes an OEM only two stage that is 90% of the SSA at 50% of the price. We'd do well to put that in weapons issued to non combat arms troops. In particular it's been my experience that weak shooters benefit more from a better trigger than strong shooters.
Sinister is of course right about training. The Army can't afford to have top notch trainers everywhere but the book might as well be written by good trainers. Then you have to change a culture that cheats on quals.
I don't see a problem. This is still a training and NCO issue.
When I first got in, we had M16A1s and we didn't fire on FA except for very specific situations.
If we had, NCOs would have put a boot in our ass. I imagine that the same will be true today with the M4A1.
The trigger IS better, as well. I hated the burst pack trigger pull.
As to the comments, that's why they should have stayed with the old "Sir/Ma'am, I must respectfully direct you to our PAO for any comments on the new weapons system".
sinlessorrow
09-13-12, 12:42
Im just waiting for another wanat to happen where they fire more and aim less then blame the weapon systems. Especially now with the M4A1 and its auto mode.The quotes in the article are what made me think of this, the whole we need to practice using these guns on auto......
The point is supposed to be "Bang-smack-dead," not crack-crack/"Neener-neener," whether it's by an inch or a mile.
Sure.
I wasn't trying to say that misses are good. Hits are better than misses. But in terms of the effects of our fires, aside from wounding or killing, this means making the enemy react and mess up his OODA loop. A close miss is better than shooting way over. Volume does not negate proximity requirements. Again, hits are better than misses, not advocating a different approach but guaranteeing "bang-smack-dead" every time is not realistic.
And I do not disagree on the training issues at all. Both field craft and marksmanship/combat shooting needs to be stressed a lot more, and any insufficiencies in these areas are more limiting than hardware.
Thorvaldsson
09-13-12, 15:24
"Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”
"more capable of firing at us... " :blink:
I can just see these solidiers going amber on ammo 5 minutes into a fight... 5-10 minute fight, great, but...
Both field craft and marksmanship/combat shooting needs to be stressed a lot more, and any insufficiencies in these areas are more limiting than hardware.
this
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.