Servicemen and women: Washington Times Trashes the M4. Your Thoughts?

[30 cal slut]

I'm just a guy sitting behind a computer.

So, I'm kinda wondering what the pros are thinking about this article.

Has me scratching my head a bit.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/troop-left-to-fend-for-themselves-after-army-was-w/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS




U.S. Special Operations Command in 2001 issued a damning private report that said the M4A1 was fundamentally flawed because the gun failed when called on to unleash rapid firing.

[Todd00000]

Same old rehash of inaccuracies, ignorant reporting, and opinions.

[Belloc]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/1452254_718952184783800_2135782554_n.jpg
Perhaps the AK-15 could solve some of the reliability issues? :p

Actually, it would be interesting to see 100 standard government issued M4s go head to head against 100 ARs from the members of this forum to see if any aftermarket products really do offer any noticeable improvements.

[SOWT]

I think the article had some good points.

Look at photos from Afghanistan, how often do you see magpul mags in a rifle?

Same goes with other "aftermarket" enhancements.

I think it is interesting that a selling point for the SCAR was multiple barrels to be switched in/out depending on the mission, but no one thinks that giving Servicemen/women the choice of barrel length for the M-4/16 family makes sense.

[30 cal slut]

I've trained alongside some active duty SF types who fielded or tested the SCAR-L.

They were not happy with it at all. Many of them downright hated it.

User feedback:

1) Hate the reciprocating charging handle
2) Hate the buttstock

SME feedback:

1) Some malfunctions can only be cleared by dis-assembling the weapon system.