View Full Version : Everyjoe-America’s Soldiers Deserve a Better Rifle
Heavy Metal
05-06-14, 17:41
For your reading enjoyment Gentlemen:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/05/politics/soldiers-deserve-better-weapons/#comment-1372450015
We're supposed to take this joker seriously?
Heavy Metal
05-06-14, 18:04
He will respond to you if you comment. He is monitoring the comments section.
Did that once and started receiving spam in my email. It's also deliberately controversial meant to generate traffic and I just don't have the energy for it
Deserve a better rifle yet no better rifle exists... This guy is a moron.
We can do a product improvement (Block-II Type Upper, A5 Receiver Extension and Stock) when replacing components on already worn rifles - keep the lowers that are in spec, etc. - at pretty low cost since replacement parts would be needed anyway, and make actual improvements there.
In honest terms, the biggest combat advantage we have is that we have the luxury of equipping everybody who will DFL armed with an optic (better than snipers had until post-Korean war times), NVG's and IR Laser/Illuminator (better than anybody had until post-Vietnam war), so the force multipliers are everything but the rifle. That said, there are numerous product improvements that can be made (use the installation of the new M4A1 Colt barrels on M4's as an excuse to drop on DD RIS-2 FSP handguards; Use armory level teardowns to install A5 kits on M16A4's (or even M4's) for improvement in length of pull adjustment.
The cost for rifle changes are still comparatively small, but unless we're able to stop buying redundant hardware, or junk which makes marginal sense, I'd rather not spend money even on those improvements when there are such bigger fish to fry.
I wonder which competing company this guy works for?
When he lead off with the LBJ/McNamara stuff, I stopped reading.
I wonder which competing company this guy works for?
He doesn't. He's a military scifi author (and a good one). He's combining his service experience with some anecdotes and ancient history. He's neglected to take into account the more recent developments and combat experience of the 21st Century.
MountainRaven
05-06-14, 20:41
The M4 is the rifle the Army deserves, but not the one it needs.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
He doesn't. He's a military scifi author (and a good one). He's combining his service experience with some anecdotes and ancient history. He's neglected to take into account the more recent developments and combat experience of the 21st Century.
There's some logic there, but in the actual practice of asymmetric warfare the quality of the rifle pales compared to what air supremacy and good C2ISR capability can bring, so if in the mid-90's this was written it would make more sense, but as bad as the FutureWarrior project was in concept, the DARPA shove towards making the spinoffs relevant has produced a lot of quality kit.
It's the wrong analysis, but the fact that we're not making smart product improvements and using the onus of some required changes to do things smarter (e.g. use the green ammo push to make Solid Copper 'Brown Tip' (or Mk318/Mk319) service-wide) is symptomatic of the uselessness of upper echelons of leadership, and how disconnected the majority of the generalship is.
Heavy Metal
05-06-14, 20:43
He keeps pinin' for a return to the 20 inch rifles in the comments when even the Marines are starting to question that decision.
decodeddiesel
05-06-14, 21:15
I was much more interested in the article about the 57 porn stars without make-up.
The M4 is the rifle the Army deserves, but not the one it needs.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
I see what you did there!
A simple bump up in caliber would be a 100 % improvement, ie to 6mm you can keep all the ergonomics of the current M4 with better ballistics of the heavier bullets. This would be at a slight gain in ammo weight. A 80 gr bullet at 2900 fps trumps anything a 5.56mm can through. A 90 gr bullet at 2700 makes the 5.56mm look wimpy at best.
We need a free floating rail, a variable power optic, and BNVDs. That's really about all we "need".
And a shitload of better training. Make one E6 per Company the Small Arms Master Gunner and have that individual receive professional training. Units like the 75th and SFG could send MTTs to all major posts with a "train the trainer" approach. The trained E6s/senior E5s return to their Company and then train all of the other NCOs, who in turn train their respective Soldiers.
There's nothing wrong with what we have. It doesn't matter if they gave us portable nukes, if we can't hit the intended target, what's the point?
We need a free floating rail, a variable power optic, and BNVDs. That's really about all we "need".
And a shitload of better training. Make one E6 per Company the Small Arms Master Gunner and have that individual receive professional training. Units like the 75th and SFG could send MTTs to all major posts with a "train the trainer" approach. The trained E6s/senior E5s return to their Company and then train all of the other NCOs, who in turn train their respective Soldiers.
There's nothing wrong with what we have. It doesn't matter if they gave us portable nukes, if we can't hit the intended target, what's the point?
Isn't this what Asymmetric Warfare Group does, or at least part of it? Just expand that unit instead of pulling from operational SOF. It would be a huge improvement either way though. An extended free float rail would be the biggest material upgrade. A better lubricant and the knowledge to go along with it, as well as the knowledge about magazines almost always being the issue...
He's talking about two different things. The ballistic effectiveness and reliability. Clearly he knows little of either, just what he's read in Army Times or may have seen personally, but not truly understood. Big surprise there. Being an Infantry LTC alone doesn't mean you know jack shit about any of this. And his writing style bugs the hell out of me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's such a poorly written article, I'm surprised he made it to LTC. Or perhaps that's why he stopped at LTC.
I'm not referring to the content, but the article itself.
The content... I couldn't even figure out what point he was trying to make. But I go back to my point that most casualties are caused by high explosives, not small arms.
I wonder which competing company this guy works for?
LWRCi?
Grand58742
05-07-14, 09:12
When he lead off with the LBJ/McNamara stuff, I stopped reading.
I think the correct term is "rambling on."
FireandFlames
05-07-14, 09:35
I care more about getting a better ruck and armor solution and some new uniforms than I care about getting new rifles. Our m4's are beat up and may not be on the cutting edge but they work. Our rucks, iotv's and kdh plate carriers, and UCP uniforms are the big stinking turds in the room when it comes to an infantryman equipment. Hell I'd rather see them bring all line infantry companies up to date with some pvs-15 nods before we buy new rifles.
The M4 is the rifle the Army deserves, but not the one it needs.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
If you'd made an equivalent remark about the USMC, you'd get a lot of flaming from a group who are their own biggest fans. (Ex)Army soldiers are more humble.
I care more about getting a better ruck and armor solution and some new uniforms than I care about getting new rifles. Our m4's are beat up and may not be on the cutting edge but they work. Our rucks, iotv's and kdh plate carriers, and UCP uniforms are the big stinking turds in the room when it comes to an infantryman equipment. Hell I'd rather see them bring all line infantry companies up to date with some pvs-15 nods before we buy new rifles.
Completely agreed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AS A MARINE I DISAGREE GunBugBit, Just kidding. Marines are more indoctrinated and proud of it, to a point, but we can also take jokes, you just have to dumb them down. However the article is an opinion not a study. Does adding a Piston make a AR better? no. Does changing the whole platform work? not really. The AR platform is one of the most versatile platforms around, and because of that you will see it on the battlefield in some form or another on any foreseeable battlefield of the future. The reports from Afghanistan have already been questioned. The Army/DOD can do certain things to help the longevity of the platform but won't because it costs too much money, I can think of slipping Hoppe's 9 cleaner into the Armory to clean my weapon when all that they would allow was CLP, and Slip2000 and others found its way on to the range I coached Marines at quite a bit. These are little things but have proven themselves over time.
AS A MARINE I DISAGREE GunBugBit, Just kidding. Marines are more indoctrinated and proud of it, to a point, but we can also take jokes, you just have to dumb them down. However the article is an opinion not a study. Does adding a Piston make a AR better? no. Does changing the whole platform work? not really. The AR platform is one of the most versatile platforms around, and because of that you will see it on the battlefield in some form or another on any foreseeable battlefield of the future. The reports from Afghanistan have already been questioned. The Army/DOD can do certain things to help the longevity of the platform but won't because it costs too much money, I can think of slipping Hoppe's 9 cleaner into the Armory to clean my weapon when all that they would allow was CLP, and Slip2000 and others found its way on to the range I coached Marines at quite a bit. These are little things but have proven themselves over time.
The irony (of your true statement) is that the O and M funding is actually less then an incremental (or spiral ) upgrade to the weapons. Freefloat all the uppers as a start, multiple barrels/lower allow guys (and gals) to adjust based on the mission.
It seems to me that folks further up the chain have very different view points, which as others have noted seem to be based on politics rather than straight logic and grunt-level input.
One would think that at this point in our Military's history, that this could have been ironed out.
Plus, although the article slams the M16/M4, I did not notice any suggestions as to what would be better. I have read many veterans and active duty folks say that their rifles/carbines are actually really good, but it also seems that opinions vary based on what they are asked to do with their given equipment.
Street fighting in Iraq, as I have read, showed that M4s/M16s were fine. But the longer-range engagements in Afghanistan seemed to point to a need for longer range and better optics.
SeriousStudent
05-07-14, 19:49
If you'd made an equivalent remark about the USMC, you'd get a lot of flaming from a group who are their own biggest fans. (Ex)Army soldiers are more humble.
Or we could just not start a bunch of inter-service nonsense, thank you very much. That's not a hint.
That line of discussion is now over.
It seems to me that folks further up the chain have very different view points, which as others have noted seem to be based on politics rather than straight logic and grunt-level input.
One would think that at this point in our Military's history, that this could have been ironed out.
Plus, although the article slams the M16/M4, I did not notice any suggestions as to what would be better. I have read many veterans and active duty folks say that their rifles/carbines are actually really good, but it also seems that opinions vary based on what they are asked to do with their given equipment.
Street fighting in Iraq, as I have read, showed that M4s/M16s were fine. But the longer-range engagements in Afghanistan seemed to point to a need for longer range and better optics.
In the comments he just kept saying come back and read my next article. Curious to see what his new and improved is.
turnburglar
05-07-14, 22:57
I was just in Afghanistan (2013) and the last issue I had was due to my m4.
More/better lube for the 50's.
Iotvs suck. Most of us pulled all the soft armor out and used them like a plate carrier. Would have been great to just issue a good plate carrier.
Better boots.
Max pro 2 with their Isis suspension would have been a HUGE upgrade compared to the regular max pro with a solid axle rear.
Any improvements for the individual carbine can be relatively cheap and hugely increase the potential of the m4. Firstly get something other than m855. The afghans where 110 pounds of unarmored human. Something to kill that better would have been great. As far as reliability: Mike pannone wrote an article where he observed 80% of stoppages are mag or worn out springs related. The other 20% of stoppages where solved by a heavier buffer, blue spring co spring, and extractor upgrades.
So mk318 ammo, pmags, and $100 in parts per rifle would probably get that 90%+ improvement.
Next part is up, if anyone cares:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/12/politics/american-soldiers-are-dying-because-of-inadequate-weapons/
Next part is up, if anyone cares:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/12/politics/american-soldiers-are-dying-because-of-inadequate-weapons/
Yes and Police should drive Ferraris to stop speeders because it is superior to the Crown Vic in everyway, sounds great, doesn't quite work out in the real world. For a infantry Lt Colonel I'm not sure you know what your talking about.
turnburglar
05-13-14, 14:28
What a clown bag of an officer.
The only thing he mentioned that might be a real improvement is caseless ammunition. IF it can be as reliable, then reduced weight along with no more FTE stoppages could be considered an improvement in small arms design. You could even go so far as to say that a new lack of ejection port would reduce outside contamination.
He still never stated that m855 is an old design that doesn't meet modern ballistic requirements. Simply changing to mk318 or hell even gold dots (pending Geneva approval) would be a big upgrade in knock down power and wouldn't require an entirely new weapon system. One of the major reasons the DOD doesn't switch calibers is because then we would have to get NATO to make the switch. That would be a 10 year war in and of itself.
The whole Geneva thing with SP/HP ammo is stupid. Unless I am misunderstanding something, ammo designed to cause unnecessary harm is outlawed. First, it's a bullet - it's point is to kill. Second, SP/HP is designed to kill better. And that guy is an idiot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was the Hague conventions, not the Geneva conventions.
It went into effect more than 100 years ago and the US is not a signatory to the provision against the use of expanding bullets.
We do not have to go anywhere to get a bullet approved for warfare. It's done internally. I think it's the IG office that determines if a bullet is lawful for the US military to use
Ok thanks for the corrections. Unfortunately, if anything, that's even more ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
We do not have to go anywhere to get a bullet approved for warfare. It's done internally. I think it's the IG office that determines if a bullet is lawful for the US military to use
It's the Judge Advocate General, not IG. :)
Jim Sullivan was on the original design team (along with Gene Stoner and Bob Fremont) for the M16 rifle. In interviews he said that it was a "disgrace" that American soldiers are still using the M16/M4 system, since the original design was first used in Vietnam around 50 years ago. He seems much more impressed with the AK-74.
Jim Sullivan was on the original design team (along with Gene Stoner and Bob Fremont) for the M16 rifle. In interviews he said that it was a "disgrace" that American soldiers are still using the M16/M4 system, since the original design was first used in Vietnam around 50 years ago. He seems much more impressed with the AK-74.
The modern AR has very little in common with the original M16 besides how it works and parts can be swapped.
An SR-15, for example, has no parts in common with a Vietnam-era M16, besides maybe trigger pins and takedown pins.
The Vietnam-era M16 and a current M16A4 (or M4) are pretty similar with regards to the internals.
That's such a poorly written article, I'm surprised he made it to LTC. Or perhaps that's why he stopped at LTC.
I'm not referring to the content, but the article itself.
The content... I couldn't even figure out what point he was trying to make. But I go back to my point that most casualties are caused by high explosives, not small arms.
This. Thought it was just me. Kept waiting for the "meat" after the intro as to why the current rifle is so bad, and it never came. If someone can cliff note the important points, I'd appreciate it. Went right over my pointy - non AR platform expert - head.
The Vietnam-era M16 and a current M16A4 (or M4) are pretty similar with regards to the internals.
But so is a 1960s car and a modern car. The actual differences in performance and other important metrics are leagues apart however between 60s era cars and modern.
But so is a 1960s car and a modern car. The actual differences in performance and other important metrics are leagues apart however between 60s era cars and modern.
True, but I think Sullivan was referring to the generic M16/M4 system as a whole. His opinion is that we should be on an entirely different design by now, although nothing (so far) seems to offer a quantum leap over the existing weapon.
True, but I think Sullivan was referring to the generic M16/M4 system as a whole. His opinion is that we should be on an entirely different design by now, although nothing (so far) seems to offer a quantum leap over the existing weapon.
Not an expert here, but I'd bet most who are, would take the best of the modern AR platform has to offer in a caliber like 6.5 or 6.8 then any new design still using 5.56. The modern AR is a vetted robust design that seems to do its job if you do yours, but like all designs, is a compromise between various goals.
Many think it's time we get rid of the internal combustion engine (to keep the auto example) but the fact is, costs, logistics, and need, just are not there yet. So, we continue to improve on the basic design because it works.
Don't forget, there's always some group out there "field testing" all manner of stuff reporting to someone, that's likely keeping track of the results to incorporate at some point.
There's some very smart people in the mil among the "others" who recognize a real change in the rifle platform everyjoe uses, is likely going to be a total change from the ground up and the need simply not there compared to the costs, logistics, and current priorities and the AR platform "good enough for gubment work" for some time to come.
That's my understanding anyway.
One thing few folks realize about the M4. A bare bones M4 weighs, what? About 6-7 lbs? It handles heat as well or even better than other rifles weighing 9-12 lbs bare. Folks keep saying we need to improve on this 50 year old design but no one has anything that is as light, durable, accurate, rebuildable, configurable, reliable, simple, easy to use and pleasant to shoot. The whole argument is a tempest in a teapot and while folks keep getting worked up demanding something better, the AR FOW keeps chugging along, doing the job and doing it better than anything else
Grand58742
05-14-14, 18:57
One thing few folks realize about the M4. A bare bones M4 weighs, what? About 6-7 lbs? It handles heat as well or even better than other rifles weighing 9-12 lbs bare. Folks keep saying we need to improve on this 50 year old design but no one has anything that is as light, durable, accurate, rebuildable, configurable, reliable, simple, easy to use and pleasant to shoot. The whole argument is a tempest in a teapot and while folks keep getting worked up demanding something better, the AR FOW keeps chugging along, doing the job and doing it better than anything else
Please stop bringing relevant facts to the argument. People can't whine in their editorials when you do.
Please stop bringing relevant facts to the argument. People can't whine in their editorials when you do.
My bad!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.