View Full Version : Theoretical and Completely Hypothetical M4 Replacement Poll
Tacti-square
08-17-14, 21:54
The poll choices are limited, and I did that for a reason. I genuinely wanted to see if there is any sentiment for either piston systems or the 6.8 in the community. I expect the DI 5.56 to win by a mile, but I'm curious as to whom the runner-up will be. If you can put logistics aside for a minute and pretend we don't have an immense buildup of 5.56 ammunition and uppers already in stock/ordered, and we had the funding to produce and distribute a completely different platform with AR controls and ergonomics, what would you genuinely want our soldiers running in combat?
The Thief Lord
08-17-14, 22:45
Piston, just because of the extreme reliability compared to DI. I'm not sure how they stack against improved DIs, though.
Don't forget us Marines!
I'm completely happy with my rifle the way it is (M27). I may not have anywhere near as much time behind the gun as you guys (9 ish years) but I don't think I'd be happier with anything else. Maybe a larger round for more punch..
...subscribed for informative posts :)
I would love for everyone to have a KAC rifle, IMO they are the pinnacle of AR technology right now, piston or DI. The 6.8 is a great round, but I doubt we will ever see it replace the 5.56 as the main military round.
Piston, just because of the extreme reliability compared to DI. I'm not sure how they stack against improved DIs, though.
I have yet to be conviced that they offer any increase in reliability in comparison to a quality DI rifle.
Something like a FN SCAR in 6.8. If 5.56 then a SCAR.
Piston, just because of the extreme reliability compared to DI. I'm not sure how they stack against improved DIs, though.
I'm trying really hard to ignore this post, but say what?
The Thief Lord
08-17-14, 23:18
I'm trying really hard to ignore this post, but say what?
Maybe my knowledge is old against my age.
I'm thinking of that HK416 vs. M4 over the beach test of DI vs. piston.
Things have probably changed... I've seen the DDM4 torture test.
ColtSeavers
08-17-14, 23:19
Why are the 6.8 options proprietary only!? You do understand that the only things that need to be changed to use 6.8SPC in the AR platform are the barrel, bolt and magazines (and of course ammo...) correct? No need for LWRC proprietary retardation.
Can only vote other...
If you had made a non proprietary DI 16" bbl 6.8spc option.... I would have voted for that.
Maybe my knowledge is old against my age.
I'm thinking of that HK416 vs. M4 over the beach test of DI vs. piston.
Things have probably changed... I've seen the DDM4 torture test.
All of us that carried our issued 416's have ZERO rifle related malfunctions in these shitty ass deserts. I run a bolt with two drops of CLP on it. I cannot say that about everybody else's m4's. They have ftf/FTE or get gunked up fast. I'll keep my piston driven rifle over a di. I like living.
Piston 5.56. They can just swap out the upper if needed and keep the Select Fire lowers.
IMO there isn't a need to add a 3rd caliber; the 5.56/7.62NATO combo is just fine. Logistics can't really be ignored by swapping out all 5.56 rifles to 6.8--that is a huge undertaking. Granted I know that the 6.8 is an excellent caliber. The military just wont go with it for now.
Can only vote other...
If you had made a non proprietary DI 16" bbl 6.8spc option.... I would have voted for that.
Agreed. Add some KAC improvements and then we are done.
Tacti-square
08-17-14, 23:31
Why are the 6.8 options proprietary only!? You do understand that the only things that need to be changed to use 6.8SPC in the AR platform are the barrel, bolt and magazines (and of course ammo...) correct? No need for LWRC proprietary retardation.
Can only vote other...
If you had made a non proprietary DI 16" bbl 6.8spc option.... I would have voted for that.
The reason LWRC went propri in the first place was because of magazine and feeding issues that arise when you try and cram a true intermediate round into a beefed-up .22 rifle. 6.8 magazines are crap; otherwise Magpul never would have gone through the trouble.
The Thief Lord
08-17-14, 23:32
All of us that carried our issued 416's have ZERO rifle related malfunctions in these shitty ass deserts. I run a bolt with two drops of CLP on it. I cannot say that about everybody else's m4's. They have ftf/FTE or get gunked up fast. I'll keep my piston driven rifle over a di. I like living.
This was my train of thought.
Every piston rifle I've been around has been amazing. Less carbon, less gas in your face...
I really do think piston is the future of the AR.
Get VLTOR A5 kits on M16's. If we can run FF KeyMod rails on them, the 20" barreled setups can remain viable with minimal expense.
For M4's, Take Block II M4 uppers as standard. Consider a smarter barrel profile if we're done with using the M203 (Mod1 or Mod2 SR-15 uppers are a close second viable answer).
Use the Mk18 as the PDW for anybody conclusively not shooting for a living in addition to another tool in the toolbox for current users as at least a MURG option.
Run COTS ambi selectors on all lowers.
As much as I'd like to see a standardized intermediate caliber weapon built from the ground up as a completely ambidextrous family of weapons with tool-less modular handguard/barrel capability, I'd rather focus on solving problems that can be addressed right now, the above would be able to leverage extant off the shelf solutions to solve tons of problems. Same with pistons - the HKM4 development line produced the best piston sheohorned into a Stoner platform out right now, and it's really good, but about the only pistol solution that is a new improvement for any application (mostly suppressed/FA/SBR type stuff), and just assuming that pistons isn't a discussion worth having here.
MorphCross
08-17-14, 23:59
Given the ammunition production capacity of Lake City and how much it would take to complete retool the 5.56 line I would stick with an HK 416 or the SR-15 mod 2. If those were the base models, followed by HK 27 for machine gunners one of the SR-15s fitted with an M320 GL and any other incidental weapons fitted for where their assigned role is placed. File a big contract with Barnes bullets to produce thousands of metric tons of 70gr. TSX bullets to be the mainstay bullet of every military small arm. Hell, scrap the shitty M855a1 and re-purpose its tooling for other projects and bring Barnes in to work with ATK at LC.
More importantly, update the software from nation state fighting V1.0 to anti-guerrilla tactics V2.0.
I''ll play...
DI vs piston? DI. I haven't kept up with the newest Ar piston designs and what they do or how good they do it but the DI is more than adequate for any number of rounds that a soldier/marine will carry in their loadout.
6.8 vs 5.56? Honestly I would just keep the 5.56 for the lighter weight/lighter recoil it brings to the table. Infantry do still go on long humps and they carry enough weight as is. If anything I would like to see the green tip ditched for a heaver 75-77 grain round.
If I were to make changes I would probably up the barrel length to 16" with a lighter profile and go mid length gas. Free float the barrels and update flashlights with a lighter weight offering.
You obviously have little to no experience with either.
Piston, just because of the extreme reliability compared to DI. I'm not sure how they stack against improved DIs, though.
Get VLTOR A5 kits on M16's. If we can run FF KeyMod rails on them, the 20" barreled setups can remain viable with minimal expense.
For M4's, Take Block II M4 uppers as standard. Consider a smarter barrel profile if we're done with using the M203 (Mod1 or Mod2 SR-15 uppers are a close second viable answer).
Use the Mk18 as the PDW for anybody conclusively not shooting for a living in addition to another tool in the toolbox for current users as at least a MURG option.
Run COTS ambi selectors on all lowers.
As much as I'd like to see a standardized intermediate caliber weapon built from the ground up as a completely ambidextrous family of weapons with tool-less modular handguard/barrel capability, I'd rather focus on solving problems that can be addressed right now, the above would be able to leverage extant off the shelf solutions to solve tons of problems. Same with pistons - the HKM4 development line produced the best piston sheohorned into a Stoner platform out right now, and it's really good, but about the only pistol solution that is a new improvement for any application (mostly suppressed/FA/SBR type stuff), and just assuming that pistons isn't a discussion worth having here.
I agree. Use a similar barrel profile to the ELW, throw on RIS II's or KMR's, A5's and ambi controls. Boom problem solved.
Is bushmaster and freedom corp hadn't messed up the ACR it had the potential to be the platform to beat, but they did...
You do know that the military abandoned the SCAR-16 right?
Something like a FN SCAR in 6.8. If 5.56 then a SCAR.
The Thief Lord
08-18-14, 00:18
You obviously have little to no experience with either.
Thanks. In fact I do...
The OP asked of my opinion and I gave it. As an owner of a SCAR and a 6920, I believe I'd be more quick to rely on the piston platform because of how I've perceived its performance.
Feel free to disagree with me, but to suggest I'm not experienced is unfounded.
In my own personal opinion my go-to-war rifle would be piston-driven. Likely a HK416. Especially when I don't know the conditions I'm going to be in, I want a rifle I'm comfortable trusting.
This is a poll, after all...
Thanks. In fact I do...
The OP asked of my opinion and I gave it. As an owner of a SCAR and a 6920, I believe I'd be more quick to rely on the piston platform because of how I've perceived its performance.
Feel free to disagree with me, but to suggest I'm not experienced is unfounded.
In my own personal opinion my go-to-war rifle would be piston-driven. Likely a HK416. Especially when I don't know the conditions I'm going to be in, I want a rifle I'm comfortable trusting.
This is a poll, after all...
I agree. I am an automatic gunner and these m27's (416) just run! Forever!
I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread and the associated poll. It's purposely limited, suggesting that it doesn't matter as much what people really think as they choose the best of the options offered. On top of that, nothing positive can or will result from discussing this again.
Looks like just another Internet argument awaiting a lock.
zombiescometh
08-18-14, 00:30
Thanks. In fact I do...
The OP asked of my opinion and I gave it. As an owner of a SCAR and a 6920, I believe I'd be more quick to rely on the piston platform because of how I've perceived its performance.
Feel free to disagree with me, but to suggest I'm not experienced is unfounded.
In my own personal opinion my go-to-war rifle would be piston-driven. Likely a HK416. Especially when I don't know the conditions I'm going to be in, I want a rifle I'm comfortable trusting.
This is a poll, after all...
Just wondering if you prefer the piston system why did you buy a colt 6920?
The Thief Lord
08-18-14, 00:31
I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread and the associated poll. It's purposely limited, suggesting that it doesn't matter as much what people really think as they choose the best of the options offered. On top of that, nothing positive can or will result from discussing this again.
Looks like just another Internet argument awaiting a lock.
Yup, looks like it's getting there already.
The whole beauty of owning firearms is owning one that is, in your own subjective opinion, good.
Clearly everyone's going to have a different opinion.
By the way... What's your favorite Pokemon? My Charizard can kick your stupid Blastoise's ass, he resists Bulbasaur way more than yours can.
As simple as that was, it's fairly close in analogy.
Just wondering if you prefer the piston system why did you buy a colt 6920?
I like to dip my pen in different colors of ink, so to speak. It's not as if the DI system isn't reliable, in fact it's time tested to a much higher degree.
Mostly, though, I bought it for the modularity. Can't slap whatever stock/rail I want on a SCAR.
ColtSeavers
08-18-14, 00:38
The reason LWRC went propri in the first place was because of magazine and feeding issues that arise when you try and cram a true intermediate round into a beefed-up .22 rifle. 6.8 magazines are crap; otherwise Magpul never would have gone through the trouble.
Complete and utter crap.
LWRC went proprietary because they thought they could coupled with the fact that Magpul couldn't make plastic mags for 6.8 in the standard dimensions of the AR mag well.
LWRC is greedy and thought magpul pmags would be their meal ticket.
Barret, Cproducts, ASC, PRI and I'm sure I've probably forgotten another one or two make metal 6.8 mags that fit and feed in standard AR platform lower mag wells just fine.
This was my train of thought.
Every piston rifle I've been around has been amazing. Less carbon, less gas in your face...
I really do think piston is the future of the AR.
*SIGH*
Either you haven't been around many piston rifles or you simply don't understand the tech. Every piston rifle is amazing but the M4, with it's piston is not?
Piston location does not change how much carbon a fired cartridge produces, only where the carbon gets dumped. Move the piston from the carrier to the gas block and guess what?- Your piston is still exposed to the same amount of carbon. Difference is, it's harder to apply a bit of oil to keep that carbon soft. The piston is also smaller in diameter and exposed to more heat when it's in the gas block. Piston in gas block systems have their downsides too.
My choice to replace the M4 is the Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range- Only because someone is going to say it eventually and this time, I get to first :)
By the way... What's your favorite Pokemon? My Charizard can kick your stupid Blastoise's ass, he resists Bulbasaur way more than yours can.
As simple as that was, it's fairly close in analogy.
Never got into Pokemon. But if you want to talk about ponies, I'm your guy!
How's that for compounding the analogy?
Complete and utter crap.
LWRC went proprietary because they thought they could coupled with the fact that Magpul couldn't make plastic mags for 6.8 in the standard dimensions of the AR mag well.
LWRC is greedy and thought magpul pmags would be their meal ticket.
Barret, Cproducts, ASC, PRI and I'm sure I've probably forgotten another one or two make metal 6.8 mags that fit and feed in standard AR platform lower mag wells just fine.
LWRCi developed the Six8 (specifically in the form of the UCIW), Magpul developed the 30 round Six8 PMAG, and ATK developed the 90gr Gold Dot 6.8 load for a FMS contract. They did not go "proprietary because they thought they could." Everything on the Six8 train hooks up to specific contracted specs, not to some misbegotten attempt to kickstart 6.8SPC commercial sales.
MorphCross
08-18-14, 01:05
My choice to replace the M4 is the Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40 watt range- Only because someone is going to say it eventually and this time, I get to first :)
Lets take it in increments, A high powered Gauss gun. No propellant besides electromagnetism and a huge projectile. Or we could stick with advanced propellant tech like caseless and caseless telescoping rounds.
Lets take it in increments, A high powered Gauss gun. No propellant besides electromagnetism and a huge projectile. Or we could stick with advanced propellant tech like caseless and caseless telescoping rounds.
The 4mm Battlerailer is already on my "Bucket List". 75 grain VLD bullet electromagnetically accelerated to 5000 feet per second from a weapon with no more weight or recoil than an M16
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/City/BRConceptPlate.jpg
ColtSeavers
08-18-14, 01:24
LWRCi developed the Six8 (specifically in the form of the UCIW), Magpul developed the 30 round Six8 PMAG, and ATK developed the 90gr Gold Dot 6.8 load for a FMS contract. They did not go "proprietary because they thought they could." Everything on the Six8 train hooks up to specific contracted specs, not to some misbegotten attempt to kickstart 6.8SPC commercial sales.
EDITED: Forget the further derailment.
Fact: The only things needed to use 6.8SPC ammo in the standard (non-proprietary) AR platform is a 6.8SPC barrel, 6.8SPC bolt and 6.8SPC metal magazine from any of the aforementioned manufacturers (not magpul pmags which require the use of a proprietary lower with an enlarged magwell).
The poll is ever so slightly off...
The 4mm Battlerailer is already on my "Bucket List". 75 grain VLD bullet electromagnetically accelerated to 5000 feet per second from a weapon with no more weight or recoil than an M16
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/City/BRConceptPlate.jpg
Someone has had too much time on Pimp my Gun. But yes the concept would be awesome.
The 4mm Battlerailer is already on my "Bucket List". 75 grain VLD bullet electromagnetically accelerated to 5000 feet per second from a weapon with no more weight or recoil than an M16
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/City/BRConceptPlate.jpg
So if I take a SCAR, HK, UBR, 2x MOE handguards and an AFG, I get that beast?!
So if I take a SCAR, HK, UBR, 2x MOE handguards and an AFG, I get that beast?!
...and a very large magnet:moil:
MorphCross
08-18-14, 02:06
Plus a couple of other secret ingredients:moil:
Degrees in Electrical and Mechanical engineering?
Degrees in Electrical and Mechanical engineering?
I have a PhD in BS
MorphCross
08-18-14, 02:22
I have a PhD in BS
Any similarity to a Liberal Arts Major?:jester:
6.5 Grendel in D.I. AR15 or 6.5 Creedmoor in D.I. AR10... and actually preach & teach Marksmanship & Sound Doctrine (at All Levels).
Eurodriver
08-18-14, 06:01
There is so much fail in this thread. I don't know where to begin. Half of you guys would probably be cool with us going back to the 1911 and M14.
Mistwolf and IG appear to be maintaining order at least.
Failure2Stop
08-18-14, 07:59
For a true advantage over the M4A1, and for broader application than solely conventional units, here is what I would see being highly favorable:
Folding stock that permits firing while folded.
2.5 to 3 inch line of sight over bore, at 1.5 inch centerline over rail.
Non-reciprocating CH, but with a forward-assist feature
Completely one-handed and bilateral manipulations/stoppage reductions
More readily barrier-blind projectiles
Readily suppressed, with scaleable suppressors
Works with a family of barrel lengths,most importantly with a 7 to 10 inch barrel and an 11 to 15 inch barrel.
Recoil impulse must have neutral effect on user (straight push)
Robust but clean trigger, in all firing modes
Improved selector positioning
Completely modular and user-adjustable
Arguing about operating system is like discussing a mission to Mars and arguing about what brand of wheels to put on the rover.
Get the f**k over it.
The only thing I care about is "Does the gun go bang whenever I pull the trigger?". There are really smart dudes in the employ of large companies that figure out the "how" to that "what". Let them do it, or shut the f**k up and do it yourself.
EDITED: Forget the further derailment.
Fact: The only things needed to use 6.8SPC ammo in the standard (non-proprietary) AR platform is a 6.8SPC barrel, 6.8SPC bolt and 6.8SPC metal magazine from any of the aforementioned manufacturers (not magpul pmags which require the use of a proprietary lower with an enlarged magwell).
The poll is ever so slightly off...
You are absolutely correct.
However, the fact remains that LWRCi, Magpul and ATK developed Six8 rifles, mags, and ammo for military use by a contract customer. The Magpul mags, for example, are designed to give 6.8SPC rounds the correct stacking geometry for reliable full auto fire -- and the mag dimensions in turn required a dedicated lower, which in turn led to a dedicated upper. I'm not advocating for Six8 as the next military standard here in the US, but the proprietary upper, lower, and PMAG were developed and extensively tested specifically for military use.
For a true advantage over the M4A1, and for broader application than solely conventional units, here is what I would see being highly favorable:
Folding stock that permits firing while folded.
2.5 to 3 inch line of sight over bore, at 1.5 inch centerline over rail.
Non-reciprocating CH, but with a forward-assist feature
Completely one-handed and bilateral manipulations/stoppage reductions
More readily barrier-blind projectiles
Readily suppressed, with scaleable suppressors
Works with a family of barrel lengths,most importantly with a 7 to 10 inch barrel and an 11 to 15 inch barrel.
Recoil impulse must have neutral effect on user (straight push)
Robust but clean trigger, in all firing modes
Improved selector positioning
Completely modular and user-adjustable
Arguing about operating system is like discussing a mission to Mars and arguing about what brand of wheels to put on the rover.
Get the f**k over it.
The only thing I care about is "Does the gun go bang whenever I pull the trigger?". There are really smart dudes in the employ of large companies that figure out the "how" to that "what". Let them do it, or shut the f**k up and do it yourself.
Awesome stuff as always F2S.
I remember a thread from a couple years ago. A0cake, I think, discussed some relatively easy upgrades to to M16/M4 FOW, that would improve handling, lethality, and reliability. The list was similar to yours but with an emphasis on using the existing guns. Off the top of my head, the thread considered:
-improved collapsing stocks, like the A5
-improved ambidextrous controls
-semi-auto fire control with an improved trigger
-phasing in mid length uppers
-improved ammo in 5.56, like 75-77 grain stuff
-improved optic selection such as a 1-4 or -6
The underlying emphasis was on providing training with regards to marksmanship, tactics, and maintenance, coupled with some simple hardware upgrades. Even with a shiny new gun, without training and the mindset to maintain the tool that may save your life, things like THIS (http://soldiersystems.net/2014/08/18/somebody-isnt-reading-ssd/) will happen, regardless of the rollmark or caliber.
Disclosure: I'm not a service member. I'm a cop that sees this enough in the cop world.
Arguing about operating system is like discussing a mission to Mars and arguing about what brand of wheels to put on the rover.
Get the f**k over it.
The only thing I care about is "Does the gun go bang whenever I pull the trigger?". There are really smart dudes in the employ of large companies that figure out the "how" to that "what". Let them do it, or shut the f**k up and do it yourself.
Please run for congress in my district
Kalash9305
08-18-14, 09:27
The Army wants less moving parts not more which is why they went to Stoner originally
Beefed up buffers and BCG's would be where they would head IMHO until something really breakthrough comes along
HK and even PWS make some great piston systems but the parts logistics across an entirely military spectrum are daunting
Remember what they say
Amateurs think tactics .. professionals think logistics
The Army knows this ... hence an upgrade of the tried and true .. for now at least
And everybody likes to make fun of my sig line....
I think the most important things that can be done are upgraded ammunition, propellants, accessories, and a few things like mentioned...mid-length system, maybe A5 , ambi-lowers, etc.
I'm certain for the overall big picture incremental upgrades are the way to go, while maintaining current logistical support.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I screwed the pooch and voted 6.8 WORTHLESS before I saw that LWRCi combined with 6.8 worthless was an option. :(
I didn't bother to vote on such narrow options. Only read the thread for F2S wisdom and always lively response from "Sparky" Markm.
Welcome back bad boy. This forum without you is like lutefisk without butter. Cogitate on that simile!
Boba Fett v2
08-18-14, 19:45
The mililtary is not replacing the M4 in the foreseeable future. Despite bitches, gripes and complaints about the M4 shortcomings, the bottom line is the carbine still put a lot of enemy down, and there's still a surplus of parts, accessories, and contracts that need to run out before there's some sort of massive overhaul in the armament. Logistically it doesn't make sense when the force is downsizing, restructuring, fielding new uniforms (clone multicam and PT uniform color change - WTF), spending money on SHARP posters... and doing everything on a post-war slashed budget. In the meantime, what the force will do is what it's doing now, and that's beefing up the current system to take it the extra mile. We might see some significant headway when the next war looms over the horizon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Enjoy the ride.
Welcome back bad boy. This forum without you is like lutefisk without butter. Cogitate on that simile!
Thanks.
The mililtary is not replacing the M4 in the foreseeable future.
Why would they? There's no better option.... They keep trying to screw it up with stupid ammo choices however.
wildcard600
08-18-14, 20:04
They should make a DI upper with a piston, to combine the lighter weight of the DI system with the uber reliability of a piston system.
They should make a DI upper with a piston, to combine the lighter weight of the DI system with the uber reliability of a piston system.
The "di" system in an AR already has a piston.
I've been looking at the 6.5 PCC wildcat cartridge and it's interesting. It's like 300 blk, but in 6.5 instead of 7.62. Same magazine and bolts, just need a barrel. Better BC than 5.56 and larger diameter for less MV. With realistic logistical considerations taken into account, it seems pretty cool.
wildcard600
08-18-14, 20:30
The "di" system in an AR already has a piston.
Obvious facetious post is not so obvious ? :(
Maybe I should have stated that LWRC should build it ?
have a nice night fellas.
I would probably opt for a piston driven system, but that's mainly because most piston designs don't require buffer tubes and give you basically limits options when it comes to stock design. Something like the SCAR or ACR piston setup allows you to do whatever you want with the stock design since there are no parts within it that are critical to the function of the weapon.
Reliability is more of a function of the overall design, the tolerances within it, and the materials used to construct it. Boiling it down to DI vs Piston is far too simplified.
Either way, I think it's going to take a major development on the ammunition side before the military gets off the AR-15 / 5.56mm bandwagon. Something along the lines of caseless ammo drastically improved propellants that will lead to major develops in the design of small arms.
For a true advantage over the M4A1, and for broader application than solely conventional units, here is what I would see being highly favorable:
Folding stock that permits firing while folded.
2.5 to 3 inch line of sight over bore, at 1.5 inch centerline over rail.
Non-reciprocating CH, but with a forward-assist feature
Completely one-handed and bilateral manipulations/stoppage reductions
More readily barrier-blind projectiles
Readily suppressed, with scaleable suppressors
Works with a family of barrel lengths,most importantly with a 7 to 10 inch barrel and an 11 to 15 inch barrel.
Recoil impulse must have neutral effect on user (straight push)
Robust but clean trigger, in all firing modes
Improved selector positioning
Completely modular and user-adjustable
Arguing about operating system is like discussing a mission to Mars and arguing about what brand of wheels to put on the rover.
Get the f**k over it.
The only thing I care about is "Does the gun go bang whenever I pull the trigger?". There are really smart dudes in the employ of large companies that figure out the "how" to that "what". Let them do it, or shut the f**k up and do it yourself.
Fantastic post! And to you points, would you guys please just offer the KAC SLICK commercially?
I vote, stay with the m4. What F2S said.
Its piston is good enough. Not hard to maintain if you have .50 of a brain.
DI isn't broken. There are a few improvements that could be made to the AR, but there's nothing else out that offers a more compelling option IMHO.
You do know that the military abandoned the SCAR-16 right?
You do know that they did so because they couldn't justify the cost vs. continuing with the M4. Those costs include the difference in training, parts, etc., etc. I don't believe I've heard or read anything saying that the SCAR was not a good and perhaps better platform, just that they couldn't justify the conversion cost for the difference in performance.
Given that standard, why would they make any change in rifles except to make small tweaks in the existing design?
I shoot both rifles and was not raised on ARs so I'm not wedded to the AR battery of arms. I like both rifles. I like messing with ARs building and constantly changing the configuration of them, testing new parts and accessories. I think DI has some good points and bad points. Each DI rifle I build and test I build as if my life depended on it (except one test rifle). I shoot my ARs more often than my SCARs (including the 17s) because I'm constantly changing them. (I WAS even thinking about trying one of your Sionics BCGs and barrels on a new upper.)
But when it comes to overall reliability I trust the SCAR it has a superior operating system design IMO. I'm not going to take the time to explain why as it has been done before on this very forum.
I believe the SCAR is superior, that is why I chose it. And, no, I don't think the ARs with pistons grafted onto them make for a good design. The rifle was never designed for a piston. Leave it DI or go with another platform.
I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread and the associated poll. It's purposely limited, suggesting that it doesn't matter as much what people really think as they choose the best of the options offered. On top of that, nothing positive can or will result from discussing this again.
Looks like just another Internet argument awaiting a lock.
It keeps people coming back. Cynical, but true. It's a lot like, "Which is better an AR or an AK?".
Like many have said I don't think the m4 is going anywhere soon. Sure the bolt area gets carbon fouling but a lot easier to clear than breaking down a piston system. There is always room for improvement like what aero has done with their m4e1 and several have done with quick change barrels.
rapomstage3
08-19-14, 19:32
Voted other. Go mid gas or just use a5 system. Lengthen the rail and slim the barrel profile on rifles not equipped with m203's. Honestly I'm very happy with a bone stock 6920 but I'm sitting on a couch so....
The mililtary is not replacing the M4 in the foreseeable future. Despite bitches, gripes and complaints about the M4 shortcomings, the bottom line is the carbine still put a lot of enemy down, and there's still a surplus of parts, accessories, and contracts that need to run out before there's some sort of massive overhaul in the armament. Logistically it doesn't make sense when the force is downsizing, restructuring, fielding new uniforms (clone multicam and PT uniform color change - WTF), spending money on SHARP posters... and doing everything on a post-war slashed budget. In the meantime, what the force will do is what it's doing now, and that's beefing up the current system to take it the extra mile. We might see some significant headway when the next war looms over the horizon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Enjoy the ride.
I think you missed the point of the thread...
Theoretical and hypothetical are the key words.
jerrysimons
08-19-14, 20:13
Magpul's Masada design sure had potential.
Magpul's Masada design sure had potential.
It's too bad they went with shrubmaster. That platform had real potential. But bushy could eff up a one man rock fight.
Remember when they were talking about price on tos..... back in the day...
I wished tapatalk would post poll data.
I hate using my pc.....I feel like I'm using a type writer when I sit in front of that machine.
Boba Fett v2
08-19-14, 21:10
I think you missed the point of the thread...
Theoretical and hypothetical are the key words.
I certainly did.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.