View Full Version : What was/is most lacking about your service weapon?
BallisticHarmony
11-19-18, 13:25
It's easy to get overwhelmed by all the internet conjecture about what should be done to improve the capabilities of the infantry carbine, but all that really matters is what people on the ground thought. It's also easy for people behind keyboards to just slam a bunch of stuff onto the receiver to try and solve a shortcoming, but more often than not that just adds unnecessary weight to an already heavy hump. What were some genuine gripes you had about your issued weapon, and what would you have done or added or fix it?
1. Weight is often talked about regarding full-size rifles and belt-feds. Is weight a primary concern for the infantryman, or should lethality and volume of fire still be prioritized? Do you prefer certain rifle setups such as optic or suppressor preferences purely due to added weight to the weapon? How much weight is acceptable and what should the maximum weapon weight be?
2. Excessive barrel lengths can reduce maneuverability in tight quarters. How much of a combat deployment consists of CQB vs spread out firefights (obviously that depends on the unit and terrain, but a ballpark estimate of current conflicts), and should maneuverability be prioritized over muzzle velocity and terminal effective range?
3. Optic magnification is also hotly debated online. Did you feel under zoomed with your issued optic, and which capabilities do you wish you had that you didn't? Should light weight and fast target acquisition be prioritized, or should extended magnification, target identification and precision marksmanship aid be prioritized?
4. Terminal ballistics. Which 5.56/7.62 round did you do the most of your shooting with, and did you think that it was at all lacking in terms of accuracy or terminal effectiveness? Is shot placement more important than fragmentation for most engagements, or does bullet behavior make a massive impact on combat effectiveness? Would you have preferred to be able to use commercial expanding ammunition? Would you have liked a heavier, longer-range round?
5. Did you experience any reliability issues with your weapon that weren't related to poor maintenance or cleaning? How many of your failures were magazine related, ammo related, or weapon related? Do you wish you'd been issued something else?
6. Did the standard grip, stock, hand guard or other attachments cause discomfort or impede your ability to effectively carry out your work? Did the A2 grip angle seem adequate for close quarters?
These are just a few brainstorm ideas to get the ball rolling, but I'd love to hear your thoughts. Any and all feedback is more than welcome. It will be interesting to see how the newly acquired "Geissele and friends" upper will fare in the years to come. Some say it's overpassed but others say it's not. Surely it will be an improvement, although at some point I personally think all carbines should be traded in for Knights. Not this year, but maybe in 10 or 15.
Eurodriver
11-19-18, 14:51
My biggest gripe was that no matter how many Iraqis I shot at it with I’d still come home and have old guys who served in the USAF during peacetime (or not at all) call me a “freaking millennial” on message boards.
USMC M16A4 w/ PVQ-31A & PEQ-15
It was also long as ****.
These millennials whining about how long their A4 is. :D
Back in my day....
USMC M16A4 w/ PVQ-31A & PEQ-15
It was also long as ****.
A4? Back in my days in Iraq all we had was M16A2's. Nothing else. In M915A4's. Would've "liberated" an M4 from the 82nd guys I was with in a heartbeat if I thought I could've gotten away with it.
In regards to the OP's questions: Even as small of a build as I have and with gloves the A2's grip is a bit small. For the conditions/situations we operated in a 20" barrel was annoying at the least, possibly unneeded at the most. Our security elements had ACOGs issued and installed on their rifles, only difference with them and us was the drove in HMMWV's.
This is an interesting thread but my experience (for example) spans over 20 years and 3 completely different career fields. I was never a tip of the spear guy.
I carried an M16A1 in Desert Storm, an M9 in Bosnia, and an Aimpoint equipped M16A2 in OIF. In between, I carried a M249 and an A2/M203.
In my opinion/limited expirience, the A2s were pretty long and clumsy for the primarily mounted or urban operations in Iraq (circa 2005) and the fixed stock sucks with body armor.
I would have been better served by a simple M4/CCO during my career. Compact, adjustable and relatively easy to shoot well enough.
Andy
I carried a plain old A2. I cannot complain because I wasn't a ground pounder. During deployment, the most action it seen was being cleared before entering the chow hall.
Jammer Six
11-20-18, 02:33
M16A1.
It jammed. A dirty weapon was worse. That meant that in combat you were working against a clock, because every shot was being marked up against you.
M16A1 for four years as an Army grunt. No optics, because none were available at the time and none were authorized (I can just see if someone had bought an old Colt carry handle scope.....the 1st SGT would've been like "Who the hell told you to put that on your weapon?"). Panama, so a jungle environment. Basically the same environmentally as Vietnam without the NVA or VC trying to kill you! It's been a long time but I don't recall it being a huge deal moving through bush with it.
To this day I have an A1 clone for old times sake and marvel at it's lightweight and handling, especially for a 20" rifle. We've gotten so used to M4geries with rail and RDS/ACOG (at a minimum) that they nearly weigh the same as the old A1, of course without the cool actual performance-enhancing stuff we see nowadays.
I thank you all......:cool:
Coal Dragger
11-20-18, 19:35
Like Eurostiver I was last issued an M16A4, this was 2004 when all Marine infantry, aside from Recon units, were still rocking the 20” full size M16 variant.
I was issued a AN/PEQ-2, and an ACOG for the rifle. I also took my privately owned Aimpoint Comp M2 in an ARMS mount, which I came to prefer and my command allowed.
I really liked the M16A4 overall. The 20” wrung out close to max performance from the 5.56mm NATO, and sure seemed to dick up the few Iraqis I, or my platoon mates, had to engage. We didn’t see a ton of combat in early 2004, so my “combat” use knowledge is limited compared to many on this site.
I would have liked the rifle to have a shorter stock or a collapsible stock to make it easier to deal with wearing the Interceptor body armor with SAPI plates, and deal with in vehicles. I had also started shooting competitive rifle on my own time prior to deployment, and the trigger in the M16 was and remains painful awful garbage for anyone used to a decent trigger. I guess it would have been nice if about 1lb could have been shaved off the rifle weight, but I got used to humping it around and didn’t notice it much.
Otherwise my complaints are going to revolve around 20/20 hindsight that generate unfair criticism of issued gear that at the time was a big improvement over my previously issued M16A2. Looking at the purpose driven improvements over the past 15 years to the M4/M16 platform obviously will draw an unfavorable comparison for my 2004 era issued M16A4. Obviously had the KAC SR-16 been available and had I a choice in the matter I’d have chosen an SR-16, or the M27, or the USASOC M4 upgrade.
BallisticHarmony
11-20-18, 19:48
Excellent input, thank you. A 20” barrel just seems so alien for combat by today’s standards, but it seems to have worked just fine.
turnburglar
11-20-18, 19:56
See weight is really tricky. The 240B(x2) was humped all around the providence because my squad found it to be the single best weapon for the long distances and barriers found in our AO. Also the 240 was absolutely reliable where the 249 could be finicky. We humped a lot less in the 249(x1) or 203(x2) department because it just wasn’t as useful. I think the M4 block 1 can get way too heavy for a 5.56 carbine.
When dismounted my main blaster was a M4 (H1 buffer) with a peq 15 and aimpoint M4. We always had Gi mags with improved followers or pmags and using M855 the system was incredibly reliable. Only shooting blanks or sims did I ever have to do any stoppage clearing. I do attribute a little bit of the reliability to my propper maitnence cycles. Basically: keep it lubed and the springs stiff, and it will run.
Coal Dragger
11-20-18, 20:30
Excellent input, thank you. A 20” barrel just seems so alien for combat by today’s standards, but it seems to have worked just fine.
A 20” barrel is awesome where performance is concerned in 5.56mm NATO. More velocity is always better.
Shorter barrels are just a compromise to make the long gun more manageable in and around vehicles and inside other tight quarters. It’s a performance compromise worth making a lot of the time but still a compromise.
If it were guaranteed that I’d not be fighting from a vehicle, or doing a lot of structure clearing with a long gun and I had to go back to being a grunt I’d still pick a 20” barrel 5.56mm NATO if that was the issued cartridge. That setup shoots really soft, is very very reliable, is durable, and adds meaningful performance over a 14.5” or shorter barrel. The M855A1 makes some of it back up by running higher chamber pressures... I’ll bet it would be a real nasty little bastard out of a 20” barrel though.
Of course such guarantees can’t be made, so we compromise performance a bit for flexibility. So with that in mind give me a well made 14.5” or 16” barrel with an appropriate length gas system, and a collapsible/adjustable stock.
I carried an M16-A2 throughout my four years in except once when they issued me an M249 SAW. I thought the SAW was really cool initially because they were brand new.....until I lugged one aroumd in the field. I surely wanted my A2 back. Luckily when i deployed to Kosovo with another unit, they gave me an A2. About the same time (l98-99) we were getting some M4's, but they went to the officers.
Pacific5th
11-21-18, 00:08
My first three years it was a reliability issue. The A2’s we had were worn out. God knows how many Marines had been issued them, cleaned them, abused them and screwed them up. Mine would jam with just a slight amount of dust, to the point you had to hold the barrel and step on the charging handle to pull the bolt to the rear. I had a buddy that went 20 something clicks left to shoot strait. They were just shit, and we took those things with us to the invasion in 03.
The A4 I took on my second deployment was brand new, I mean strait from the box new. It was great. No problems, reliable, acutarte. In my experience most of our problems were from old gun, bad magazines and bad advice.
The 20” size never bothered me, but I wasn’t a grunt and besides training I wasn’t kicking down doors on a regular basis.
USMC ‘99-‘03 I was issued an M16a2. The accuracy was great, trigger was decent for back then. We envied those who were issued M4’s and who had railed hand guards and optics. Weapon lights were duct tape and mag-lights for the a2 crowd. After the Iraq invasion big leaps were made, but not in time for me to see them.
Police Career- I started with a shotgun and glock .40 pistols. Shotguns had the same issues as M16’s when it came to maneuvering in tight spaces and working in and out of vehicles. Glock pistols were great, but the trigger always left much to be desired.
I moved on to another department where we were issued Colt AR-15 with collapsible stocks and 16” uppers with fixed carry handles. Lowlight was still a bitch, but ergonomics was much improved over the shotgun along with ease of operation. Glock .40 pistols equipped with surefire x200’s caused constant issues for some.
My last department used RRA Entry Tacticals (16” stainless black coated barrel, collapsible stock, dominator sights) in every car. These rifles had surefire m500 handguards and solved the lowlight issues. Very happy with them and the triggers were fantastic. The only gripe was really the thick RRA barrels were way too heavy, and 16” was unnecessarily long for urban LE. In hot situations it was still rough getting the rifle around the steering wheel. We used whatever pistol we wanted so that was on us.
On SWAT we used what was essentially a frankenrifle mk18. US m16a1 stripped lower (a1 safe/semi/auto fire control). Collapsible stock, and RRA 10.5” flat top upper. Aimpoints/eotechs and surefire m900 verticals mounted in surefire rails. They were heavy for their size, but almost perfect for urban LE. The heavy profile RRA 10.5” barrels, surefire Rail, and m900 added up the ounces quickly. SBR’s should have been in every patrol squad instead of just for SWAT.
Snipers used Remington M700’s heavily modified by GAPrecision with Leupold LRT 6.5-20’s. The only issue with our setups was the magnification was too high for most call-outs (less than 75 yards out). We found that M4’s with variable optics were sufficient for 90% of call-outs. This was due to magnification, maneuverability, and firepower. They are now moving to LMT .308’s to close the gap.
The reliability of all my rifles over the years was great. Colt and especially RRA accuracy was fantastic. I know that RRA gets a lot of flak here, but there were very few issues for us that weren’t immediately resolved by RRA.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was only a ROTC cadet (got medicaled before I commissioned). We trained with Guard M16A1s. I rather liked them. The few times I used an A2, I hated the burst trigger and more importantly the A2 stock. That extra, what, 5/8" on the Length of Pull didn't work so well for me.
Biggest issue I had wasn't the weapons themselves. It was the INSANE cleaning that gets preached/demanded. There is such a thing as to much.
I was only issued M4s, except when I was a PFC I was a 240 gunner. No major issues with either system.
Biggest issue I had wasn't the weapons themselves. It was the INSANE cleaning that gets preached/demanded. There is such a thing as to much.
Damn, I never have thought of that. There was a lot of slop and the anodizing was worn, probably because the damn armory wanted it spotless.
Also, it didnt get the best treatment. It might have been used as a racket or bat a few times, and from riding in the bed of trucks and gators.
Damn, I never have thought of that. There was a lot of slop and the anodizing was worn, probably because the damn armory wanted it spotless.
Also, it didnt get the best treatment. It might have been used as a racket or bat a few times, and from riding in the bed of trucks and gators.
The bolt shouldn't be a shiny silver, I don't care what the unit armorer or supply NCO says!
Ya I may have known a couple of junior Soldiers that did some questionable things with their assigned weapons.
I was issued an M16A2 Service Rifle. I don't remember the weight being an issue, but it was too long for clearing buildings. My biggest gripe was no weapon mounted light. If I could have time traveled twenty five years into the future, I would have secured a 14.5" BCM midlength pencil barrel on a Colt lower with a Geissele g2s trigger. Sionics BCG, BCM Gunfighter charging handle, BCM B5 stock, Trijicon MRO, BCM Keymod rail, Magpul Pro BUIS, Magpul sling, Travis Haley Thorntail mount with Surefire light, BCM Gunfighter grip, and Magpul magazines. It would have made life marginally easier. My sergeant would have never allowed it.
M16A2, short stock it and butterfly the rear peep sight to turn it into CQB mode...
USMC M16A2, never in combat. Weight was not specifically an issue in training or on humps as I recall... Reliability was dodgy on "burst," and it wasn't because it was dirty! Knowing what I know now, the constant overcleaning of those rifles could not have been good, especially when the Staff Sergeant had us put some CLP on the female end of a cleaning rod, stick it in the flash suppressor and crank it around to make the crown shiny for inspection. Again knowing what I know now, our magazines were probably not in the greatest shape either.
M4 in federal LE, never had a bad one. Almost every failure in 20+ years of M4s beating around in the rifle racks whilst off-road, banging into or on ATVs, rocks, etc., carrying into mountains or deserts very dusty or rainy conditions, was magazine related in my experience. This is with a common sense cleaning and maintenance regimen. Had a great class with Mr. Pat Rogers a ways back and remember him saying that it may not have been the best weapon available but there wasn't anything out there much better... Weight has been manageable with just an optic and a light on a VTAC sling for as long as they've been out, GI sling before that. Handling in and out of vehicles and desert hovels has been fine.... we're getting some 11.5s in now, I guess for LE purposes the shorter effective range won't really be a problem... We'll see! EOTechs, 2 power ACOGs and lately the Aimpoint PRO, no problems. Terminal ballistics were not so great with Winchester Q3130 we issued for awhile, but that got fixed with Mk262 and then the Gold Dot loads, according to reports. We do not baby our M4s and they have worked just fine, even the old and worn ones that were recently gotten rid of. I think the guys that routinely take an M4 are generally careful to take care of them, with a few exceptions.
I am glad the military is working on a more effective caliber and weapon system for warfighters, but for now the M4 seems to be holding up.
Thanks to those who took them to war, God bless you all.
To answer the original question: training in its use. As in, there isn't any outside of quals and maybe a couple of drills after the quals. Used to be guys could sign up for a two or three day carbine course, based on either Pat Rogers' or Mike Pannone's courses or whichever the instructors got to go to. When I was an instructor you could request a course and get sent to it, the expectation being you would teach the guys when you got back. Not anymore, not for awhile. It's too bad.
ThirdWatcher
11-25-18, 05:03
My biggest gripe was that no matter how many Iraqis I shot at it with I’d still come home and have old guys who served in the USAF during peacetime (or not at all) call me a “freaking millennial” on message boards.
USMC M16A4 w/ PVQ-31A & PEQ-15
It was also long as ****.
Not all Veterans feel that way. While I served in the Army in the Post-Vietnam era, both my daughters have served in the Army for over a decade. You young warriors have a lot in common with The Greatest Generation.
I don’t care what branch any of you served in, you have my respect. If you served honorably, you will never have to prove your courage in any other way.
This is interesting. One, it seems like most that have replied here are from the A1/A2 days. Personally, two trips to Helmand province. The first with a NIB M4/RCO/Peq-15. The second with a 2 deployment work up cycles M4/M203/RCO/PEQ-16.
I still have a 10" shot spotter from the 500 yd line with 9 holes in it from the NIB M4. Accuracy? Check
In 10 years I still haven't had a stoppage on a personally issued rifle. Keep track of your mags and lube is your friend. Take care of your sh!t.
Until you mount an M203 weight and maneuverability are about as good as you can get for an infantry carbine. Anything from 10-15k patrols to mounted ops and CQB. The M4 is a good compromise.
Terminal performance is in the eye of the beholder. Most honestly couldn't tell you the difference between a SOST round and MK262. Had a Gunner once that brought us a BN issue of "match" ammo... it was SOST. One guy will say all issued ammo works fine, and the next will tell you 5.56 sucks neither without any context. Most you will find that poo poo the caliber you will find that they shot someone at 400+ yds with M855 and it didn't do much, well what did you expect.
As far as optics. I have no problem with our Night aiming devices. However, I don't know why we bought the peq-16 with its antiquated light in an LED age. It seems that this would have been an easy update before procurement.
Our RCO's, again a good compromise. I don't like a 4x optic in a building, but when you had to fight your way into the building from the open desert you understand the compromise. I used to think that these optics were not very robust until I started paying attention to how the rest of the crayon eaters treat these things. They should be given an award for lasting as long as they do.
Most that has been posted here is true. Ridiculous cleaning regiments based on an inspection rather than function leads to the boy's doing all manner of questionable things to get past the armory window on a late Friday night so they can go drink beer.
Maintenance cycles that are missed for whatever reason. From springs that have been around too long to barrels that you would love to see how large the gas port erosion has become, to mags that look like they may have gone to desert storm.
It's the Indian not the arrow. You cannot blame a system when it's the users and maintainers that are most likely causing the majority of the problems. Is it perfect? Nothing is, but I'll personally not have an issue going on the next gov't sponsored vacation with it.
S/F
Ryan
In an extreme example from Operation Urgent Fury in 1983, the pilots in my regiment were issued .38 Special Smith & Wessons. I was given permission to carry my own revolver and I carried a S&W Model 66 with .357 ammo in a shoulder rig. Everything in those days were in a rebuilding phase after Carter. Things were still in short supply and SOCOM was still lacking equipment.
crusader377
11-28-18, 12:35
I was a Fire Support Officer in 2002-2003 overseas and I had zero complaints with my M4 with standard carry handle. Yes an aimpoint would have been since the infantry that I supported were issued with them but honestly in a FSO/FO role the carbine serves much more as a PDW than anything else and a FSO/FO should be using his primary weapon which is the radio.
TactiCool1976
12-02-18, 06:13
Marines 95-2000
1- since i was only issues a M16A2, the weight was never a issue vs someone carrying a 249SAW or 240B, But now vs the M4's with lightweight everything..... i can see the issue
2- this is one i do not have experience with beyond using the M16A2 vs my current AR15, While i have not shot my AR at anything long distance... I'd like to think the barrel length difference woudn't make that much of a difference.. i mean i do not think anyone has done a knock down power or accuracy test with a 20inch barrel vs 16 or 14inch
3- i only used iron sights...... so ya lol....
4- this is another one, i don't have any experience with beyond just shooting... I mean i'd like to think the 55gr nato rounds are good enough for combat..... is the 62gr better? IDK , plus is the FMJ round more effective vs hollow point? especially when going thru resistance, like a load barring vest and gear..
5- Reliability issues is where i have some knowledge... so i am not going to lie, i honestly thought the M16A2 was junk... not as far as accuracy... but just being reliable.. all the ones i was issued, would jam up / double feed / and who knows what else... Now that being said, I would bet good money that 99% of the issues came from bad magazines.. i could honestly tell when loading up rounds into a mag, if it was going to double feed, mis-feed- jam up or do something else.. I am sure that it all came from not having the Anti-tilt follower's and old as hell springs in them.. Now fast foward to all the new mags having good springs and anti-tilt followers, and I've had 1 or 2 times when my AR got jammed up...
5 part 2 - I know a lot of guys have voiced their gripes about the excessive cleaning they had to do before the armory would accept the rifle back.... this was one of the things i never understood, was why the rifle had to be completely spotless.... it's like wtf a lil bit of grease or lube isnt going to kill this rifle... plus how many guys would run their rifle thru some type of CLP solution fountain lol... that stuff was corrosive as hell but it got stuff clean.. I mean now, i would imagine everyone has a big bottle of Break Through cleaner that they spray down the internals of their Rifles and call it good...
6- i honestly never thought about the grip, and actually do not mind the stock A2 grip
I never considered CLP as issued an effective cleaner or protectant. It was a lube only. Maybe a protectant while in the arms room but never a cleaner. Very hot water was a better cleaner and not a protectant in adverse conditions. A milspec isoparifin is a much better protectant in adverse conditions
I never served or had a service weapon. But...
We were hired to install our BOP (Blow Out Preventer) test stumps in Iraq in 2005. We were already doing a job for Petro Saudi and were contracted by Halliburton I think. I don't remember seeing many US soldiers, a few here and there but I remember seeing a whole bunch of PSC's who worked for Kellogg, Halliburton and Schlumberger who were working in the oil field. Most of these security contractors were from Great Britain and Australia. We didn't work in Iraq, all of the work that we did was done in a yard in Kuwait using contractors but the installation was done near Rumalia and Zubair in Iraq.
I wasn't too interested in AR's at the time but what got me interested, or at least what started this journey for me was the security team that was on the job site, they all had ZM Weapons LR300's with C-More red dot sights. Seeing these guys did something to me. About 4-6 of these guys with slicked back hair, 5- o'clock shadows, Diesel designer jeans, black V-neck t-shirts and a Persols holding a LR300. This was the guys that drove us to the job site across the border (our test stumps would get to the job site days before). There was some jealousy, or maybe just envy going around because these guys had- I think, the most expensive AR rifles at the time. Most the other guys had what I believe to be basic Colts and Rock Rivers etc. I remember these guys who were nice, but I didn't get much time to talk to them, but they were really proud of there LR300's- I think they had just got them
Needless to say, when I got back home, I bought my first assault rifle and back in 2005, the market for AR's and accessories wasn't that great. So I got a Sig 551 and I loved that gun! I wish I still had it. It was light weight, had a really good contour like the stock felt good up against the cheek and the handguard was easy to grip and overall it was a comfortable gun. But the main reason was that the stock folded just like the LR300's.
Army, 2008-2016 OEF x 35 months
Most lacking? Training.
TactiCool1976
12-03-18, 07:34
I never considered CLP as issued an effective cleaner or protectant. It was a lube only. Maybe a protectant while in the arms room but never a cleaner. Very hot water was a better cleaner and not a protectant in adverse conditions. A milspec isoparifin is a much better protectant in adverse conditions
idk why i called it a CLP solution fountain lol.... but it was literally a 55 gallon barrel of cleaning solution that had it's own sink / tub to flush everything into and it just recycled the cleaning solution... and i know "we" was always told by the Staff NCO's to never use it to clean your rifles cuz it was so corrosive...... but that stuff worked like a charm...
As for straight CLP that we was issued.... yea i never thought that stuff was all that great.. for lube, it was decent.. but i mean way back then, i didn't know shit about firearm's lube or cleaners...
the funny thing is i remember it was right at the end of the fiscal year lol, and we had to "use" up all the ammo, well i get on the M2 and one of the Staff Nco's comes over and is like hold on.. and has a tube of "lube" for the M2 and of course I'm like WTF is that shit lol... and he basically said it was heavy duty all weather lube that is good to like -50 weather.... it's like wtf why are we not using that shit in our M16's lol........
TactiCool1976
12-03-18, 07:41
Army, 2008-2016 OEF x 35 months
Most lacking? Training.
I will completely AGREE with that... i use to think I "knew" shit and had training... till i seen videos of people on YT training... And it's like WOW i really don't know shit, and my reload times are crap....
Army, 2008-2016 OEF x 35 months
Most lacking? Training.
Too true. Had multiple near miss Blue on Blue because of it.
One night fire with thermals and NVGs is not enough.
Also, if ~85% of the troops are buying different slings than the one issued, command needs to issue better slings.
Army, 2008-2016 OEF x 35 months
Most lacking? Training.
Having used both an M16A2 and M4 down range, I am in violent agreement with GTF425's comment.
BOOSTjunkie
12-12-18, 14:23
1. Never really an issue. Never humped a 240 or SAW as a matter of practice. Did have a 320 which was attached to a bungee cord and slung over back sometimes.
2. Always had standard 14.5 barrel. Sometimes wished for more range.
3. There are only two options. M68 (Aimpoint) or ACOG. ACOG is ok, used on 3 of 4 deployments but I prefer the aimpoint. Wished for 1-6.
4. In all honesty, never got to check terminal ballistic effectiveness ever. If on vehicle, 7.62 or caliber 50. When dismounted, 556 for me. Reasonably effective.
5. Never with personal weapon. I tended to drench them in synthetic motor oil though. Sometimes with vehicle mounted. Tended to be the belt fed weapons and not with the actual weapon but the link and feed system (CROW)
6. Ditched A2, used MIAD.
In eastern AFG I used an M4 off the rack. Surefire light on haley thorntail left side because of short rail. PEQ15 mounted behind pressure switch which was mounted on top rail directly behind front sight assembly. Halfway through used button on light instead and removed pressure switch. Optic was aimpoint. Almost everyone else used ACOG but I opted for Aimpoint. Magpul mag release, giessele SSF which turned my M4 into full auto before we got reissued M4A1s. Magpul trigger guard and ambi selector I bought off BCM website. Stock was LMT SOPMOD. Also carried was 320 grenade launcher in stand alone config. Most people hate the mounted on rifle config because it was very bulky. Used mostly for signaling CCA/CAS as opposed to HE. When not using stock is collapsed which made it very compact. M9 carried in safariland ALS. Never had a problem with it but also never had to shoot it at anyone. M240 L with short barrel plus M240 B on remote mount on vehicle. Also carried mossberg in truck but mostly for fun. Also had SAW in truck with 50 rnd nut sack and then spare 200 belts available but it was the driver's.
1. Never really an issue. Never humped a 240 or SAW as a matter of practice. Did have a 320 which was attached to a bungee cord and slung over back sometimes.
2. Always had standard 14.5 barrel. Sometimes wished for more range.
3. There are only two options. M68 (Aimpoint) or ACOG. ACOG is ok, used on 3 of 4 deployments but I prefer the aimpoint. Wished for 1-6.
4. In all honesty, never got to check terminal ballistic effectiveness ever. If on vehicle, 7.62 or caliber 50. When dismounted, 556 for me. Reasonably effective.
5. Never with personal weapon. I tended to drench them in synthetic motor oil though. Sometimes with vehicle mounted. Tended to be the belt fed weapons and not with the actual weapon but the link and feed system (CROW)
6. Ditched A2, used MIAD.
In eastern AFG I used an M4 off the rack. Surefire light on haley thorntail left side because of short rail. PEQ15 mounted behind pressure switch which was mounted on top rail directly behind front sight assembly. Halfway through used button on light instead and removed pressure switch. Optic was aimpoint. Almost everyone else used ACOG but I opted for Aimpoint. Magpul mag release, giessele SSF which turned my M4 into full auto before we got reissued M4A1s. Magpul trigger guard and ambi selector I bought off BCM website. Stock was LMT SOPMOD. Also carried was 320 grenade launcher in stand alone config. Most people hate the mounted on rifle config because it was very bulky. Used mostly for signaling CCA/CAS as opposed to HE. When not using stock is collapsed which made it very compact. M9 carried in safariland ALS. Never had a problem with it but also never had to shoot it at anyone. M240 L with short barrel plus M240 B on remote mount on vehicle. Also carried mossberg in truck but mostly for fun. Also had SAW in truck with 50 rnd nut sack and then spare 200 belts available but it was the driver's.
Not sure what type of unit you were in, but I thought regular grunts couldn't make some of the changes to their weapons that you mention.
Not sure what type of unit you were in, but I thought regular grunts couldn't make some of the changes to their weapons that you mention.
Not technically, but IME it’s not typically super hard, especially for any type of leadership. And that’s just in garrison - I could put anything I wanted onto or into my various M4s as long as it was removed by the time they went to the armament shop for gauging. And even then, I’d just have to talk to the chief about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
BOOSTjunkie
12-12-18, 19:24
Not sure what type of unit you were in, but I thought regular grunts couldn't make some of the changes to their weapons that you mention.
54996
54997
Blast from the past 2011? 12? I think
BallisticHarmony
12-12-18, 19:25
54996
Blast from the past 2011? 12? I think
I’d be very interested to know why you decided to go back to the tailcap button and ditch the pressure pad.
BOOSTjunkie
12-12-18, 19:31
As epidemic of the short issue rail, not enough real estate to run the pressure pad for the PEQ and the Light.
54998 and lee enfield hadji version
54999 or a FAMAS with rifle grenades
Not sure what type of unit you were in, but I thought regular grunts couldn't make some of the changes to their weapons that you mention.
There’s a difference between what you do and what your unit knows you do.
kaltesherz
12-12-18, 20:45
Army, 2008-2016 OEF x 35 months
Most lacking? Training.
Nailed it.
With our M4A1's w/ ACOGs & PEQ15's loaded with M855A1 there's zero to complain about without nit picking (like that I prefer the TA11 over the TA31F we're issued) when it comes to hardware. Most of our Joes are using older M68's that have seen better days, but I've been bugging our XO and HQ enough that we're getting some of the Aimpoint M4's (newer M68's) and the older 68's at least functioning again. Our M240L's run like raped apes, and our our M249's are ok. My only legit hardware gripe is I can't stand the M320 and want our M203's back. And that's apparently user preference...
I ran a CQB M4A1 range over the summer for my Company and was amazed how many guys had issues running their weapons. Bone dry weapons causing minor FTF issues that were easily cleared using SPORTS and yet they'd just stare at it with a dumb look on their face. This even included a goddamn SSG. They also keep passing around beat to death mags that just got made worse by mandating we can't use personal mags anymore (I do anyway). You can't make this up.
As bad as things are with M4A1's, we get WAY more training with those than our belt feds. SAWs require a lot of time and experience to learn how to not only keep them running but also keep your cone of fire tight at 600-700m, and we're getting only one or two ranges a year with limited ammo. We did one a few months ago and they gave us zero tracers... yes, seriously.
As much as I want us to have 600m known and unknown ranges, I'd love to see us go back to mastering the BASICS.
ETA: I'm in a Nasty Girl Infantry unit, I'm sure Active Duty is in better shape
Nailed it.
With our M4A1's w/ ACOGs & PEQ15's loaded with M855A1 there's zero to complain about without nit picking (like that I prefer the TA11 over the TA31F we're issued) when it comes to hardware. Most of our Joes are using older M68's that have seen better days, but I've been bugging our XO and HQ enough that we're getting some of the Aimpoint M4's (newer M68's) and the older 68's at least functioning again. Our M240L's run like raped apes, and our our M249's are ok. My only legit hardware gripe is I can't stand the M320 and want our M203's back. And that's apparently user preference...
I ran a CQB M4A1 range over the summer for my Company and was amazed how many guys had issues running their weapons. Bone dry weapons causing minor FTF issues that were easily cleared using SPORTS and yet they'd just stare at it with a dumb look on their face. This even included a goddamn SSG. They also keep passing around beat to death mags that just got made worse by mandating we can't use personal mags anymore (I do anyway). You can't make this up.
As bad as things are with M4A1's, we get WAY more training with those than our belt feds. SAWs require a lot of time and experience to learn how to not only keep them running but also keep your cone of fire tight at 600-700m, and we're getting only one or two ranges a year with limited ammo. We did one a few months ago and they gave us zero tracers... yes, seriously.
As much as I want us to have 600m known and unknown ranges, I'd love to see us go back to mastering the BASICS.
ETA: I'm in a Nasty Girl Infantry unit, I'm sure Active Duty is in better shape
Speaking of which, I got the email from our DIV that the new Army qual is out. Hadn't seen that posted in the gun circles yet. Who made the decision to ban personal mags, company CDR?
kaltesherz
12-12-18, 23:41
Who made the decision to ban personal mags, company CDR?
Long story short, we were running Buddy / Team / Squad live fires for 3 days straight with minimal sleep and a new Private somehow shot a BFA off his weapon the last night. Their solution was basic training style brass shake downs, only platoon collective mags, and no more plate carriers- IBA's only. I wish I was joking...
Long story short, we were running Buddy / Team / Squad live fires for 3 days straight with minimal sleep and a new Private somehow shot a BFA off the last night. Their solution was basic training style brass shake downs, only platoon collective mags, and no more plate carriers- IBA's only. I wish I was joking...
So basically a whole bunch of risk aversion techniques that mean absolutely nothing. Sounds right.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nightchief
12-14-18, 13:42
Long story short, we were running Buddy / Team / Squad live fires for 3 days straight with minimal sleep and a new Private somehow shot a BFA off the last night...
Please educate...what is a BFA?
NC
thopkins22
12-14-18, 13:45
Please educate...what is a BFA?
NC
Blank firing adapter. Just a thing that goes on the barrel that will help create enough pressure in the system to cycle the rifle with blanks.
thopkins22
12-14-18, 13:48
Damn Tapatalk. Sorry.
The M4's complete and utter shit accuracy standard. The gun is at best a 20moa gun with the KAC RAS.
It needs a new rail ASAP if anyone ever expects to engage targets in areal combat past 32M.
The M4's complete and utter shit accuracy standard. The gun is at best a 20moa gun with the KAC RAS.
It needs a new rail ASAP if anyone ever expects to engage targets in areal combat past 32M.
I’ve never had a real issue with any of mine. Not great, but definitely 3 MOA. As soon as we started getting M855A1 it shrunk significantly. Same with the new M4A1s.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kaltesherz
12-16-18, 12:57
The M4's complete and utter shit accuracy standard. The gun is at best a 20moa gun with the KAC RAS.
It needs a new rail ASAP if anyone ever expects to engage targets in areal combat past 32M.
"areal combat past 32m" lol well trolled...
"areal combat past 32m" lol well trolled...
Typo. Just supposed to be real combat.
Three separate tests have been done and proved the M4A1 only has a maximum effective range of 32M to hit a man size target reliably.
Those same tests showed that the M4A1 averages 20" at 100M
However by moving to a Geissele Mk16 you increase the range to hit a man sized target reliably to 115M and reduce the average group size to 3.6" at 100M.
Typo. Just supposed to be real combat.
Three separate tests have been done and proved the M4A1 only has a maximum effective range of 32M to hit a man size target reliably.
Those same tests showed that the M4A1 averages 20" at 100M
However by moving to a Geissele Mk16 you increase the range to hit a man sized target reliably to 115M and reduce the average group size to 3.6" at 100M.
What the **** are you talking about?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Typo. Just supposed to be real combat.
Three separate tests have been done and proved the M4A1 only has a maximum effective range of 32M to hit a man size target reliably.
Those same tests showed that the M4A1 averages 20" at 100M
However by moving to a Geissele Mk16 you increase the range to hit a man sized target reliably to 115M and reduce the average group size to 3.6" at 100M.
Did BARFCOM kick you off or something?
kaltesherz
12-16-18, 18:40
Holy **** you're serious? Wow, your parents really need to rethink your computer privileges...
Holy **** you're serious? Wow, your parents really need to rethink your computer privileges...
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/img_9634-440x124.jpg
ViniVidivici
12-16-18, 19:47
What the blue f*ck?
Anyway, all I was gonna add was my SAW. It was heavy. No gettin' around that.
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/img_9634-440x124.jpg
Let me get some popcorn ready......
nightchief
12-16-18, 19:54
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/img_9634-440x124.jpg
From the following article segment in Soldier Systems where the pic came from:
The Security Forces Center worked with USSOCOM and USMC to investigate improvements to the M4 carbine. During the evaluation, three different configurations were developed, Improved Modular Rifle – White for SOF, Red for the Marines and Blue for the Air Force. US Army Special Operations Command has adopted individual weapon components to extend the service life and improve their M4A1s. The Marine Corps selected a different path, choosing to purchase additional M27s Infantry Automatic Rifles. But the Air Force has chosen to move forward with the concept.
The systems evaluated under the effort are said to have included components from Geissele Automatics and Daniel Defense. Although the final configuration of IMR – Blue has not been disclosed, it will include an Upper Receiver Group, 1-8 Variable Power Optic and improved trigger group.
During the evaluation, Security Forces found that their shooters were accurate within 20 MOA of targets using the current M4 and M68 Close Combat Optic configuration. This measurement was based on the average capability of the shooters and not just the capability of the firearm, optic, and ammunition. With an IMR-Blue configured carbine, that improved to 3.7 MOA. That is a significant improvement that would get any commander’s attention. I applaud the USAFSFC for being open about this and working to address it.
http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/11/us-air-force-small-arms-update/
kaltesherz
12-16-18, 19:55
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/img_9634-440x124.jpg
That's cute. The M4 Individual Weapons Qual max range is 300m and the E Type Target is 19.5" x 40" and it's so wicked easy to hit it's laughable.
thopkins22
12-16-18, 21:30
Typo. Just supposed to be real combat.
Three separate tests have been done and proved the M4A1 only has a maximum effective range of 32M to hit a man size target reliably.
Those same tests showed that the M4A1 averages 20" at 100M
However by moving to a Geissele Mk16 you increase the range to hit a man sized target reliably to 115M and reduce the average group size to 3.6" at 100M.
That “test” does not show that. It shows that someone doesn’t know how to perform a test, and/or that the Air Force is incapable of shooting rifles.
It’s certainly possible to shift a point of impact by really torquing on a non free floated rail, several inches in fact. Kyle Lamb has talked about this.
But if you can demonstrate a 16 moa improvement via free floating a barrel, while demonstrating even halfway decent marksmanship skills on both groups I’ll send you $50.
It’s absurd on its face and a farce. Pay me $50 and I’ll make a video of a dozen consecutive five shot 2 inch groups at 100 yards with a non free floated barrel and iron sights.
Like many reports asking for money, it isn’t an honest reflection of what the current capabilities are.
What was/is most lacking about your service weapon?
I'm going to approach this a little differently. FWIW I'm currently a company XO for an airborne infantry rifle company. I manage all of the maintenance, accountability, logistics, etc for all of our weapons to include the M4A1.
1. Maintenance and aftermarket interchangeability
Getting parts and a weapon fixed in a timely manner is a nightmare. Be it M4, 240, 249, .50, the system that is currently in place takes a long time to get the rifle company (the supported unit in everything) the parts needed to bring a weapon back from deadline status. I've had M240Ls "deadlined" for months before parts finally came in. On that note, there are a million things that can randomly deadline a weapon, making it unusable with the Commander circle Xing it and creating considerable headaches, yet the weapon functions just fine. Just trying to get working weapons into men hand's can be a challenge for critical events when there is a high OPTEMPO.
On aftermarket interchangeability, it is the 21st century and the issued furniture is not at the cutting edge anymore. A majority of our soldiers outfit their weapons with personally purchased BCM and Magpul pistol grips, BCM ambi charging handles, aftermarket butt stocks, and a few opt for troy drop in rails to replace the issued KAC rail. All great improvements, but when random inspections come down the inspectors like to deadline any modified weapon saying it is not to 10-20 standard and a safety risk. I then have to have a nice long conversation to get my men's rifles to stay the way they are.
2. M855A1
Regardless of what anyone says, the POA/POI between M855 and M855A1 is different and all of my men know it. They all tell me their zero is different with M855A1 and I've personally seen it on a 25M zero range. As such, our BDCs in our ACOGs are not truly accurate anymore. Some redesigned BDCs for weapons that engage point targets would be great. What makes this difficult is although I request M855A1, I don't always get it and when your guys shoot outside of your company I don't always know what they are going to get. That being said I'll take M855A1 any day over M855.
2. Own the night
The M4 as a weapon is great, but its the 21st century and a easy to use and manipulate low light aiming option is just as important as our day optics. PEQ 15/15As work great, but pressure switches are the issue. There's already limited rail space with a KAC rail when you put a PEQ and surefire on it, but now I need space for two pressure switches for the light and laser while putting it in a spot that's easy for the shooter to use? I've tried ordering dual switches for my guys but they are retarded expensive and that one item alone will eat up my budget that is better spent fixing vehicles that will break the week after they are fixed anyways. Soldiers like to run off with Gucci things the unit buys as well.
kaltesherz
12-16-18, 22:42
1) Maintenance
This is a really good point. When I was in active duty in Heavy Weapons (D Co), we had a civilian DOD contractor that fixed most of our small arms issues pretty quickly. Sometimes we had Battalion (or maybe Brigade) level armorers go to our M2 .50 ranges to fix any weapons that went down during it (which was pretty common). But in the Guard it's been frustrating as we've had M4A1's deadlined for almost a year because they have UTM rounds that plugged up the barrel, luckily my Co went from 3 Plt's down to 2, so now we can rat **** to get our weapons and optics GTG, so I get your pain. The fact that you're the XO shows just how bad it is since that's your job yet you're relying on Army bureaucracy.
Aftermarket Interchangeability
I agree that there's a lot of aftermarket parts that are a lot more ergonomic or practical than issued kit, but there's also a lot of stupid crap Joe will throw on because he thinks it's cool (i.e. Tapco or CAA), or because he blows all his money on Dip and Booze he'll buy Chinese Airsoft knock offs. Also I've seen dudes break or lose the selector spring while changing out pistol grips. So while I think upgrading furniture should be encouraged, there still needs to be policy to make sure they're using quality parts and changing them out correctly.
2. M855A1
Yeah, I think it's still official Army doctrine that M855 and M855A1 have the same trajectory when we all know that's false. I'd love to see an upgraded A1 ACOG reticle, but we will probably have to wait for the new variable optic the Army claims to be developing.
3. After using PAC 4's, Vital 2's, and PEQ2A's early in my career- I can tell you that PEQ15's are a freakin' godsend. But I don't see more rail space fixing the issue of syncing the IR laser and Surefire- as in order to activate either efficiently you need both switches close together. I've never really used tac lights on my issued weapon, and just use the IR illuminatior on the PEQ for target ID. Maybe the BE Meyers MAWL can help, but I don't see us getting those anytime soon.
I'd love to see upgraded M2A1 iron sights. I can't believe when they upgraded them with fixed headspace and much better tripods they didn't replace those tiny 100 year old sights. I met some guys at the Knobb Creek Machine Gun shoot that developed upgraded sights that not only were much bigger / easier to see, they allowed to quickly adjust range had a QD picatinny rail to throw on a PEQ or PAS. It was tits. They let us borrow a set in hopes our BC would sign off on outfitting all our .50's but apparently it never happened.
Jammer Six
12-16-18, 22:59
I wouldn't own a BDC scope, and I'd never depend on one. Iron sights don't have them.
I'm disappointed in a military that uses them. A military that uses them and issues two different "standard" ammunitions is eye-rolling, and would be funny if it wasn't tragic.
daddyusmaximus
12-16-18, 23:13
I never had an optic til my last deployment, and even then, it was one I bought myself. I love my red dot, but an Elcan would have been nice in case I needed some magnification. Turns out, I didn't. Other units were in different areas though with longer engagement distances.
Never did like the A2 grip. Much prefer the old grip with no finger groove. (or an aftermarket one)
EVERY SINGLE weapon needs a light.
I miss the old FA. Much prefer it to the 3 round burst. I know it doesn't get used much, but it's nice to have for those times when you do need it. Troops lack the dicipline to have it without training. Back in the day, we actually did train with FA on the M16A1. A 3 round burst is easy to do with the FA fire control group.
By my third (last) deployment, I was in my 40s, with over 20 years in. I could feel it in my joints, and though I had put a rail and VFG on my M4 to be the "cool" old NCO, it really did help. Much more comfy, and more control. I still prefer it to the AFG and C clamp holding so popular today. That is unquestionably fast, but tiring over the course of a long mission.
A better, quick adjust two point sling should be an issue item.
Some (a lot) of units (mine) didn't have a good stock of serviceable mags prior to shipping out. They just kept using the same one that have been trained with for years on end. We had some feed issues. So many, I had my wife mail me 20 of my own personal mags. I used only them after that, passed out the rest among my section, and even rebuilt some with the MagPul followers they were selling in the PX.
Jammer Six
12-16-18, 23:35
I'd give my right nut to be in my forties again.
You think your joints are bad now, just wait.
1. Maintenance and aftermarket interchangeability
Getting parts and a weapon fixed in a timely manner is a nightmare. Be it M4, 240, 249, .50, the system that is currently in place takes a long time to get the rifle company (the supported unit in everything) the parts needed to bring a weapon back from deadline status. I've had M240Ls "deadlined" for months before parts finally came in.
I'm in Hawaii and it doesn't take long at all to get most CL IX parts in for weapons. How familiar are you with the ESR? Too often people say that something is deadlined when its not, but should be.
I've tried ordering dual switches for my guys but they are retarded expensive and that one item alone will eat up my budget that is better spent fixing vehicles that will break the week after they are fixed anyways.
They aren't a different class of supply? Usually the money to order CL IX parts to fix vehicles is managed well above the company level.
Comments in bold.
Gen X here. Served USAF during Desert Shield/Storm and returned to reserve service after 9/11. Volunteered for deployment twice each time but was never sent outside CONUS.
I was a REMF so my opinion means nothing but fwiw I was issued an M-16A2 and quite enjoyed it. However, the inventory rifles weren’t kept clean with any regularity so mine jammed until I had it for awhile. No sooner would I get it oiled and running smoothly, I’d have to turn it in.
I salute all of my fellow servicemen and women in the combat MOS’, AFSCs, and Ratings who went (and still go) into harm’s way...
1) Maintenance
This is a really good point. When I was in active duty in Heavy Weapons (D Co), we had a civilian DOD contractor that fixed most of our small arms issues pretty quickly. Sometimes we had Battalion (or maybe Brigade) level armorers go to our M2 .50 ranges to fix any weapons that went down during it (which was pretty common). But in the Guard it's been frustrating as we've had M4A1's deadlined for almost a year because they have UTM rounds that plugged up the barrel, luckily my Co went from 3 Plt's down to 2, so now we can rat **** to get our weapons and optics GTG, so I get your pain. The fact that you're the XO shows just how bad it is since that's your job yet you're relying on Army bureaucracy.
Our FSC has weapons mechanics that can fix a lot of what breaks in a relatively quick manner. They've brought plenty of weapons and NODs back up by either replacing it with what's on hand, or going to the next level and taking a part from them. The issue happens when they do not have a part and it has to be ordered. Not a weapon, but I've seen an over 6 month wait time for PSQ-20 parts depending on the fault.
Aftermarket Interchangeability
I agree that there's a lot of aftermarket parts that are a lot more ergonomic or practical than issued kit, but there's also a lot of stupid crap Joe will throw on because he thinks it's cool (i.e. Tapco or CAA), or because he blows all his money on Dip and Booze he'll buy Chinese Airsoft knock offs. Also I've seen dudes break or lose the selector spring while changing out pistol grips. So while I think upgrading furniture should be encouraged, there still needs to be policy to make sure they're using quality parts and changing them out correctly.
Believe it or not, this is not an issue. My unit has done surprisingly well with big boy rules. There's nothing like that on any of the weapons, it is all high quality equipment. Our armorers will put stuff on for the guys and they know what they are doing. The issue we run into is with other people outside of the unit who say the aftermarket parts are not allowed.
2. M855A1
Yeah, I think it's still official Army doctrine that M855 and M855A1 have the same trajectory when we all know that's false. I'd love to see an upgraded A1 ACOG reticle, but we will probably have to wait for the new variable optic the Army claims to be developing.
It would absolutely be nice to see a different BDC in the future
I wouldn't own a BDC scope, and I'd never depend on one. Iron sights don't have them.
I'm disappointed in a military that uses them. A military that uses them and issues two different "standard" ammunitions is eye-rolling, and would be funny if it wasn't tragic.
I had an ACOG on my weapon at one point. The BDC is honestly very helpful when used correctly, especially for machine guns. As for ammunition, its not that we have two standard ammunitions, its that we have transitioned but there's still plenty of the old stuff around to shoot through. I think you'd be surprised at how many different types of ammunition are out there. Open up this link which is to the DODICs for ammo and go to AB57 (M855A1 on 10 round clips) and see how many different types and configurations ammo comes in across the military. https://www.fuji.marines.mil/Portals/111/Documents/range%20control/YellowBook.pdf
I'm in Hawaii and it doesn't take long at all to get most CL IX parts in for weapons. How familiar are you with the ESR? Too often people say that something is deadlined when its not, but should be.
Yeah very familiar with the ESR and G-Army. All faults I was previously talking about are things that are popping up as deadlines on the ESR. After all, when it comes to maintenance if it is not on the ESR then it is not real, so making sure it accurately reflects is pretty important.
They aren't a different class of supply? Usually the money to order CL IX parts to fix vehicles is managed well above the company level.
You'd be surprised at what can ordered as class IX. How those funds are managed is really unit dependent. Light and airborne units generally have such a small CLIX budget that it is managed by the FSC (at least where I am). I know my CO had a company CLIX budget when he did his vehicular imperative as an LT. Our FSC for example just ordered gen 3 Pmags for companies using CLIX. That's where it comes to the art of bein an XO, having an order OML for what shortages need to be fulfilled and all of my other nerd stuff.
See my bolded comments.
Jammer Six
12-17-18, 04:49
More than one type of ammunition makes a BDC useless, because it adds at least one step to the process rather than removing one.
daddyusmaximus
12-17-18, 09:39
I'd give my right nut to be in my forties again.
You think your joints are bad now, just wait.
That was 13 years ago...
Mysteryman
12-17-18, 14:49
More than one type of ammunition makes a BDC useless, because it adds at least one step to the process rather than removing one.
Not necessarily. BDC for a service rifle is much less refined than that of the competition shooter.
Having to place a percussion cap on the nipple for every shot.
ODgreenpizza
12-17-18, 19:31
It wasn't so much the weapons that were the problem, it was the miles of red tape one needed to wade through to get stuff looked at and fixed which led to everything being broken all the time because nobody liked the red tape.
Former Army Reservist 02-08
Having to place a percussion cap on the nipple for every shot.
You don't have a bump nipple capper stock?
Having to place a percussion cap on the nipple for every shot.
I always had problems with the getting the powder to stay in the pan when loading in asymmetrical firing positions.
I always had problems with the getting the powder to stay in the pan when loading in asymmetrical firing positions.
The slow match going out in the rain....
Jammer Six
12-18-18, 00:57
And the FMs!
The Field Manuals weighed a TON.
All that stone...
And the FMs!
The Field Manuals weighed a TON.
All that stone...
That was a good one!
That “test” does not show that. It shows that someone doesn’t know how to perform a test, and/or that the Air Force is incapable of shooting rifles.
It’s certainly possible to shift a point of impact by really torquing on a non free floated rail, several inches in fact. Kyle Lamb has talked about this.
But if you can demonstrate a 16 moa improvement via free floating a barrel, while demonstrating even halfway decent marksmanship skills on both groups I’ll send you $50.
It’s absurd on its face and a farce. Pay me $50 and I’ll make a video of a dozen consecutive five shot 2 inch groups at 100 yards with a non free floated barrel and iron sights.
Like many reports asking for money, it isn’t an honest reflection of what the current capabilities are.
That test was a major factor in the IMR Blue, or URGI, and was conducted and confirmed by more than just the AF.
kaltesherz
12-18-18, 15:17
That test was a major factor in the IMR Blue, or URGI, and was conducted and confirmed by more than just the AF.
Yeah, what the hell would we know- we've only been using M4's professionally for years with thousands upon thousands of rounds in training and combat environments.
jackblack73
12-18-18, 16:48
That test was a major factor in the IMR Blue, or URGI, and was conducted and confirmed by more than just the AF.
That story clearly says the improved accuracy was due to several things, including going to a 1-8 LPVO. it doesn’t attribute the improvement to just moving to a free float rail. A non-free float rifle can shoot better than 20 MOA all day long.
Damn near nothing anymore!
thopkins22
12-18-18, 21:24
That test was a major factor in the IMR Blue, or URGI, and was conducted and confirmed by more than just the AF.
Irrelevant. It is so clearly a case of a “test” designed to get you what you want that I don’t know how to respond.
Kyle Lamb states as much as a 4” shift from using a sling as a shooting aid, which puts a hell of a lot more pressure on the barrel than holding a vfg, or whatever else you can think of. Never mind the nearly two decades worth of evidence of thousands of combat engagements where people were shot where the were supposed to get shot...almost exclusively with non-free floated rails.
It is a laughable proposition that the rifle which has dominated engagements for decades, which has hundred of thousands of people qualifying at much greater distances, which I’ve shot to extreme distances with, is only effective on man sized targets to thirty some yards.
It’s absurd, and anyone who interprets it as something meaningful has a long way to go before they earn my ear again.
So yes. It’s a farce of a test, or shot by the most incompetent people the Air Force could find.
This is kind of an interesting thread at times. (and I will 2nd that I loathe & discard test regimes that load for the outcome)
My career was finished before the A2 was fielded. Other than the initial separation anxiety when they took my M14 away (brief) I got along just fine with the A1. I had carried them both; nothing dramatic being the mule with the PRC on his back but the A1 comported well and took care of a couple times, and I took care of it. I didn't get a look at an A2 until after I was in the new Army civilian dockers/polo-shirt crowd. A friend was explaining one to me & focused on the barrel (meh), sights (meh), burst mode (puke)... what I really too late realized I'd wanted was that new delta-ring/handguard setup, now THAT was a good idea. Then later before complete retirement someone at a base match handed me an M4 loaded out with everything the Pentagon Good Idea Faeries could think of mounted on the nose... holy frickin' boat anchors. Thinking back to the M16A1 days, like anyone who likes to shoot, I just wish there had been more Train, Shoot, Maintain, rinse/repeat, in terms of overall doctrine. It really comes down to that but that's just a FOG's opinion. I suspect the individual Soldier/Marine has all that payload because higher wants them to be doing things that - really - should be the role of something else that makes a BIG DAMN FOOM! when it's used.
[/curmudgeon]
:cool:
Hammer_Man
12-19-18, 15:00
So yes. It’s a farce of a test, or shot by the most incompetent people the Air Force could find.
It was Chair Force shooters, nothing else need be said about that.
I'd love to see an upgraded A1 ACOG reticle, but we will probably have to wait for the new variable optic the Army claims to be developing.
I hate when the Army develops something, it's so much easier to go COTS and let the industry do it for you.
This is kind of an interesting thread at times. (and I will 2nd that I loathe & discard test regimes that load for the outcome)
My career was finished before the A2 was fielded. Other than the initial separation anxiety when they took my M14 away (brief) I got along just fine with the A1. I had carried them both; nothing dramatic being the mule with the PRC on his back but the A1 comported well and took care of a couple times, and I took care of it. I didn't get a look at an A2 until after I was in the new Army civilian dockers/polo-shirt crowd. A friend was explaining one to me & focused on the barrel (meh), sights (meh), burst mode (puke)... what I really too late realized I'd wanted was that new delta-ring/handguard setup, now THAT was a good idea. Then later before complete retirement someone at a base match handed me an M4 loaded out with everything the Pentagon Good Idea Faeries could think of mounted on the nose... holy frickin' boat anchors. Thinking back to the M16A1 days, like anyone who likes to shoot, I just wish there had been more Train, Shoot, Maintain, rinse/repeat, in terms of overall doctrine. It really comes down to that but that's just a FOG's opinion. I suspect the individual Soldier/Marine has all that payload because higher wants them to be doing things that - really - should be the role of something else that makes a BIG DAMN FOOM! when it's used.
[/curmudgeon]
:cool:
The M4A1 with irons is still realtively light at 6.64lbs.
It only gets heavy once you start hanging irons, lights, lasers, grips, and stuff on it.
What was/is most lacking about your service weapon?
I'm going to approach this a little differently. FWIW I'm currently a company XO for an airborne infantry rifle company. I manage all of the maintenance, accountability, logistics, etc for all of our weapons to include the M4A1.
I'm the more senior version of you (BN XO, also serving in the center of the universe).
Spot on, generally. I did my command tour on Bragg as well, and resourcing my arms room required an inordinate amount of my time as a commander. The transition from PBUSE to GCSS-A hasn't helped, either.
When I was the CO I published a MOR with all the modifications I authorized to our issued rifles. I did mine up, of course. I have been DIY'ing my issue weapon since my first tour in '05.
The state of the supply system, though, isn't the fault of the weapon. It just really hurts the ability of guys at the company level to get things done.
That said, after actually shooting the damn thing, our Troopers could do with full length rails (ŕ la DD M4V1), stocks and grips, and upgraded optics /lasers to take advantage of them. Every time I see an Aimpoint Comp M2, I die a little inside. Broken lasers we cannot get replaced, same.
We used to send folks out to shoot "gooder" to try and correct years of promoting guys too quickly, who don't know the rifle (let alone the CSW) - we probably need to bring that back. Let the SFAB cadre do it, if they don't suck - it IS their job.
Last aside, on cleaning - I'm not saying I actually stopped it from happening, but my Troopers knew not to let me catch them with ****ing dental tools anywhere near their rifles. Literally nothing on our rifle requires, or is improved by, scratching it down to bare metal with a steel tool. Disassemble it, wipe it down, brush it off where necessary, lube it and be done. Patch the barrel at the beginning and again at the end.
kaltesherz
12-29-18, 15:48
Last aside, on cleaning - I'm not saying I actually stopped it from happening, but my Troopers knew not to let me catch them with ****ing dental tools anywhere near their rifles. Literally nothing on our rifle requires, or is improved by, scratching it down to bare metal with a steel tool. Disassemble it, wipe it down, brush it off where necessary, lube it and be done. Patch the barrel at the beginning and again at the end.
Nobody wants to GI their weapon for an hour looking like they're going to perform a root canal. Nobody. It's the goddamn arms room that causes that ridiculousness, kicking weapons back repeatedly for any hint of carbon anywhere.
Otherwise I totally agree, especially promoting people too quickly that aren't SME's on our standard weapons.
My biggest gripe was that no matter how many Iraqis I shot at it with I’d still come home and have old guys who served in the USAF during peacetime (or not at all) call me a “freaking millennial” on message boards.
USMC M16A4 w/ PVQ-31A & PEQ-15
It was also long as ****.
I'm an old guy, and I wouldn't do that. Both of my grown kids are pretty conservative, own firearms, and they are Millennials.
I like to keep my AR's pretty basic, but I'm not a very fancy guy.
Nobody wants to GI their weapon for an hour looking like they're going to perform a root canal. Nobody. It's the goddamn arms room that causes that ridiculousness, kicking weapons back repeatedly for any hint of carbon anywhere. +1 Yup; and this was going on 50 years ago. Some guys didn't care but, shooting since I was 8, drove me nuts. Like I needed another challenge to mentor my LT in, so that he'd back us up at turn-in time. Fork in the road though; not a weapon issue, but a matter of doctrine.
I had an M16A4 with M68 CompM2 and then M4 with TA31F.
Weight wasn't that bad honestly.
Barrel length wasn't a huge factor, even with the M16A4. The only time it mattered was getting in and out of a HMMWV. The only thing is the M16A4 would have been better with a collapsible stock.
TA31F wasn't too bad. Maybe something like a VCOG would be better.
We used M855. I personally think Mk318 Mod 0 would be better. I think the RIS II would be a good addition.
No reliability issues. One time the receiver extension came unscrewed on my M16A4 but it wasn't while I was firing. I used HK Maritime mags with the M4 and they even worked fine except for blanks
The bump on the A2 grip sucks. I prefer the MIAD and Magpul stocks but the standard M4 stock worked. I just wish there was more real estate on the rail on the M4.
NickySantoro
01-01-19, 12:43
M16A1 early '69 into early '70. Stayed on top of cleaning. Never had a problem.
indianalex01
01-05-19, 13:19
M16A1.
It jammed. A dirty weapon was worse. That meant that in combat you were working against a clock, because every shot was being marked up against you.
What???
M16A1 early '69 into early '70. Stayed on top of cleaning. Never had a problem.
Wait....you actually cleaned it? You mean you didn't just dump in more CLP and keep on trucking? :rolleyes:
Just agreeing that some operator-level maintenance is your virtual guarantee of proper function and your statement reinforces that to me. Oil it up, sure, but clean the damn thing!
indianalex01
01-05-19, 20:28
Wait....you actually cleaned it? You mean you didn't just dump in more CLP and keep on trucking? :rolleyes:
Just agreeing that some operator-level maintenance is your virtual guarantee of proper function and your statement reinforces that to me. Oil it up, sure, but clean the damn thing!
M16A1 is a reliable as any and even dirty. CLP baby..
Renegade04
01-05-19, 21:27
I will have to say that when I joined the Marine Corps back in 1978, all we knew was the M16A1. It lacked nothing because we had nothing else. As Marines, we learn to adapt and overcome and we try to do the best with what we have/had. When I was in the Air Force Reserve many years later, I got to experience the M16A2 for the first time as well as a Model 604 and a GAU-5/A/A. That was the first carbine I ever had my hands on. I loved training with it, especially in the woods. Way easier to maneuver in thick brush than a 20" rifle.
indianalex01
01-05-19, 21:52
I will have to say that when I joined the Marine Corps back in 1978, all we knew was the M16A1. It lacked nothing because we had nothing else. As Marines, we learn to adapt and overcome and we try to do the best with what we have/had. When I was in the Air Force Reserve many years later, I got to experience the M16A2 for the first time as well as a Model 604 and a GAU-5/A/A. That was the first carbine I ever had my hands on. I loved training with it, especially in the woods. Way easier to maneuver in thick brush than a 20" rifle.
With the rounds available during your era, I would’ve taken the A1/A2 based on bullet performance. Semper Fi
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.