For your reading enjoyment Gentlemen:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/05/p...ent-1372450015
Printable View
For your reading enjoyment Gentlemen:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/05/p...ent-1372450015
We're supposed to take this joker seriously?
He will respond to you if you comment. He is monitoring the comments section.
Did that once and started receiving spam in my email. It's also deliberately controversial meant to generate traffic and I just don't have the energy for it
Deserve a better rifle yet no better rifle exists... This guy is a moron.
We can do a product improvement (Block-II Type Upper, A5 Receiver Extension and Stock) when replacing components on already worn rifles - keep the lowers that are in spec, etc. - at pretty low cost since replacement parts would be needed anyway, and make actual improvements there.
In honest terms, the biggest combat advantage we have is that we have the luxury of equipping everybody who will DFL armed with an optic (better than snipers had until post-Korean war times), NVG's and IR Laser/Illuminator (better than anybody had until post-Vietnam war), so the force multipliers are everything but the rifle. That said, there are numerous product improvements that can be made (use the installation of the new M4A1 Colt barrels on M4's as an excuse to drop on DD RIS-2 FSP handguards; Use armory level teardowns to install A5 kits on M16A4's (or even M4's) for improvement in length of pull adjustment.
The cost for rifle changes are still comparatively small, but unless we're able to stop buying redundant hardware, or junk which makes marginal sense, I'd rather not spend money even on those improvements when there are such bigger fish to fry.
I wonder which competing company this guy works for?
When he lead off with the LBJ/McNamara stuff, I stopped reading.
The M4 is the rifle the Army deserves, but not the one it needs.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
There's some logic there, but in the actual practice of asymmetric warfare the quality of the rifle pales compared to what air supremacy and good C2ISR capability can bring, so if in the mid-90's this was written it would make more sense, but as bad as the FutureWarrior project was in concept, the DARPA shove towards making the spinoffs relevant has produced a lot of quality kit.
It's the wrong analysis, but the fact that we're not making smart product improvements and using the onus of some required changes to do things smarter (e.g. use the green ammo push to make Solid Copper 'Brown Tip' (or Mk318/Mk319) service-wide) is symptomatic of the uselessness of upper echelons of leadership, and how disconnected the majority of the generalship is.
He keeps pinin' for a return to the 20 inch rifles in the comments when even the Marines are starting to question that decision.
I was much more interested in the article about the 57 porn stars without make-up.
A simple bump up in caliber would be a 100 % improvement, ie to 6mm you can keep all the ergonomics of the current M4 with better ballistics of the heavier bullets. This would be at a slight gain in ammo weight. A 80 gr bullet at 2900 fps trumps anything a 5.56mm can through. A 90 gr bullet at 2700 makes the 5.56mm look wimpy at best.
We need a free floating rail, a variable power optic, and BNVDs. That's really about all we "need".
And a shitload of better training. Make one E6 per Company the Small Arms Master Gunner and have that individual receive professional training. Units like the 75th and SFG could send MTTs to all major posts with a "train the trainer" approach. The trained E6s/senior E5s return to their Company and then train all of the other NCOs, who in turn train their respective Soldiers.
There's nothing wrong with what we have. It doesn't matter if they gave us portable nukes, if we can't hit the intended target, what's the point?
Isn't this what Asymmetric Warfare Group does, or at least part of it? Just expand that unit instead of pulling from operational SOF. It would be a huge improvement either way though. An extended free float rail would be the biggest material upgrade. A better lubricant and the knowledge to go along with it, as well as the knowledge about magazines almost always being the issue...
He's talking about two different things. The ballistic effectiveness and reliability. Clearly he knows little of either, just what he's read in Army Times or may have seen personally, but not truly understood. Big surprise there. Being an Infantry LTC alone doesn't mean you know jack shit about any of this. And his writing style bugs the hell out of me.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's such a poorly written article, I'm surprised he made it to LTC. Or perhaps that's why he stopped at LTC.
I'm not referring to the content, but the article itself.
The content... I couldn't even figure out what point he was trying to make. But I go back to my point that most casualties are caused by high explosives, not small arms.
I care more about getting a better ruck and armor solution and some new uniforms than I care about getting new rifles. Our m4's are beat up and may not be on the cutting edge but they work. Our rucks, iotv's and kdh plate carriers, and UCP uniforms are the big stinking turds in the room when it comes to an infantryman equipment. Hell I'd rather see them bring all line infantry companies up to date with some pvs-15 nods before we buy new rifles.
AS A MARINE I DISAGREE GunBugBit, Just kidding. Marines are more indoctrinated and proud of it, to a point, but we can also take jokes, you just have to dumb them down. However the article is an opinion not a study. Does adding a Piston make a AR better? no. Does changing the whole platform work? not really. The AR platform is one of the most versatile platforms around, and because of that you will see it on the battlefield in some form or another on any foreseeable battlefield of the future. The reports from Afghanistan have already been questioned. The Army/DOD can do certain things to help the longevity of the platform but won't because it costs too much money, I can think of slipping Hoppe's 9 cleaner into the Armory to clean my weapon when all that they would allow was CLP, and Slip2000 and others found its way on to the range I coached Marines at quite a bit. These are little things but have proven themselves over time.
It seems to me that folks further up the chain have very different view points, which as others have noted seem to be based on politics rather than straight logic and grunt-level input.
One would think that at this point in our Military's history, that this could have been ironed out.
Plus, although the article slams the M16/M4, I did not notice any suggestions as to what would be better. I have read many veterans and active duty folks say that their rifles/carbines are actually really good, but it also seems that opinions vary based on what they are asked to do with their given equipment.
Street fighting in Iraq, as I have read, showed that M4s/M16s were fine. But the longer-range engagements in Afghanistan seemed to point to a need for longer range and better optics.
I was just in Afghanistan (2013) and the last issue I had was due to my m4.
More/better lube for the 50's.
Iotvs suck. Most of us pulled all the soft armor out and used them like a plate carrier. Would have been great to just issue a good plate carrier.
Better boots.
Max pro 2 with their Isis suspension would have been a HUGE upgrade compared to the regular max pro with a solid axle rear.
Any improvements for the individual carbine can be relatively cheap and hugely increase the potential of the m4. Firstly get something other than m855. The afghans where 110 pounds of unarmored human. Something to kill that better would have been great. As far as reliability: Mike pannone wrote an article where he observed 80% of stoppages are mag or worn out springs related. The other 20% of stoppages where solved by a heavier buffer, blue spring co spring, and extractor upgrades.
So mk318 ammo, pmags, and $100 in parts per rifle would probably get that 90%+ improvement.
Next part is up, if anyone cares:
http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/05/12/p...quate-weapons/
What a clown bag of an officer.
The only thing he mentioned that might be a real improvement is caseless ammunition. IF it can be as reliable, then reduced weight along with no more FTE stoppages could be considered an improvement in small arms design. You could even go so far as to say that a new lack of ejection port would reduce outside contamination.
He still never stated that m855 is an old design that doesn't meet modern ballistic requirements. Simply changing to mk318 or hell even gold dots (pending Geneva approval) would be a big upgrade in knock down power and wouldn't require an entirely new weapon system. One of the major reasons the DOD doesn't switch calibers is because then we would have to get NATO to make the switch. That would be a 10 year war in and of itself.
The whole Geneva thing with SP/HP ammo is stupid. Unless I am misunderstanding something, ammo designed to cause unnecessary harm is outlawed. First, it's a bullet - it's point is to kill. Second, SP/HP is designed to kill better. And that guy is an idiot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was the Hague conventions, not the Geneva conventions.
It went into effect more than 100 years ago and the US is not a signatory to the provision against the use of expanding bullets.
We do not have to go anywhere to get a bullet approved for warfare. It's done internally. I think it's the IG office that determines if a bullet is lawful for the US military to use
Ok thanks for the corrections. Unfortunately, if anything, that's even more ridiculous.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jim Sullivan was on the original design team (along with Gene Stoner and Bob Fremont) for the M16 rifle. In interviews he said that it was a "disgrace" that American soldiers are still using the M16/M4 system, since the original design was first used in Vietnam around 50 years ago. He seems much more impressed with the AK-74.
The Vietnam-era M16 and a current M16A4 (or M4) are pretty similar with regards to the internals.