Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 59

Thread: M4A1 as Standard Issue

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistol Shooter View Post
    From The Fort Campbell Courier:

    "Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”

    Makes sense to me.
    I hope that is sarcasm?
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    TDY
    Posts
    219
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    No burst trigger and a FF rail are GTG in my book. FA and heavy barrel, I could take it or leave it. None of it will improve qual scores or general marksmanship, that would take actual time and ammo....
    SF

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    3,190
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I have completely mixed feelings on the issue, but I'm leaning towards "Bad Idea."

    If more volume is truly needed, they should be incorporating more SAWs into patrols.

    Look for this to turn into more black-on-ammo KIAs, which will turn into dudes (willfully or not) carrying a completely retarded number of mags with them.

    Funny that it's the STB too... I wonder if they practice their "Death Blossom" in garrison?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pentagon
    Posts
    497
    Feedback Score
    23 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by USMC_Anglico View Post
    No burst trigger and a FF rail are GTG in my book. FA and heavy barrel, I could take it or leave it. None of it will improve qual scores or general marksmanship, that would take actual time and ammo....
    The Marine Corps experience with the M27 and qualification has shown that either we were giving our M27 to all the best shooters in the Battalions or the increase in accuracy potential actually was showing increase in average scores.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    For the record, the US Army Marksmanship Unit formally recommended the Army adopt the standard M16A1 trigger (full auto) or the 2-stage Geiselle Super Select Fire trigger, along with the Daniel Defense Omega free-float rail (no permanent alterations to the base gun required).

    The A1 trigger is still in production, it has fewer moving parts than the A2/A4 trigger, and it has a single break rather than three distinctly different creepy pulls. Full-auto was NOT the defining capability (as all of USSOCOM's weapons have been full-auto since day 1 of M4A1 delivery).

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,951
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    For the record, the US Army Marksmanship Unit formally recommended the Army adopt the standard M16A1 trigger (full auto) or the 2-stage Geiselle Super Select Fire trigger, along with the Daniel Defense Omega free-float rail (no permanent alterations to the base gun required).

    The A1 trigger is still in production, it has fewer moving parts than the A2/A4 trigger, and it has a single break rather than three distinctly different creepy pulls. Full-auto was NOT the defining capability (as all of USSOCOM's weapons have been full-auto since day 1 of M4A1 delivery).
    Is the M16A1 trigger the same as the M4A1 trigger?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    From that perspective the change to an FA group makes sense. It seemed the article focused more on the supposed increase in soldier effectiveness with a fully automatic gun.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Is the M16A1 trigger the same as the M4A1 trigger?
    Yes, it is. The civilian who shoots a standard AR trigger has essentially the same thing without full-auto or all the three-round burst crap (a cam, two disconnectors, etc.).

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,951
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    Yes, it is. The civilian who shoots a standard AR trigger has essentially the same thing without full-auto or all the three-round burst crap (a cam, two disconnectors, etc.).
    How about the SSF? As someone who has used both the standard A1 on auto and the SSF on auto whats the difference, is it really that much better? Or the main benefit of the SSF in the semi-auto pull? Ive got an SSA and the difference between it and the mil-spec trigger is night and day.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    818
    Feedback Score
    31 (100%)
    Some of you guys need to realize exactly who is being quoted in this article. They're not talking to SOF guys, switched on combat arms guys, etc. Of course they're saying face palm worthy stuff.

    M4A1 is a good thing, regardless of who is getting them.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •