Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 59

Thread: M4A1 as Standard Issue

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    10,039
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Grand58742 View Post
    If this has been asked before, forgive as it's a fairly vague set of keywords in a search...

    Has anyone every designed or thought of adding both burst and full auto to the M16 FOW? Kind of like the FN FNC has.

    I mean besides the lowers having to be remarked, is that even possible with the way an AR action works?
    Yes, I've seen and worked on them.
    Stick


    Board policy mandates I state that I shoot for BCM. I have also done work for 200 or so manufacturers within the firearm community. I am prior service, a full time LEO, firearm instructor, armorer, TL, martial arts instructor, and all around good guy.

    I also shoot and write for various publications. Let me know if you know cool secrets or have toys worthy of an article...


    Flickr Tumblr Facebook Instagram RECOILMAGAZINE OFF GRID RECOIL WEB

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scoutfsu99 View Post
    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.
    That is true, but shouldn't they be taught to avoid using auto during training?
    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?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    818
    Feedback Score
    31 (100%)
    What training is that? The couple ranges they run per year? I don't know what they're official POI is but the one adhoc POI that I witnessed wasn't to par. I had to go down the line on a MICO range and fix, tighten screws, rotate 68's properly, turn a 68 around, etc.

    I'm not trying to bash the STB's and soft skills but it's hard enough getting a line guy to care about his weapon/actually learn how to utilize it.

    I wish everyone in the Army wanted to learn their weapon system and get good training on it. That's not the case.


    But that is all besides the point. The M4A1 is a step in the right direction.....even though I think the outcome will be typical.

    I think this post was correct -
    Burst and auto are only there for certain situations. If that need arises I'd rather have full auto.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    4,922
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Unrestricted FA strikes me as useful in something like establishing fire superiority in a near ambush and a few other limited circumstances. 99% of the time, it would only travel from safe to semi.

    That said, it is stupid-easy to train someone to fire 3 round bursts on an M-16 FOW. That is an easy software fix to replace that atrocious 3 round burst hardware kludge.
    My brother saw Deliverance and bought a Bow. I saw Deliverance and bought an AR-15.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    159
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by karmapolice View Post
    unless its belt fed and on a mount or tripod, full auto is a complete and udder waste. The army needs to retool it s firearms training completely but it will probably never happen.
    There is a time and place where full auto fire is useful in combat, e.g. Area suppressive fire when crew served weapons are unavailable, broke or otherwise engaged.
    " If i cannot be a good example Lord, let me be a terrible warning"

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    The Army didn't have to do a whole new R&D cycle to adopt the M4A1 to replace the M4 -- both are Standard-A (the heavy SOCOM barrel having been adopted in the 90s). All MILSPEC, all in the drawings, Mother Army just had to exercise the contract option.

    SOCOM has already done the drawings and safety release for the Geiselle SSA, but it would add somewheres around $175 (retail) per gun.

    If the Army were to standardize the 77 SMK, by law they have to buy all of US Army Special Operations Command's requirements -- something Leg Army hates to do.

    Automatic rifle qualification with the M16A1 and clothespin bipod was an Army Infantry Advanced Individual Training graduation requirement in the 70s/early 80s before adoption of the M249 SAW. Not rocket science -- they used the same qual range as Basic Rifle Qualification, with the selector on auto.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    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).
    I have wondered why it has taken the Army this long to look into FF rails when things like the DD rail is right there waiting to be used, or even the VLTOR rail that allows use of the M203.
    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?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,760
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    A LaRue rail isn't more expensive than a RAS. Same is true of the Omega. And a new trigger would do wonders for most soldiers. Ironically good triggers matter the most for the weakest shooters.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Heavier barrel should have longer service life, help keep operating pressures down, allow sustained fire, and have less POI drift when suppressed.

    AUTO trigger will have a consistent trigger pull.

    Have a standard issue FF rail, and it sounds like a worthwhile upgrade. (I'd think KAC 7'' RAS, seeing as how they're probably not gonna make low pro gas blocks standard yet, if ever.)

    Hell, slap an LMT Enhanced carrier, and VLTOR A5 and you have pretty much the perfect standard issue carbine. IMHO.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    N. AL.
    Posts
    405
    Feedback Score
    0
    About time to kill the 3 rdn. burst crap.. should have never came about.. But the DoD/ MIL cut backs on training IE: shoot, move, communicate, estimate range, ect. was the problem in the first damn place. to much touchy freely crap training. The A1s had consistent trigger pull every shot. better front sight (thinner) so it don't cover as much of the Target(s) at longer ranges. STB unit w M4A1s ???? screen door on submarine for the most part. I carried A1s for first 6 years or so but was trained to use FA for special occasions. ambush, assaulting so on.
    NRA Life Member.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •