Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 59 of 59

Thread: M4A1 as Standard Issue

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    M855 is no longer being used, M855A1 is now the standard round and is I believe a 1.5MOA round.
    They need to get rid of that stupid shit. It's waaaay too high pressure.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Airhasz View Post
    Soldiers can still fire single accurate and effective hits that work. Now they can also fire FA when single shots are not getting the job done. You act like the new M41A is full auto all the time. Nothing lost, everything gained...win/win!
    Oh yeah, that was completely lost on me

    Except for a few particular circumstances, FA is a waste of ammo unless fired from a belt-fed platform. My opinion. Sure, it's cool and all, but it has limited appliction for the most part except for reducing accuracy and throwing bullets to the wind.

    I see the point Sinister made about the FA trigger assembly having a better, more consistent trigger pull. I disagree with the angle of the article that somehow FA capacity will make the soldiers that much more lethal on the battlefield.
    Last edited by Arctic1; 09-13-12 at 08:39.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Decatur, IN
    Posts
    1,854
    Feedback Score
    89 (97%)
    What would be smart, while not the cheapest option, would be Block II M4A1's. Maybe with the FSB cut out RIS II's. Block II M4A1's with Geissele SSA/SSF triggers and Mk262 ammo as standard issue and we would spend alot less than trying to adopt something completely new.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    College Station, Texas
    Posts
    1,539
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    1 bullet snapping past a guys head is infinately more effective than 10 rounds whizzing by 3-4 meters above their heads.
    The point is supposed to be "Bang-smack-dead," not crack-crack/"Neener-neener," whether it's by an inch or a mile.

    A fancy-dancy full-menu carbine is wasted on 95+% of the force, although it might give a bunch of folks in the acquisition field a warm fuzzy like they're doing something for the Soldier. Frankly I think they'd be better off putting someone like Pat Macnamara or Brian Searcy in charge of training the leg Infantry force to use what they have in-hand, today.

    The guns and optics we have are pretty damn good and generally affordable to field to a good number -- unfortunately the individual and his first and second-line supervisors have no idea how to perform to the advertised (in our doctrinal manuals!) hardware capability. The American mentality of short-cutting to get immediate superior results without working for them stands out here.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,760
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Geisselle makes an OEM only two stage that is 90% of the SSA at 50% of the price. We'd do well to put that in weapons issued to non combat arms troops. In particular it's been my experience that weak shooters benefit more from a better trigger than strong shooters.

    Sinister is of course right about training. The Army can't afford to have top notch trainers everywhere but the book might as well be written by good trainers. Then you have to change a culture that cheats on quals.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    245
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    I don't see a problem. This is still a training and NCO issue.

    When I first got in, we had M16A1s and we didn't fire on FA except for very specific situations.

    If we had, NCOs would have put a boot in our ass. I imagine that the same will be true today with the M4A1.

    The trigger IS better, as well. I hated the burst pack trigger pull.

    As to the comments, that's why they should have stayed with the old "Sir/Ma'am, I must respectfully direct you to our PAO for any comments on the new weapons system".
    _____________________________
    We don't come alone; we are fire, we are stone.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Im just waiting for another wanat to happen where they fire more and aim less then blame the weapon systems. Especially now with the M4A1 and its auto mode.The quotes in the article are what made me think of this, the whole we need to practice using these guns on auto......
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 09-13-12 at 13:43.
    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. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    The point is supposed to be "Bang-smack-dead," not crack-crack/"Neener-neener," whether it's by an inch or a mile.
    Sure.

    I wasn't trying to say that misses are good. Hits are better than misses. But in terms of the effects of our fires, aside from wounding or killing, this means making the enemy react and mess up his OODA loop. A close miss is better than shooting way over. Volume does not negate proximity requirements. Again, hits are better than misses, not advocating a different approach but guaranteeing "bang-smack-dead" every time is not realistic.

    And I do not disagree on the training issues at all. Both field craft and marksmanship/combat shooting needs to be stressed a lot more, and any insufficiencies in these areas are more limiting than hardware.
    Last edited by Arctic1; 09-13-12 at 15:58.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Central NC
    Posts
    2
    Feedback Score
    0
    "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.”

    "more capable of firing at us... "

    I can just see these solidiers going amber on ammo 5 minutes into a fight... 5-10 minute fight, great, but...


    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    Both field craft and marksmanship/combat shooting needs to be stressed a lot more, and any insufficiencies in these areas are more limiting than hardware.
    this
    Last edited by Thorvaldsson; 09-13-12 at 17:30.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

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
  •