Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Why the U.S. Army’s Best Carbine Won’t Be in Soldiers’ Hands Soon
armytimes.com — The H&K 416 is as accurate as the M16 and reliable as the AK-47, but Army bureaucrats won't even consider it. Even Colt thinks they can do better, but the last time they tried to sell the Army on a change to the M16's extractor spring it took 20 years.
johndi- 1401 diggs
- digg it
- scullyshouse, on 10/12/2007, -110/+19why do the us and UK army's mess around, the AK-47 is the best assault rifle and the most reliable far better than M16 or SA-80 they should just use it, all their enemy's do.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -64/+27Because they don't want to admit that someone else got a better design?
Kinda retarded but that's the brass for you. The M16 and M4s are fine in "perfect" conditions, however battle conditions are anything but perfect. Why they haven't or won't give the people fighting on the ground reliable weapons is beyond me.
I'd like to give those fraking bureaucrats a fraking M4 in Iraq and ask them to battle it out and see how they like it. - GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -47/+89The AK47 has huge recoil and lower stopping power than the M16. It's only redeeming factor is that it's reliable...it can get twenty years use even with the constant dust storms of Iraq / Kuwait or muddy jungles of Vietnam. That, and that it is cheaper to make. The M16 is a much more powerful, accurate, tactical weapon (large range of attachments) than the AK47.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -19/+56Which is precisely my point.
You can have the "best" weapon possible with the best stopping power, best accuracy and what not but if its prone to jamming, its worthless. What's good a weapon if all takes is a bit of carbon built up and it'll jam never mind dust and sand. I know because I have fired that damned weapon (M16) enough to know just how easily sand and crap can foul it up, mostly via the magazines and the rounds as it gets loaded into the firing chamber.
Soldiers on the field have long been complaining about chamber jams and weapon failures have been one of the biggest problems in "non effectual combat response" but ironically enough, no one is willing to do anything about it. - Arkavus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+140@scullyshouse
Actually the AK-47 has higher stopping power than the M-16 but is not as accurate and also is not as fast a bullet, which can be surprisingly helpful. The AK-47 also has higher recoil, which only hurts the accuracy even more.
@GawtMilk
You're actually wrong about the AK-47 having less stopping power. It fires a larger round and if you've ever seen the two different weapons fire into some concrete blocks you'd know it has more stopping power. You're probably getting the idea of the M-16 having more stopping power due to the fact that the 5.56 round it fires tumbles end over end once it enters the target.
@archonsg
I don't know when you fired the M-16 but it's definitely not as bad as you're making it out to be. It has undergone a lot of changes since it was first introduced into the army and developed that stigma of being unreliable, because of course it was at the time. It is actually, very reliable now though. You still can't throw it in sand and pull it out and still fire obviously.
What we should do, is buy the HK 416. You can literally cover that gun in sand, pull it out, and continue firing with no problems at all. In fact it's been done, just watch Futureweapons. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -67/+3"The AK47 has huge recoil and lower stopping power than the M16. It's only redeeming factor is that it's reliable...it can get twenty years use even with the constant dust storms of Iraq / Kuwait or muddy jungles of Vietnam. That, and that it is cheaper to make. The M16 is a much more powerful, accurate, tactical weapon (large range of attachments) than the AK47."
When you point either an AK47 or an M16 at a person and pull the trigger, it will result in a death. Dead is dead, regardless of "stopping power." - p2502, on 10/12/2007, -21/+15Can't was just Bring back the M-14 and call it even?
- repins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45@Arkavus stopping power means nothing in a military arm, in a general sense you do not want to kill the enemy only wound him. This is because a dead soldier removes one soldier from the field, where a wounded soldier removes 2 and possibly more who have to care for the wounded and also saps the resources of the enemy because he has to care for the wounded.
The M-16 round is designed to fragment on impact and thus cause a much more devastating wound and impart all of the bullets energy into the target because it will not exit. The AK47 round will exit the body and thus all the energy after the exit is wasted. It looks impressive when fired at concrete blocks, but the picture is much different when fired into "ballistic gel". - kansascowboy, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9also the ak47 is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. wouldn't it look sorta bad if the most powerful nation in the world (along with spending 51% of the military spending in the world) was using a 60 year old gun that was invented by our old enemy: the soviets?
- dmonkey1001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27The M-16 has far less stopping power, as it only uses a 5.56mm round vs the 7.62mm AK round. A smaller round was used on purpose to allow for greater accuracy, low recoil, low weight, and higher capacity weapons. What we are seeing now is that the battle field is changing, and small arms are increasingly being reserved for urban combat scenarios. Such scenarios often lend to close quarters fighting where short stock weapons with high stopping power are ideal.
Also, the M16 is reliable when kept clean. The AK has a much looser bolt configuration, which makes if less likely to jam when small debris find their way into the weapon. - somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@brstilson its not that simple, especially when you factor armour and cover - which is always present in some way or another. If you're hiding behind a brick wall and the enemy has a gun that can put bullets through brick walls, you can see where this is going.
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18@Arkavus
The fact that it 'tumbles end over end' is what gives it it's stopping power. People aren't concrete blocks. A bullet that goes cleanly through someones leg won't be as damaging as a bullet that tears up someones leg. That, and the fact that it's got lower recoil and a higher capacity clip add up to a more damaging weapon. - daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6militarism overdose.
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -21/+58***** a' we got some gun nuts here. I know in CS:S the AK sucks... that count for anything?
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15"Experts say it would cost approximately $1 billion to replace the Army’s M16s and M4s with an “off-the-shelf” weapon like the 416."
***** suckers can pony up almost a billion for subsidized digital OTA tuners but not for this? Errrr.... Foxbat angry. - daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -38/+10yawn. does the u.s. make anything other than movies and weapons?
- ilyag, on 10/12/2007, -5/+69How many of you are basing your arguments on your experience with playing Counter Strike? I'm honestly curious about that, because something tells me that quite a few of you are doing just that.
If you're gonna make these arguments, at least have the common courtesy to append your comment by saying how the hell you would even know what the hell you're talking about. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22It's appallingly apparent that most of you are only aware of the M-16 "Urban legends", and have never actually fired one. The M-16 is a VERY reliable weapon. It is also is amazingly accurate, especially if one of the red-dot scopes are attached.
That story about the ranger not being able to fight is *****. If his weapon failed to that degree he either: had some HORRIBLE luck, or more likely, he didn't keep his weapon properly cleaned. The mechanical parts of the weapon operate like clockwork, you don't clean out the carbon deposits and it will fail. Worst case scenario, there was a dropped weapon on the ground he should have been able to use.
The thing that's funny is the military doesn't make these decisions lightly. It would costs billions to update all the weapons in the arsenal, it would cost just as much to properly dispose of the current arsenal. What would the army gain with this? Not a lot. It would be like the average American spending an extra $5000 on a new car because it would save them 1 MPG.
What people should also keep in mind is that the Army/Air Force/Navy/Marine Times are usually very sensationalized. Take what they say with a grain of salt. - DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8"Reliability", i.e. it won't jam up, isn't everything. The M-16 series stays accurate at greater distances than the AK. Plus, the AK is cumbersome and heavy, firing a larger round. The US has a 7.62 equivalent in the M-14, but only the Marines use them from time to time.
Besides, the Army's doctrine basically holds that bullets don't win wars; fragments do. In other words, lure an enemy in (or trap them), then call for air support or artillery against them. Rifles don't kill people; missles and shells kill people, at least in Army doctrine. - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@linkedlist - The AK-74 fires a round similar to the 5.56 NATO (.223 Remington) that the M16 fires. It is the 5.45x39mm. You can see it is actually smaller than the M16 round, whose full designation is 5.56x45mm.
- cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7@Arkavus - Using Futureweapons for anything other than "Ohh, shiny!" is retarded. I can't count how many mistakes I've seen on that show. The guy that hosts it claims to have served 10 years with the Navy Seals. He must have been a secretary because he definitely doesn't know schitt about weapons, firearms in particular.
Also, the functioning problems with the M16 have been solved for some time. Spending money on a retrofit upgrade doesn't make sense. If you're going to spend money, build a new weapon with everything you've learned, also not needed. - zclip, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2@cawpin
The AK47 actually uses 7.62x39mm rounds, not 5.56. It has much higher stopping power than the M16 given the size and speed of the round. M16 rounds are small caliber/high velocity rounds and I have heard from friends in Iraq that people sometime don't even notice right away that they've been shot. The AK rounds are the same size as the rounds used in the M60. You definitely know when you've been hit by that.
As far as accuracy they're supposed to be about the same up to like 300 yards (after which you very unlikely to hit a target with either weapon). - bflfab, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22@zclip
That is why he said AK-74. They are two different guns, the AK-47 and the AK-74:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74 - BushidoReverend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So I didnt see link for the HK 416 and being as I'm a good Digger, I dug around.
The H&K 416 (The gun that never jams)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ObWpWXrt9I - TemplarCrosland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21@zclip
You sir did not read the above comment well, and are grossly uniformed.
The post above stated the AK-74 which does fire a 5.56x39. It is similar to the M4 round. The weapon you spoke of was the AK-47 which fires a 7.62x39. Even when speaking of this weapon though it still does not fire a round like the old M60 or newer M240 which fires a 7.62x51.
Learn from something other than counterstrike.
Also I serve now in the Army and am stationed in Camp Phoenix Afghanistan, as a Cavalry Scout, though I am merely the SECFOR here. Therefore my knowledge is a little validated. Also I love my M4, with an attached CCO (red dot scope) its accurate as *****. The M4 does not need replacing in this Cavalry-man's opinion. - darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Digg drmangrum up, he is dead on about the Army/Air Force/Navy Times have sensationalized stories and pretty much all of what they say need to be taken with a grain of salt. As noted the M16A2 is an accurate short to medium range weapon with good stopping power; as noted by previous posters, how the round enters the body does factor into the stopping power of a weapon.
However, the weapon is getting up there in years so it is possible that it will be replaced with in the next decade or so, but before that happens it would have to field tested, field tested, and field tested some more. Even once approved it would happen over night - the M16 is ingrained to the the US military and not would would the arsenal have to be updated (costing billions of dollars), but training would have to be tailored to the new weapon. Even if the Department of Defense committed to a new weapon it could be upwards of a decade before it starts seeing regular usage, and likely up to two decades before it is the primary weapon across the board.
As for the Ranger said that a round was jammed in the firing chamber, that is not necessarily due to the weapon and could have been due to the round, how the round was loaded, how the previous round ejected, and there is the possibility that since they were under fire that the weapon could have been hit and damaged. - theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"The AK47 has huge recoil and lower stopping power than the M16."
This OBVIOUSLY from someone who has never fired either. The 7.62x39mm round when fired from a Kalashnikov, does have higher recoil than the .223 from the AR, it is in NO WAY "huge." It is extremely controllable for fast follow-up shots. And the 7.62 round does in fact outperform the .223. The 7.62 is, ballistics wise, a near-twin to the .30-30, the quintessential deer round. Most states ban the .223 for harvesting deer because it is just too under-powered to reliably take one down with one shot.
The best of both worlds is the 6.8mm Remington SPC. Chamber the 416 for *that* round, and you have the near-perfect combat rifle. - chiapet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0 ak47 vs m16
- imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The simple reason that the army isn't considering the 416, SCAR or the other designs is because the M4 carbine contract will not end until 2008. Until then they are deciding to either upgrade the AR-15 design(M-16) or go with an entire new generation of weapons with a new round(6.8mm SPC or the Grendel round) to replace the rather disappointing 5.56mm round in Afghanistan.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2 by GawtMilk 1 hour ago
"The fact that it 'tumbles end over end' is what gives it it's stopping power. People aren't concrete blocks. A bullet that goes cleanly through someones leg won't be as damaging as a bullet that tears up someones leg. That, and the fact that it's got lower recoil and a higher capacity clip add up to a more damaging weapon."
-------------------------
1: The AK-47 has a higher muzzle energy than the M-16
2: "Stopping Power" has plenty to do with the design of the projectile, which is variable
3: A bullet that passes through your leg takes you out of the battle for a long time
4: An AK-47 being fired at you in anger puts the fear of god in you in a remarkable way
5: The AK-47 is clearly the most successful weapon of its type ever created
That is due to it meeting all of its design goals well. These include, inexpensive to manufacture, easy to use and maintain in the field, rugged and reliable, effective in a wide range of engagement types as well as having very effective stopping power.
That being said, the M-16 is a great weapon, and its ability to deliver accurate rounds downrange is impressive. I don't think anyone could argue though that the M-16 meets or exceeds all of the above design goals compared to the AK, regardless of wether or not it has higher "stopping power". - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@BushidoReverend
The SA80 that was fixed by HK is not even used by the British Special Forces. You know why? Because it keep jamming. This is the same marketing that they did with the SA80 and are now doing it to the M16. Show stupid people videos about the firearms being "fixed", then sell it to the troops and let them die.
Do you know what the British Special Forces use? M4 and M16. - EComni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I hate to be anal, but wasn't the entire article about the reliability M4 CARBINE and the up-n-coming HK416 CARBINE hopeful replacement candidate, not the M16 AR? The article itself said that the M4, in at least one test, failed 3 times more than the M16. It seems like all this AK vs M16 (and M16 discussion itself) is a tangent to the original point of the discussion of what carbine is the best for our boys.
I have never fired a gun before in my life and I'm pretty liberal, but I'm a gun-nut at heart (and no, I don't play CS or Tom Clancy games). Do any of you ex- (and current) military types have any experience with M4 and its reliability? - schuder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Write your congressmen and senators. Time to put the new majority to work.
- chi1thook, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3HK 416 is crap.
- StudsTurkel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Quit saying the M16/AR-15 is prone to jamming, it just isn't true anymore. Go to http://www.gunsmokeenterprises.net/vids.htm and watch the torture test of a Full auto M16. 2000 rounds (sometimes 150 with one trigger pull) and being thrown into Florida gravel pit puddles. That is abuse. Here is the direct http://www.gunsmokeenterprises.net/videos/GSEbroadbandVideo.wmv
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2@chi1thook
All of HK product are overpriced and overrated. The majority of the worlds militaries and police forces other then in Germany don't use HK products.
They lost to GLOCK and Sig, they lost to Stoner and Kalashnikov. They lost everywhere except in TV, Movies, and Video Games. - bobbknight, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1FN-FAL: Stopping power it's got it, Accuracy it's got it, and it's very reliable.
ANY QUESTIONS???????? - whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The problem here is that the Army has relied upon the Armalite AR-15/Colt M-16 platform for a long, long time. While the M-16 is a versatile weapon, it has had a long history of problems which few that actually deal with the grime and environmental conditions of combat would refute (many of my fellow gun enthusiasts refuse to admit the inadequacies of the AR-15 because they only shoot them on the range or in environments favorable to how the AR-15 was designed). Nonetheless, our military has huge stockpiles of weapons, spare parts, magazines and ammunition for the M-16, and our riflemen are trained around it. It is costly and logistically difficult to just swap out a rifle for another. Therefore, I can understand the Army looking into a rifle that can address many of the shortcomings of the M-16 without creating an unmanageable burden of deploying it and stocking parts for it.
HK makes some fine weapons, and the gas/piston operation used by the G36/XM8/416 is a drastic improvement over the M-16's direct impingement. Perhaps they can provide a bridge between the old M-16 and a much improved future weapon.
However, I think this weapon is just pissing up a flagpole, and THAT is why it isn't in soldier's hands. Considering all the logistical, training and supply problems, HK's offering would still be a large investment for the military to make, all the while not addressing more serious concerns over the M-16 platform.
M-16s are dirty, dirty guns (mostly due to the direct impingement operation, but also because sand and dirt permeate the damned things so easily) and modern combat situations are putting a real stretch on 5.56mm. Sure, they're cheap, light weight, high-velocity and pretty accurate. But they are designed to inflict damage on soft targets (human tissue) by tumbling and violently fragmenting. This is great when shooting Charlies wearing black pajamas, but with today's proliferation of body armor and hard cover (urban combat), it isn't. Also, while improvements have been made, they don't perform well on short-barreled rifles (as many rounds don't, but 5.56 is notorious) i.e. carbines.
I'm not saying 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 are leaps and bounds better. In some cases they can weigh almost twice as much, and are much more difficult to control in full-auto. There have been lots of different rounds in development that fill in the area between the two extremes of 5.56 and 7.62, but god knows when we'll see any of these solutions take foot.
In the meantime, we need weapon platforms that at the base are light, simple, easy to use, easy to clean, and easy to modify based on a situation (in other words, flexibility) and can take advantage of 5.56 and 7.62. I think if we're gonna commit in any significant number to a new gun, let's go all-out. I think solutions like FN's SCAR and Robinson XCM are a move in the right direction (particularly the SCAR). Of course, two big problems right off the bat there are cost and supply. - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@bobbknight
Stopping Power has nothing to do with a firearm. It has to do with the caliber. Now you know. - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@whisperedlie
Do you know why over 90% of all militaries and police forces used AR and AK series type rifle? Because no one has built a better rifle then those two that worth the money, time, and effort to train. The grass is always green on the other side until someone gets killed.
Special Force tested SCAR and it came out a failure. US military tested it and it is a failure.
Here the absolute truth about small arms. The technology of small arms isn't moving as fast as everyone would like. In fact it is in a snail pace. Same basic mechanical function but with a different stock. - TexMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ahh I beat you by 9 days but people dont like me...........;(
http://digg.com/world_news/Army_Times_Why_the_US_Army_Denied_US_Soldiers_The_Ultimate_Assault_Rifle
.
On a side note this weapon is now beaning used by the capitial police, dea and fbi swat here are pics of them in action..
http://www.hkpro.com/hk416.htm
.
This is one beautiful weapon....................... - KataLieb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Ahh, the techno-fetishists...New guns for murderers fighting illegal wars! FTW!
- EComni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jdun
"Special Force tested SCAR and it came out a failure. US military tested it and it is a failure."
But wasn't it a little over 2 years long ago that the SCAR won a US SOCOM contract? - deuceswilde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I started to respond to comments made in this post before realizing it would take all day. Honestly everyone here seems to be completely biased towards one or has no idea what they're actually talking about or both.
American armed forces have always put a serious premium on accuracy which is part of the reason the long range of the M16 is preferable, this can also lead to excess carbon buildup and jamming from the type of powder used. It's not a perfect weapon, none of them are, it has reliability issues and despite being updated and adapted the design is over 40 years old so it's just not up to par with modern weapons. The street to street fighting in Iraq would benefit from a round with less recoil and more short range stopping power similar to the 7.62x39 used in the AK or even a large SMG type round. Afghanistan on the other hand requires longer ranges and better accuracy so a 7.62 Nato (7.62x51) would probably outperform the .223 in the M16 right now. The point is that you can't resupply everyone in the army because the situation has changed, I believe there needs to be a better round and a more adaptable gun possibly incorporating the ability to chamber different rounds altogether or even the same caliber with different powder charges. But soldiers dislike having to adapt to an entirely new weapon and just because it's "better" doesn't mean it's superior unless other steps are taken to making sure it's the best solution for all our soldiers. - hybridcreation, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"yawn. does the u.s. make anything other than movies and weapons?"
It's funny you say that because the article is about H&K's, which are considered by some to some of the finest weapons in the world...and they're GERMAN, you idiot.
I swear some people don't care how stupid they make themselves look, as long as they get off a good anti-US blast.
And I'll bet that computer you're on has a really good American processor in it. - Halodude1489, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Damn I felt like I just watch super weapons reading all your comments (without the bull ***** host WHISPERING how awesome, life saving, inexpensive, durable, light the weapon is). Future weapons is a joke, the host ruins it even more. I saw him fire the sniper rifle (standard bolt action) and knew he was a complete fake its very obvious. Also futureweapons does change a lot like when he shot a helmet with the mp7. He put 10 rounds in the same spot and was like "ZOMG LOOK AT THE PENETRATION!" of course it went through the helmet, NOTHING can take 10 rounds in the same spot and not have penetration other then a tank.
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ilyag
Yeah because in Counter-Strike the M16 jams up and doesn't work when you cover it in sand 8-)
Maybe you should actually read the comments before giving your take. - Vladamir, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sorry guys but a 6.8 M4 is the way to go. Longer range, immense stopping power, and not a lot of substantial kick. Not as sturdy or reliable as a Kalashnikov, but you can't have everything.
- macmcrae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bwahahah pentagon propaganda has finally made it to the front page of digg.
I can die now. I think there should be a Geneva Convention part2 that restricts the armies
of the world to settling their imperialistic quarrels with a few rounds of bf2 and nerf guns.
We all know Bush and Cheney would be inside of the hotel blasting squads as they attack the first flag at Karkand. - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@EComni
It didn't win anything. SOCOM asked FN to submit a new rifle for testing. That probably what you read. Anyway if you want one you can get it around 2008 at a local gunshop.
Every ***** new rifles that try to replace the AR and AK failed. That's not my opinion, that just fact. - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Holy ***** ***** it just hit me. The HK416 is a repackaged Daewoo K2.
- whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jdun
with the exception of your incorrect statement about the SCAR, i think i just freaking said all of that (minus the hint of M-16 fanboy-ism). I think the AR-15 is a fine weapon, but it certainly isn't the best. some day it will be replaced. big whoop.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -64/+27Because they don't want to admit that someone else got a better design?
- geoncoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23 Being a former soldier I can attest to the excess carbon buildup and the possibility of jamming on the M16. One of the first things you have to learn with the M16 is SPORTS (Slap the magazine, pull the charging handle to the rear, observe the chamber, release the charging handle, tap the forward assist, squeeze the trigger). If a round is stuck, then try like hell to eject the round from the chamber. If this doesn't work then your in a ***** load of trouble. This solution seems like a simple fix and I wouldn't be surprised to see Colt releasing a future modification to the M4 and M16 with these features.
- Platypus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I wouldn't be surprised to see Colt releasing a future modification to the M4 and M16 with these features."
That's pretty much what HK just did, so if Colt copied the idea they'd be admitting that someone else fixed their broken design. At that point, what reason other than cronyism/protectionism would there be to buy the Colt instead of the HK? - jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Platypus
Well let's see, why would they stick with colt .. hmmm ... manufacturing facilities in place, contractual agreements, comfort levels, support issues, delivery systems.
Is that enough or should I keep going?
Also - for anyone earlier who says the M16 fires a more powerful round than an AK47, well, you're retarded. The AK47 is a vastly more powerful rifle. We're talking about 55 grain 5.56 from an M16 versus like 150 grain 7.62 out of an AK47. No, the 5.56 also isn't a faster round, no it doesn't have a fraction of the muzzle energy, no, it doesn't have more energy at any distance. In fact, at ANY DISTANCE, a 7.62 will have over 25% more energy (usually measured in ft/lbs) than a 5.56 round.
Oh also it's not a carbine it's a rifle.
- Platypus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I wouldn't be surprised to see Colt releasing a future modification to the M4 and M16 with these features."
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2i rather have a bigass Browning B.A.R. than an M16
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yet again, from someone who has obviously has never handled either.
While undeniably powerful (.30-06 Springfield), you do realize the BAR weighs 20 lbs EMPTY, don't you? And do you also know that the M240 *IS* essentially a BAR with it's action inverted to facilitate belt feeding? Carry that 25 lb. ***** and all the ammo it eats by hand in the field by yourself. - Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3 by theblooms 4 minutes ago
"Yet again, from someone who has obviously has never handled either."
-----------------------------
Yet again, from someone who has missed the (attempted) humor by a mile.
The BAR is featured in some WW2 games, where the weight doesn't really matter that much....
- theblooms, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yet again, from someone who has obviously has never handled either.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9Sand is usually vectored in from the ammo itself.
The ammo clips / magazines carried by soldiers are usually kept in ammo pouches that have no way to keep contaminants like desert sand / dust that's kicked up from a fast moving APC for example. While its not *always* the case, more often then not, dust and sand will work its way into the magazines and or between the rounds especially if the soldiers and said ammo magazines have been exposed to dusty / sandy conditions for any period of time.
My experience with the M16 is that that's usually the cause of feeding failure more then anything else. And yes, I know it was worse at one point of time before they had the anti-jamming plunger installed.
But as many others would point out, the need to even have an "anti-jamming" device at all spoke of an inherent and fundamental flaw with the design in the first place. Just that the M16 had more pros then cons compared to other rifles that came before it. Accuracy being the most telling feature. Its one of the few rifles I have used that can pump multiple rounds in quick succession and still hit all its targets that are more then 700 yards away.
Doesn't mean that I like the fact that it does jam more often it should.- ryodoan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18700 yards, eh?
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ryodoan - In the hands of a properly trained marksman (i.e. sniper) it can be done with an M16, but extremely unlike as the reported maximum range is only ~600 yards. As a reference, the USAF has you fire at targets a maximum of ~325 yards away.
- ArchonSG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My mistake, I was thinking of feet but typed in yards instead. It should be 200-400 meters.
- AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+54I say we give our troops lasers. Bullets are so last century. Pew pew!
- p2502, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6you come up with the technology, and i'll get right on selling that to the D.O.D.
- ufia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Or better yet, the brown note gun, you make the opposing force ***** their pants, literally.
- DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"I say we give our troops lasers. Bullets are so last century. Pew pew!"
Lockheed's new F-35 is supposed to replace the gatling gun with a laser weapon in about 8 years or so (unless USAF has changed their mind about implementing it). The initial production run will have the tried and true 20mm cannon, but Lockheed supposedly has a working example of a beam weapon to replace the gun, and they're refining it for production.
My reservations....each time you fire it, you have to give it 120 seconds to cool down. So if you miss....eh, you'd better have some sidewinders ready if you're doing combat air patrol. - john179781, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5how about laser cats?!
- smackhero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6i say, either bring out the mech suits and the giant fighting robots, or we should just go back to clubbing each other to death with mammoth bones.
- plutarch, on 10/12/2007, -28/+6Un-*****-believable. We ask our troops to fight a war based on basically no evidence or reason, and then to add insult to injury we don't even give them the best weapon with which do to so. And why not? It’s too expensive. But hey we can give out no bid contracts to Halliburton. What the ***** is wrong with this country?
- AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19It always has to turn political. We are talking about guns here, Haliburton has nothing to do with the M16, AK-47 or any other gun in this article. Go whine about how much you dislike your country elsewhere.
- nebben, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10Umm, isn't this *exactly* what happened in VietNam?
(fighting a losing war, substandard issue weapons...incompetent leadership...) - plutarch, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@antbing
I can only assume that you're retarded. The article states that the only reason we haven't made the switch is the cost. If we put contracts out to bid instead of doling them out to political allies, we'd "save money." With the "money" that we'd "save," we could afford to upgrade the weapons of our troops. There's something fundamentally wrong with a government that asks their troops to carry out a mission and then refuses to give them reliable tools with which to perform that mission. - aspec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's called money, where the ***** have you been?
- AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11plutarch: "There's something fundamentally wrong with a government that asks their troops to carry out a mission and then refuses to give them reliable tools with which to perform that mission."
Does this include the congressmen and women who would like to cut off funding for the war all together?
By the way, I do have an uncle with Downs Syndrome. He's a really nice guy, but I'd be willing to bet on him kicking your ass in a fight if you called him retarded to his face. - pgoetz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1@antbig
You are ***** retarded. And maybe your uncle had Downs Syndrome, too -- at least he has an excuse. - Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Haliburton has nothing to do with the M16, AK-47 or any other gun in this article. Go whine about how much you dislike your country elsewhere."
Oh so Haliburton is part of the USA and anyone who dares criticize Haliburton there for hates the USA that explains alot - plutarch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@antbing:
"Does this include the congressmen and women who would like to cut off funding for the war all together?"
Yes, yes it does. Trying to end this conflict by not giving our soldiers the equipment and logistical support they need is tantamount to treason. It's also the coward's way out; we need our so-called leaders to enact a phased withdrawal and let the Iraqis deal with their own mess. At some point over the last 3 years, it has transitioned from the fault of the US to the fault of the Iraqis. By that, I mean that it was a mistake to invade and we were "responsible" for the initial chaos; however, the Iraqis have now had ample time to stop killing each other. The fact that they continue to do so is proof enough that it's their mess now, not ours.
I'll admit that my name dropping (lol Halliburton lol) was probably uncalled for, but it was the most blatant example of government corruption, cronyism, and rampant waste that I could think of at the time. The entire military-industrial complex is the "problem," but most of the knuckle-dragging American populace doesn't even understand the term. My point was that it's amoral to tolerate waste and corruption on such a large scale while at the same time denying our troops better weaponry because of "the cost."
As to my calling you a retard, I apologize for that, it was unnecessary and puerile. I get very upset when I see things like this, but that was no reason to be a jerk.
- Dou6, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13“The truth is, to change out a fleet takes a tremendous amount of money,” Radcliffe said, referring to the task of outfitting a million soldiers with new weapons.
Experts say it would cost approximately $1 billion to replace the Army’s M16s and M4s with an “off-the-shelf” weapon like the 416.
-------------------------------------------
Pretty sad that's all it would cost, relative to the overall cost of the war. We are spending what? 2 billion a week on this war right now, and we can't scrape up a billion for 100 million rifles.
I have many guns, but make sure I have a handgun and a rifle that are 100 percent reliable should I ever need them. For me right now that is a Glock 19 and an AK-47. I do realize than an M4/M16 is superior in accuracy, and possibly stopping power, but that wouldn't help me in the next new orleans if it didn't function in a ***** environment. Same with the glock, there are way better pistols out there from an accuracy and stopping power perspective, but I have no other guns, including higher prices guns, that have never had a FTF, FTE, etc.
I find it very disheartening that we cannot give our soldiers the same. Sure there are always problems with any lot of guns, there are people with horrible glocks and AK's, but thats the exception not the rule. From what I know, the M16/M4/AR15 models have always been regarded as great weapons...when clean. We need to face the facts that our men and women need better.
I have seen demonstrations of the HK416, and it looks like a gun you can trust your life to.
We don't need "new technology in 10 years" like general asshat mentioned, we need an accurate weapon with world class reliability. They bury those damn HK416's in the sand, pull em out, and they keep firing. Try doing that with an M variant.- bsmeteronhigh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everyone should be pleased to note that the recent appropriations for the war in Iraq included quite a few hundreds of millions of dollars to support Spinach Farmers and Citrus Growers in California. When your M-16 or M4 jams during battle, I suggest throwing cans of Spinach and small containers of orange juice at the enemy. Your congressman/congresswomen seem to think this will work, based on how they added these to the spending bill.
- Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6A billion dollars for a 100 million rifles? I can't wait for this $10 gun to hit the market. I am going to buy 10 of them at least.
- CedEx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A billion dollars doesn't seem like much considering how much money one B2 bomber costs, or any other hi cost vehicle that will likely see less action than a rifle.
- implementor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The problem is that if you want to change weapons for the general fighting force (not special forces), you'd have to change ALL of the weapons, to prevent problems with parts incompatibility. So, unless the military is going to spend enough money to change out all the M4's and M16's they currently have in service (and they aren't likely to do that, especially when they're fighting a war in two different countries and maintaining forces in a whole lot more), then they simply have to stick with what they've got.
- ender42081, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1according to wikipedia, there are multiple barrel lengths and probably a handful of configurations ready to go. also, it can be mounted to an existing M-xx receiver. it's like saying "well since these .40 pistols are underpowerd, we'll just replace the barrel to allow .357 sig" (which does work, but the berretta is 9mm).
read a book
- ender42081, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1according to wikipedia, there are multiple barrel lengths and probably a handful of configurations ready to go. also, it can be mounted to an existing M-xx receiver. it's like saying "well since these .40 pistols are underpowerd, we'll just replace the barrel to allow .357 sig" (which does work, but the berretta is 9mm).
- daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -27/+4militarism overdose
- BenZacharia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Then go back to blogging about WarCraft then.
- DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7"militarism overdose"
This is a story about military firearms. If you don't want to read about it, I suggest you haul your ass over to whatever moonbat thinkprogress.org story is on the front page right now.
- somewitches, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Yeah but remember, "you go to war with the army you have". Which is completely ***** irrelevant since the Iraq war was started on a pre-set ***** date! They knew the military wasn't up to the job and yet they pushed it out the door anyway - real 'supportive' of the troops eh?
The US military might have the most money in the world but it also wastes the most. Of course its better than the UK military position, British soldiers often need to borrow ammunition from American forces because they simply dont have enough. The British army chose a ***** rifle which didn't work in sand and then had an expensive and also ***** modification program to 'fix' the problem that shouldn't have existed.
What this boils down to is that the coalition is stuck in a country where their weapons dont work properly and where their enemies are invisible and hide amongst the crowd, which they dont give a ***** about hurting but which the coalition forces cant touch. We are wasting obscene amounts of money every single day we are in Iraq accomplishing nothing and as soon as we leave the country will return to Saddam-era within 3 years, hell they'll probably even manage to find a guy with the same name. - dogred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Could it be that there is an experimental gun on the horizon?
I really really wish I could remember the name of it, but I do remember seeing it in gun magazines, discovery/history channel. You can fire a "bullet" and have it explode just after it passes through a window....yeah, hand me that AK over there and we'll bum rush the building instead.- altered, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think you're thinking of the XM29, aka the OICW. It's also made by Heckler & Koch (who produces the 416). It's a good concept, it uses a standard 5.56mm rifle, with 20mm Airburst grenade system on top, all controlled by a fire control module which has night/day optics and motion tracking and whatnot. The problem is it's way too expensive, and they haven't gotten it down to anywhere near it's target weight yet. Still, a very interesting system and worth a google
- dogred, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3yeah, it was the XM8-OICW
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm
I thought there was an 8 somewhere in the name. - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The XM29 was a junk. The only people that liked it was people that never shot a gun before or been in the military.
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I'll take a Mk 19 please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_19- PeterBassett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Rather you than me...
From Wikipedia :
The Mk 19 utilizes an open bolt principle. The rounds are mechanically fed onto the bolt face with the pull of the charging handles. When the trigger is pressed, the bolt closes, and the firing pin is released. The recoil blows back the bolt, dropping the empty casing, and then feeds a new round onto the bolt face. This design has caused sporadic fatalities in the crews that operate the system. If the weapon system jams, the operator many times must remove a live round from the open bolt face. If the breech closes during this procedure, the round can detonate inside the gun, killing and/or maiming anyone nearby. - Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would agree....... Until the target is 10 meters away from you.
- PeterBassett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Rather you than me...
- plutarch, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2nothing to see here
- ThisBlows, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3"Why it won't be in soldiers hands soon" answer:
It wasn't manufactured by Haliburton? - scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I was under the impression that UK and US troops were routinely using captured AK-47s instead of the crappy guns we bought for them off the military industrial complex.
- underthewether, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1a surprisingly well written and interesting article. The best point is how silly it is that the army is using a 42 year old weapon design.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The age of the weapon is irrelevant. It's cheap, easy to produce, has a good reliability rating despite what the article would have you believe, has good stopping power, good accuracy, and is an all around good weapon. The only thing I didn't like about the M-16 was it's rather cumbersome length. However, they solved that with the M-4. We have enough money getting funneled through the DoD, they don't need more for a slight upgrade.
Ask yourself this. If you drove a '02 civic, it's clean, it's reliable, and still has good performance, would you trade it in for a new one solely the minuscule improvements the new ones have? - DesScorp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The best point is how silly it is that the army is using a 42 year old weapon design."
That's irrelevent. Our B-52s are older than the pilots that fly them, but they get the job done. My old ship, the USS Enterprise is over 40 years old....and will be in service another 20 years.
Newer doesn't always equal better. There's a raging debate in the Naval Aviation community right now about the Navy's fighter forces. The majority seem to think that the newer Super Hornet is inferior in every way to the creaking 30+ year old Tomcats that have been retired. - implementor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are .50 caliber Browning machine guns still in service that were made in the 1920's. Not just designed in the 1920's, actually made in the 1920's, and they're still being used, and work just fine. It's not the age of the design, it's the serviceability of the design - in which department, admittedly, the M-16/M-4 has had some problems.
- neftaly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Case in point: The Colt M1911. A basic design thats probably older than your grandma, yet still incredibly popular with servicemen and civilians alike.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The age of the weapon is irrelevant. It's cheap, easy to produce, has a good reliability rating despite what the article would have you believe, has good stopping power, good accuracy, and is an all around good weapon. The only thing I didn't like about the M-16 was it's rather cumbersome length. However, they solved that with the M-4. We have enough money getting funneled through the DoD, they don't need more for a slight upgrade.
- cJw314, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I didn't think it was the AK 47s that were reliable...? er... wait, accurate. Yeah, that was it... nm. I'll go away now.
- daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5does the u.s. make anything other than movies and weapons?
- ThisBlows, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Yes, we make the economies of third world nations thrive by outsourcing our jobs and ***** canning our own.
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Food and airplanes come to mind.
- GrayOne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They don't want to upgrade now. I understand that. The next gun the armed forces start using should look like something out of an 80's science fiction movie. It should have screens and chips and a bunch of other cool gizmos.
I was always under the impression that M-16 was a better gun that just had a little more tendency to jam than the AK. - SlipStream89, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5What the M4 needs is a bigger bullet. the 5.56 cant stop a human with 1 round, from 70 yards away like the AK can. What the US army needs is the Barrett M468. It uses a 6.8 Caliber bullet which is right in between the standard issue M4 and the AK which can stop a person with 1 round from 70 yards away.
Plus its built on the same architecture, and it looks almost identical to the M4.
http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifle_468.aspx- Dou6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Sorry to be so harsh, but I must say you don't know ***** about ballistics. Trauma has nothing to do with the size of the bullet. Tumbling and fragmentation are what cause the most trauma, not a big bullet(of course once you get into 50BMG and such it's a different story)
To be simple about it, I wouldn't want to get shot by anything. Hell .22LR rounds out of a rifle I was shooting the other day were flying right through some thin metal and leaving a huge hole. Is your body tougher than thin metal?
You say 5.56 can't stop a man with 1 shot? I would like to see you get shot with a .22LR and still be fine. - sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Army realized long ago that this debate it stupid. "Advances" in rifles now are just choosing a different design that has been around fifty years. The Army thinks KE rifles are as advanced as they will ever become. That's why they are inventing a whole new family of rifles that shoot smart HI rounds. I'm too lazy to find the link, but I am sure you know what weapon I'm talking about.
The M-16 doesn't "need" a bigger bullet. The Army intentionally choose a smaller bullet, because they thought a smaller bullet fit better with the ways our troops were trained and operated. Bigger bullets have drawbacks. - jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Sorry to be so harsh, but I must say you don't know ***** about ballistics."
Well, pot, meet the kettle, and try reading the FBI's report on wounding and ballistics sometime - it's free.
Problem #1: You're assuming the 5.56 will tumble, it doesn't always, in fact, it FREQUENTLY doesn't tumble.
The ONLY thing that kills someone is PERMANENT WOUND CAVITY, and a 7.62 round, at ANY DISTANCE, produces a BIGGER ONE than a 5.56, especially 5.56 fired out of a ~10" M4.
And yes you flipping idiot, bone is much stronger than a thin piece of metal, and I've got this thing called a rib cage where you're supposed to aim. ***** christ you're clueless. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2dou6,
Most people don't get it, and assume that bigger is better. You allude to a small round like the 22LR being extremely devastating, which it is. It's one of the worst rounds to get hit by, actually. 22LR and 5.56 NATO, both rounds with similar performance in ballstic gel, may not have great "stopping power," but they both do terrible damage to tissue. Even if the victim doesn't get knocked to the ground by the impact, you can be sure that he's most likely no longer fighting back due to the sheer amount of damage done. - Qeveren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why would a bullet impact knock someone to the ground? They might -fall- over (massive internal injuries tend to do that to a susceptible part of the population), but no small-arms bullet is going to knock someone off their feet.
- jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"but no small-arms bullet is going to knock someone off their feet."
Correct. Remember Newton's law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction?
Any round fired from a small arm that knocked down a human target would knock down the shooter. We're talking Physics 101 here guys.
mancat: You're a ***** twit. Post some ballistics data to backup your verbal diarrhea. Tell you what, you shoot me in the leg with a 22 and I'll shoot you in the leg with my simple old non-tumbling 45acp and we'll see who bleeds to death. - Scourge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So jon, say I shoot you with the almost recoilless M107 sniper...
I didn't fall over, but did you? - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jon,
So someone fires a .50BMG from a prone position and hits you in the chest, and you're still standing?
Look up ballistic data if you want. I didn't say 22LR is "more powerful" than something like a .45ACP. I don't know what you're arguing, but you sure seem angry about it.
- Dou6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Sorry to be so harsh, but I must say you don't know ***** about ballistics. Trauma has nothing to do with the size of the bullet. Tumbling and fragmentation are what cause the most trauma, not a big bullet(of course once you get into 50BMG and such it's a different story)
- alpha94, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm guessing the reason the US doesn't "just use AK 47's like everyone else" is that it's a foreign made weapon and it doesn't really make much sense to purchase weapons abroad when you have so many local manufacturers.
- mhummel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not only that, but US forces using Kalashnikovs would be like a Wall Street Broker wearing a beret and Che Guevara tshirt, smoking Galoises...
- neftaly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, that's pretty much the reason why many western countries wouldn't dare touch an AK (even the modern versions) - they're among the most well-known symbols of communisim/rebels.
- mhummel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not only that, but US forces using Kalashnikovs would be like a Wall Street Broker wearing a beret and Che Guevara tshirt, smoking Galoises...
- cgoff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9When the military says it will be expensive, they aren't kidding. H&K, while a decent product, is generally way over-priced for the performance. I have no doubt that the 416 is a fine weapon, but the M-16 platform has been bettered over the years, especially the civilian AR platform. I've watched videos of an AR-15 shoot (on full auto per magazine) for 200 rounds, dropped in water/sand and fired for another 200 rounds. Rinse and repeat for 1200 rounds without a single failure. I'd say that's pretty good.
The M-16 might not have the complete reliability of the AK-47 you can't beat the accuracy and modularity (swapping uppers can give you .50 cal, 6.5MM Grendel, 6.8MM Remington, 7.62, etc.).
At the end of the day the HK416 is just an evolution of the M-16 design anyway, it's not a completely new rifle. I might be a little old school, but I'd like to see weapons manufactured in the United States handed to our troops, not from Germany or anywhere else. What happens if Germany decides to force H&K to cancel the contracts because they don't agree with our stance on terrorism?
Wiki link to HK416 (interesting): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK_416- jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I might be a little old school, but I'd like to see weapons manufactured in the United States handed to our troops, not from Germany or anywhere else."
LOL - you mean like the M249's we buy that are manufactured in Belgium by FN?
- jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I might be a little old school, but I'd like to see weapons manufactured in the United States handed to our troops, not from Germany or anywhere else."
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It sucks when bureacracy prevents a soldier from getting the best, but wars are won with logistics not with rifles that never jam. The Army has countless examples of choosing the weapon that makes the most sense logistically, and is not necessarily the best weapon. The Sherman tank in WWII was a piece of crap, but the Army could hundreds a month. The Army has invested billions in the M-16 family, and the M-4 is compatible with the investment. This better weapon is not, and it suck up resources to keep out in the field.
And besides, the Army has already choosen a replacement to both the M-16 and M-4. It will take a few years to deploy, but there is no sense is deploying a replacement for the M-4 now, when its true replacement is coming in a few years - Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Why do we do this? Every month some manufactuer of the "New and Improved" shows up wants a huge contract and then starts flooding the media with articles on "what a disservice" our government is doing, and how we are "shortchanging ourselves" and yadda yadda yadda. And we ALL fall for it.
A month ago it was the HPV vaccine, have to have it, what a disservice we were doing, and whatya know Mereck is just paying of legislatures so they have a market to sell their goods.
Sure, the M416 seems to be an improvement, but is it such that we must disgard all our M16s? What are we going to do with M16s? Sellem on black market to terrorists? And why? cause M16s clog sometimes, is that really the biggest problem in Iraq right now? When an IED roadside bomb goes off is the problem really our jamming M16? Did we fail to beat back the Republican Guard because our M16s kept jamming? Doesn't appear to me that our armies greatest weakness is jamming guns, sure some guns same, is that worth COMPLETELY rearming our entire military?
See this for what it is, a gun manufacturer made a gun, sought out the approval of soldiers and now turns to public opinion to force a military contract which will justify their R&D.
Our military is doing just fine with the weapons they have and still could take out just about any force on the planet. Yes, we need to constantly update cause if your not getting better your getting worse, but comon to see this as anything but a Advertisement Article (or Adverticle) is just being foolish - Yokohamalion, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2This has nothing to do with stopping power, accuracy, recoil or any of that *****. The American army is not going to use a German made rifle because IT'S GERMAN. Number one you have an arms industry to think about. If the Americans switched suppliers the whole industry would be in the tank which means losing the ability to produce your own weapons. Less money into R&D a loss of jobs and skilled labor and a loss of votes. Secondly the American army is not going to put itself at the whim of another nation in supplying its defense. Imagine some do-gooder chancellor of Germany deciding to stop arms shipments to the US because it disagrees with US foreign policy. People got in huff lately cause of the US selling F-14s to Iran. This is good strategy however because there is no better way to ground the Iranian airforce than to stop shipments of spare parts.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You do know that the planned replacement of the M16 is a German weapon right?
- Yokohamalion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually they are looking at the SCAR which is a Belgian weapon. The chances of that happening for the regular army are small, for the reasons stated above.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, the program I was thinking about has been cancelled. However, I still don't agree with your point. America uses lots of weapons from other NATO countries. Even if the weapons weren't fabbed in America, which they probably would be, the scenario of acute need for tens of thousands of rifles that is blocked by an Allied NATO government is ridiculous. If such a scenario came to be realized, you could read the writing on the wall months in advance and set up factories to fab the German weapon here
- BOOFMAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Pentagon would just license the rights from HK and make the rifles here. Countries do this all the time.
- sergeantmudd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3You do know that the planned replacement of the M16 is a German weapon right?
- Bahimiron, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3Man, we just need to throw all these guns away, man.
YOU CAN'T HUG YOUR KIDS WITH 5.56 MM CALIBER AIR-COOLED GAS-OPERATED MAGAZINE-FED ARMS!- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7But you sure as hell can keep people from blowing them up.
- Tripw0l, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is the same bureaucratic garbage going on with Dragonskin. It actually costs money but the margins are too thin for government spending for better weapons and amazingly better body armor. Dragonskin is almost completely impenetrable by seemingly every caliber that can be fired from a rifle. They even laid the damn thing on a grenade and not one minuscule piece of shrapnel got through the vest but defense spending is going more toward getting bodies in uniform and getting soldiers to the field. Our army is in a state of crisis and the government should be helping in anyway that it can. Instead you see things like Walter Reed going on. What a sad state of affairs.
- cr1t, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Can't we just all get along then we won't have to worry about jaming guns and rather spend our time looking after fuzzy bunnies.
Here in South Africa we have the home grown R1, Im not much of a gun expert but my uncle that was in the Army said they had the same problems and guys where even knowen to use AK47 behind enemy lines. - dupswapdrop, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Hey how long before colt moves it's manufacturing plant to china?
Bet most of the subassembly's for the m16 are made there now.
- fintheman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Man, that is a beautiful gun.
My dream arsenal updated now:
HK USP Tactical 9 with water supressor (9 for ammo size and weight)
HK 416 with Aimpoint
HK PSG-1 - patrsup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As usual everyone can prognosticate about almost everything with no real knowledge - the army has never gone for the best in any category - it goes for the cheapest made by whomever is best represented in congress. I can remember the army being forced to buy aircraft they did not want or need but they were made by "friends" of Teddy Kennedy...
The current emergency defense bill is loaded with this stuff – stop just reading the headlines and get into who affects what if you are really interested.
One more personal observation – we bought Hercules dirt bikes for the cavalry scouts until someone in a congressman’s district started asking about it. We then went on to buying Japanese through a dealer in this congressman’s district. They cost more and were less supportable in northern Europe but the congressman was happy. - rabidsquirrelOG, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1That experimental gun is mentioned in the article you are refering to is mentioned in the article. According to the article it is an abandoned project (100 million down the tubes). Too heavy and wouldn't stand up to the rigors of combat...
Any weapon put in the hands of our soldiers and Marines (Semper Fi) needs to be the 'Toyota' or 'Honda' of weapons.
The M16 is unreliable. I know from experience. The outcome of a battle is often decided in seconds on the battlefield. If you are wasting precious seconds trying to unjam a POS weapon while your buddies are all engaged in the same unjamming activity, you have already lost. This scenario has played out at least once (documented) in Iraq and once in the 'Stan.
But we're all "Supporting our Troops" back home by placing them in danger indefinitely without any defined or discernable objectives and without adequate equipment.
Nothing to see here, sheeple, go back to grazing... - bubba1971, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Reminds me of one of the rules on the old "Murphy's laws of combat" posters: "Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder".
- Tripw0l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4btw, here's a demonstration video of the gun
http://digg.com/videos/educational/H_K_416_demonstration_video_from_futureweapons - orlyfactor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I say give them all BFG 9000s. Nothing is living within a 20 yard radius when that thing goes off.
- BenZacharia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Armytimes is a rag.
- bpevans, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13This article is essentially just a H&K marketing pitch spun by the author.
Colt responded with the following letter which is worth the read:
Dear Editor,
Until the cancellation of the XM8 program in 2005, Army Times and its staff writer, Matthew Cox, strongly promoted the HK XM8 for its adoption as the service weapon for the US Army. In his recent feature article, “It’s better than the M4, but you can’t have one” Mr. Cox attributes cancellation of the XM8 program to “a sea of bureaucratic opposition.” Mr. Cox fails to mention a DoD IG report on the Acquisition of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (D-2006-004) dated October 7, 2005, which addresses the XM8 Program and is found at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports. This DoD IG report clearly stated the rationale, which indicated the XM8 offered no potential efficiency over the present weapons systems, as well as including mismanagement by those persons responsible for the program, both of which clearly may have been a strong consideration in the cancellation of the program. Another related and informative DoD IG report is Competition of the 5.56 Millimeter Carbine (D-2007-026) dated November 22, 2006 and is also found at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports. Now, promoting the HK 416, Mr. Cox references unnamed experts, misrepresents data for comparison between the HK 416 and M4, misleads readers by using findings in a 2001 SOCOM report on the M4 and a Marine Corps test of the M4 in 2002 but he does not inform the reader of measures taken immediately by the Army and Colt to eliminate those problems, uses quotes to imply the M16 and M4 are the same weapon used 42 years ago, which they are clearly not, and bases his argument for adoption of the HK 416 for the entire US Army on use by a group of elite operators within SOCOM who rightfully develop their own kit of weapons and modify them to their needs. His stated rationale is based on unsupervised tests made on a rifle made in Germany.
Additionally, his writing very wrongly alleges that Army leadership is not providing our men and women in uniform the best weapon available and, more disturbing, his article irresponsibly raises a concern to the Soldiers, Marines and Special Operations Forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families that their service weapon is not reliable. This is absolutely not a true statement and could cause serious morale issues to those engaged in day to day combat operations and to those in leadership positions in these units. To go further I would question his loyalty to those in uniform and his lack of real credibility, truthfulness and personal integrity in writing an article of this nature.
The M4 speaks for itself as to its combat credibility. Before its introduction into the US Army inventory in 1994 it was subjected to the full range of functioning and environmental tests required by the US Army test and evaluation process. Later, as a result of the 2001 SOCOM report on the M4, referred to by Mr. Cox, the US Army and Colt immediately conducted a joint effort to rectify the problems raised. This effort took until spring 2002 and manufacturing changes were implemented at Colt by fall 2002. Meanwhile, the Marine Corps conducted their own test of the M4 with weapons produced prior to the fall 2002 manufacturing change and they experienced similar problems as SOCOM. These issues were also resolved with the manufacturing changes implemented thereafter. From fall 2002 to today, government quality deficiency reports for the M4 have been nearly non-existent and that is attributable to the joint effort between the US Army and Colt to solve the problems raised in the 2001 and 2002 reports. Additionally, regarding reliability of the M4, from fall 2002, US government inspectors at the Colt plant have overseen the firing of nearly 4,000,000 (million) endurance rounds with only three endurance gun failures: one in January 2004, one in July 2005 and one in August 2005. The government quality assurance representative at Colt holds the documents supporting this testing. In June 2006, Colt had the opportunity to endurance fire an HK 416. At 3,000 rounds, a broken firing pin spring was found in the HK 416. Without a spare part, the endurance testing was ended. Other findings in those 3,000 rounds of firing were frequent loosening of the hand guard retainer screw and the cyclic rate of fire was over 1,000 rounds per minute. The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system and was initially rejected by the Army for the M16 in the 1960’s. Colt Defense has the present ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the US Army and other US Services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon. Attached is an email written to Mr. Cox by a recognized weapons expert, Mr. Chris Bartocci, author of Black Rifle II, who provides background on the M16 and M4. Anecdotal examples of fouled weapons are not taken lightly, yet the information is not helpful if the type of fouling is not clearly defined. In a desert environment, for example, sand and dust have the same effects on a weapon, whether it has a gas piston system or a gas impingement system. This issue is completely different from a debate over a gas piston system operating cleaner than a gas impingement system. Is a gas piston operated weapon less vulnerable to the effects of the desert than a gas impingement system? If so, where are the results of the controlled tests. Additionally, there are a number of reasons for fouling of weapons to include the reliability of the ammunition and reliability of magazines. The M16 and M4 have undergone major enhancements since introduction of the M16 into the US military inventory in the 1960s. These enhancements have improved functioning, reliability, maintenance and versatility for the individual Soldier and Marine throughout the years. Currently, there is a government funded operational evaluation being conducted for SOCOM by Colt and Ultra Chem Technologies (UCT) for greaseless operating parts on the M4 to improve maintenance, functioning and the wear of select parts of the weapon. In closing, at the 2006 Laboratory and Industry Day sponsored by the Chief of Infantry and Commanding General United States Army Infantry Center & School, Fort Benning, Georgia, the M4 Carbine was listed by the Commanding General and included in his brief as one of the many success stories in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
James R. Battaglini
MajGen, USMC (Ret)
Chief Operating Officer
Colt Defense LLC- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah and the majority of Digg is just too ***** dumb to notice it. In fact I doubt they even read the damn thing. I think 95% of the people that posted here have never shoot a gun before and they are telling the military to get this rifle because the read it in the Army Time. ***** stupid if you asked me.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1And I would not be suprised to see the good Major General in the pocket of Colt or in the sub contractors making parts The fact is the M16 by and large is a piece of *****. A good example of what is wrong with the military is the movie "Pentagon Wars". That movie shows how ***** up and political the military contracting system is.
- SambekZX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Mr.Cox,
I just had the opportunity to read your article "It's better than the M4, but you can't have it" regarding the HK416 compared to the M4. I have to say I was quite disturbed. My name is Chris Bartocci, I am the author of Collector Grade Publications title, Black Rifle II. This is the definitive history of the product development and procurement of the M16/M4 carbine from 1985 to present. I am also a contributing editor to Small Arms Review magazine as well as many other publications. My area of expertise is the M16 family of weapons and am quite familiar with the HK416. I am also very familiar with firearms design and trouble shooting (particularly the M16/M4 family of weapons).
I do not feel you portrayed the facts of the service of the M4/M16 rifle correctly and in fact it is quite disturbing. This is very much the propaganda that H&K has been pushing since they came up with the idea that the direct gas system was flawed and they had the century old magical piston system which they claim is new. Please let me give you some background that you might not be aware of nor the people you interviewed for this article. First the M16 rifle was designed to give decreased weight and ability to provide aimed and accurate semi as well as automatic fire. During the development phases, the conventional piston system had been around for more than 50 years, the same way the H&K system is now. The Army during the war in Vietnam tested all these weapons side by side and it was found the AR-15 outperformed all of them in accuracy and reliability. Being rushed into service, the Army disregarded the orders of the Secretary of Defense to put the AR-15 through a development process and got it ready for the troops in the field. Problems began with malfunctions when the ammunition propellant was changed and chambers corroded due to the Army not finding it necessary to test ammunition that had been changed from its spec nor to chrome plate the chamber, which is a significant reliability enhancement that became a Mil-Spec after the war in the Pacific during WW2. Every small arm in the U.S. inventory had it but the AR-15.
During this time, the AK47 was already known already for its reliability in adverse conditions. So the Army asked Colt to develop an M16 that would utilize the piston system (AK-type same as HK416). Colt developed their model 703, which was the same type piston system. This is in the late 1960's. After the congressional hearings on the M16 program came out, and the Army was accused of being "borderline criminally negligent" on their entire handling of the M16 weapons program, the rifles were modified to work with the newly manufactured 5.56mm ball ammunition. This included a change in the manufacturing process and design of the buffer, chamber, bolt and some trigger components, and the piston system was dropped by the Army. After the "bugs" were worked out and the new M16A1 came online, the reliability increased and troops who went to Vietnam after 1969 encountered little trouble. My point is that the piston driven AR is an old concept that the Army rejected in favor of the direct gas system currently in use in the M16. They found no significant increase in reliability due to the use of the piston system. The M16/M4 would go on to be the most combat proven 5.56mm rifle and carbine in the world seeing service in every climate in the world. From the jungles of Southeast Asia, the deserts of the Middle East and the Arctic of Canada and Alaska. All have been chosen by armed forces in the regions including Canada (Arctic) and Israel (Desert). For one to call the M16/M4 operating system "Obsolete" is untrue and unprofessional. This system has worked in combat reliably for more than 40 years. It worked then and it works now. I do not hear anybody calling the M1911 obsolete after more than 100 years of service. It works as well now as it did then. For something to be obsolete would mean it was replaced with something better, the Army has tried several times and goes back to this system. It is only obsolete to a faction that is trying to dislodge the weapon from service and get theirs adopted. The only way to constitute a change is to claim the current equipment is flawed. This is basic marketing.
Colt developed the M4 carbine in the late 1980's with it being finalized in 1995 and type classified as the first general purpose carbine since the M1 carbine of World War 2. It was designed for troops that needed more power than a pistol but could not carry a standard rifle. Colt was given restrictions by the Army to mandate significant amounts of part interchangeability with the current M16A2 rifle. The Army was more concerned with interchangeability than reliability and Colt had to work within this framework. As the carbines began to circulate, it was not the truck drivers, tankers and maintenance people who were carrying them, it was front line special operations forces operators. Those who would later go on record calling this weapon flawed because the 6 pound carbine would not function as a high volume of fire, light support, belt fed weapon they required. They also went on record saying they use this weapon well beyond its design parameters. This does not mean this weapon is flawed, it means it was not designed for what they wanted to use it for. Regular Army units loved the M4 carbine, over the M16A2 and A4. That is why Colt has received additional contracts since the wars began. The regular troop use them as intended.
You made mention of the SCAR program where Special Operations Forces adopted (although not fielded) the FN rifle. Some additional pertinent information is that the reason for the SCAR program had much to do with SOCOM wanting to be their own project manager and have the ability to make changes to the weapon specific to them. This is something they could not do with the M4A1. The M4A1 is a procured weapon by the Department of Defense from Colt and is subject to mil-standards and the technical data package. You mentioned the government inspectors at Colt, which is part of this. As the M4 and M4A1 are adopted, these are the standards Colt must meet, no more and no less. Any change or modification must be requested by the Department of Defense, not SOCOM. For example, SOCOM had issues with barrels bursting when used under extreme firing sessions and they made the claim the barrels were flawed. When Rock Island Arsenal investigated they found that the firing schedules from 540 to 596 rounds per minute were fired within 3 and 3.5 minutes and heated the barrels up over 1300 degrees, which is their transformation temperature. The round count that resulted is more ammunition than a combat soldier would even carry. Machine guns change barrels due to this heat. Rock Island found that this had not occurred in any place other than SOCOM and that it was cause by abuse of the weapons and would not act on any changes from Colt. Another major issue SOCOM had was maintenance. They had no real maintenance schedules to replace worn parts so they ran weapons without round counts and maintenance until they broke. As General Keys mentioned about the extractor spring that is how difficult it is to get the Army to make changes. The Army would not make changes to the weapons if they worked for them. SOCOM could not request the changes needed due to them not being the procurement agency. This led to animosity and friction between Colt and SOCOM. Colt has had many improvements they have made to the government over the years to improve the weapons and they were shot down every time.
When the SCAR trials came out, SOCOM was the procurement agency and they would have full control of the weapon and changes it may need in the future. Colt had submitted 3 entries into that as well. Two were direct gas rifles and the other a piston operated mechanism. Based on my research, all the Colt weapons served well and passed the trials as did the FN. In the end, the FN candidate was selected. The Colt piston system rifle is the ONLY piston driven M4-platform weapon to ever complete an official SOCOM trial, not the HK416. This weapon was not in the competition. As of right now, the M4A1 is the weapon of choice for SOCOM with the exception of Delta who procured the HK 416 on their own. Also based on my research there is a possibility the SCAR program could be cancelled as well.
As for the combat reliability of the HK416 over the M4, well, the M4 has been on the battlefield all over the world for more than a decade and is used by some of the most elite units in the world to include the legendary British SAS who use a Colt Canada made SFW, which is a M4 derivative. Based on my research and discussions with several of the finest engineers in the industry, there has never been any military comparisons between the two systems to determine which is better. More importantly, the criteria set for by the Army for the M4 has been met and the Army has said on record that the M4 has exceeded the government specs by 3 times. The specs and "improvements" of the HK416 are self-made specs that have nothing to do with the Army. For example, the crown jewel hammer forged barrel of the HK416, Colt has offered hammer-forged barrels to the U.S. government for more than a decade since their licensee, Diemaco (now Colt Canada) has manufactured them. The Army told Colt no as they found no evidence it would be an improvement over the current barrels. The stronger bolt of the HK416, Colt proposed to the government a redesign of the M4/M4A1 bolt/barrel extension to cope with the higher impact of constant automatic fire and the U.S. government rebuffed. Colt has offered this technology before, actually all of it. They offered the piston system, the hammer forged barrels, improved life bolt and much more. The Army says they are satisfied with the current production weapons.
The stories you depict in this article from the field are very misleading. First, I have heard many stories from the sand box that are the exact opposite. Troops claim their M16 and M4 work just fine and I have heard some amazing stories of long distant shots taken with M4 carbines. ALL weapons malfunction in that environment if not maintained. There have been complaints surfaced about the M9 pistol, M249 Saw and many other weapons. This sand jams AK's. The soldiers in question, you do not know the condition those weapons were in. How dirty were they? Were they worn out? Did they have defective magazines? The malfunctions described, particularly the failures to extract, are normally caused by corroded or damaged chambers which any weapon would have. Without knowing the circumstances and why the weapons malfunctioned, it is not responsible to claim it is a flaw in the weapon design.
There is something I want to caution you against. During the war in Vietnam the reputation of the M16 far overstated the actual malfunctions. What it did was hurt morale of the troops. It made troops lose confidence in their weapon.. Opinions were formed before they even pulled the trigger. It hurt morale worse than the actual amount of problems. With an article like this, which is basically an H&K sales pitch based on their claims the M4 is flawed, you are doing the same thing to those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hurting their morale and confidence in their weapon when the groups that are having the problems abuse the weapon admittedly and use them beyond their design intent. That is dangerous. If you are looking to buy oil for your car and you walk into a store and buy Quaker State and it runs in your Grand Am, perfect. Now a race car driver puts that same oil in his race car and it breaks down and causes engine problems. I ask you, is that oil the problem or maybe that high performance engine needed a different kind of oil to serve its purpose? This is what you are looking at, the difference between SOCOM and the rest of the military.
I am writing you this based on my concerns for the fallout on the troops in combat who will read it and get very misinformed about their equipment and make them feel unjustly that they have substandard equipment when in all actuality they carry the world standard that all modern military rifles are compared. If I did not know better, your story would scare the hell out of me.
If I can be of any help to you in reference to this issue, please feel free to contact me.
Respectfully,
Chris Bartocci author, “Black Rifle II” - bpevans, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Jagdwulfe
Of course he's in Colts pocket. After quoting his rank as MajGen did you continue reading that line to the (Ret) part?
He's retired and works for Colt, made very clear in his signature which says Chief Operating Officer, Colt Defense LLC.
- djgraff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Saw this beastie on FutureWeapons ... w00f ... I want one!
- ShoulderKnight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So what gun has the most stopping power, best accuracy and reliability for GRAW 2??
There are so many damn guns in that game. - MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There are a lot of die hard M16 guys out there that will defend the weapon to no end. I've fired plenty of them in my career, and they, overall, are a very solid weapon. However, there are many drawbacks to the rifle -- not just the jamming issue.
Think about this new firearm for a moment:
1) Modular -- they've solved one big problem with current firearms, the lack of quick configuration changes.
2) Heat dissipation -- A very smart move on the gas system, lowering overall heat radiation from the weapon and soak of it's internal components
3) Backwards compatible -- The uppers will bolt to a M16 lower receiver. This allows the current lowers with a nice chunk of remaining serviceability (in their stock as-delivered form) to be used with new uppers.
4) Lighter, stronger -- Looks like the overall weight of the firearm is lower, and a more compact design. With the very high chance that all future ground wars will be urban, having a short/compact weapon (which can be re-configured to any situation -- See #1) is invaluable. Lighter weight (hopefully, combined with a massive reduction of armor weight and gear over the next few years) not only makes a soldier more mobile, but also enables him/her to carry a larger ammunition supply.
Make no mistake gentlemen, things DO need to change. Far to long we have relied on brute force for our soliders -- it has lead us to 85lbs of encumbrance and a stockpile of outdated gear. Unfortunately, while the solution appears simple...we have to get past the "brother in law" effect. That is, whom ever is making the purchase decision will give it to his brother in law (lobbyist, family, financial ties, etc)...rather than making the wise decision for the good of the soldier- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"1) Modular -- they've solved one big problem with current firearms, the lack of quick configuration changes."
AR are modular. Where have you been?
"2) Heat dissipation -- A very smart move on the gas system, lowering overall heat radiation from the weapon and soak of it's internal components"
That's what the handguard is for in all AR series.
"3) Backwards compatible -- The uppers will bolt to a M16 lower receiver. This allows the current lowers with a nice chunk of remaining serviceability (in their stock as-delivered form) to be used with new uppers."
Colts are interchangeable.
"4) Lighter, stronger -- Looks like the overall weight of the firearm is lower, and a more compact design. With the very high chance that all future ground wars will be urban, having a short/compact weapon (which can be re-configured to any situation -- See #1) is invaluable. Lighter weight (hopefully, combined with a massive reduction of armor weight and gear over the next few years) not only makes a soldier more mobile, but also enables him/her to carry a larger ammunition supply."
It's not lighter then the M4. - MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"AR are modular. Where have you been?"
Hardly... unless you're trying to place "modular" on the term of "I can change parts between same basic models" LOL.
"That's what the handguard is for in all AR series."
Nope, try again. HUGE difference in heat soak due to the design of the gas flow (hint: it flows back towards you) of the M16 vs. using a pushrod/mechanical linkage. Trying to dissipate heat via heat sink near the barrel assembly isn't addressing the whole issue.
"Colts are interchangeable."
...and?
"It's not lighter then the M4"
Might want to check again. - Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@jdunn "Colts are interchangeable."
Not true, our Drill Sergeant repeatedly told us never ever ever swap bolts with your fellow troops thsat bad things could happen with the weapon. - jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@MadMaxx426
You have never own or shot an AR before.
AR are modular. They always been. I can change my .223 upper for a 6.8SPC upper in less then two minutes. I can place any optics and anything that are within spec of the rail system.
"Nope, try again. HUGE difference in heat soak due to the design of the gas flow (hint: it flows back towards you) of the M16 vs. using a pushrod/mechanical linkage. Trying to dissipate heat via heat sink near the barrel assembly isn't addressing the whole issue."
It is a ***** gas piston. AK and other rifles have it. It is nothing new other then it ***** add weight to rifle.
@Jagdwulfe
I understand why the DI would said changing bolts is bad due to head space issue but in a pitch if you have too you have too.
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"1) Modular -- they've solved one big problem with current firearms, the lack of quick configuration changes."
- bilbus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I would feel better using a weapons system that was built in the USA.
The 416 is made in Germany .... so perhaps the US military does not want to be dependent on external source for there main infantry weapons.
Most of our main weapon systems are made in the US.
HMMWV
M1A tank
M2/M3 BFV
F16, F18
Sounds like a good idea to me- MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0US made equipment is used not because it was made here, rather they placed the lowest bid. What you don't hear about is the sub-contracts the companies make to external firms that actually do some of the dev work ;)
Just like most things, you get what you pay for. - Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ummm the M1a1 uses a 120mm rheinmetal main gun. Also the replacement for the SAW is from FN which is a Belgian company.
- sooperdooper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ugh, it's NATO, it's stable, quit whining.
- MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0US made equipment is used not because it was made here, rather they placed the lowest bid. What you don't hear about is the sub-contracts the companies make to external firms that actually do some of the dev work ;)
- FutureAEI, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It seems very sad that the most important criteria for selecting military equipment is how much it costs, not how effective it is in keeping U.S. soldiers out of harms way. There was an article on Digg 2 days ago (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml) that talked about how the Pentagon "lost track" of about $2.3 trillion. How does that happen? That kind of bad bookkeeping seems to go beyond incompetence into the realm of fraud, malfeasance, and obscene amounts of theft. Those who are responsible are truly traitors to their country. Just think how well the U.S. soldiers would be equipped with just 1/10 of that amount.
Maybe an investigation into the background and dealings of those who make the decisions regarding the U.S. military, as well as those who stand to profit from contracts, is in order. You might want to start off with David H. Brooks, CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB Industries (http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1915/50_Cent_the_War_Profiteer_and_the_10_million_Bat_Mitzvah), who's company provides body armor to the Marines that can't stop a 9mm round.
An army marches on its stomach. But it lives or dies by its logistics. And it looks like U.S. supply lines are being strangled by incompetence, fraud, and war profiteering.- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Here is an advice. Stop reading junk.
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here the truth. HK want to sell weapons to the US military. It is not an improvement and make the rifle more complicated then it really should be.
SCAR has major reliability problems in testing. It won't be fielded any time soon if ever.
DragonSkin Armor couldn't stop a 7.62x54R AP in Army testing. In other worlds it couldn't stop a common caliber round threat.- dezertrat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27.62x54R AP is a sniper or heavy machine gun round. Not many things could stop that short of a metal plate. It is comparable to .308
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The ESAPI are rated to stop 7.62x54R AP. Long before Pinnacle Armor submitted their armor for testing troops were using it in their IBA.
- greenamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The real reason the military will not consider replacing the M-4 and M-16 is because doing so would essentially put Colt out of business, and they have very strong connections in the government to prevent that from happening.
- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No because it bring nothing to the table.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you realize that FN now is licensed to make the M-16 series right?
- Hakai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure someone has made something like this, but I think quality assurance effectiveness on range models would probably be better if they were tested on an artificial simulation range which utilizes extreme conditions. I mean, if you're going to create a weapon that is dependable, futuristic but still usable in extreme conditions you should probably test it for that.
The way I'm thinking it as, is similar to a huge warehouse split into various weather stations.
Each station will try to closely mirror an extreme condition, be it cold, heat, moisture and dust.
Have a team of testers fire on the range in that condition over a period of time (possibly even staying in those conditions as they would for scheduled periods of time) with the same weapon and ammunition, and see what problems may arise.
(then again, as with market research companies, sometimes it's better to just go with the flow than try to really fix something) - BOOFMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I thought the British and US were switching to the HK G36 in the near future...
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as14-e.htm- jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yeah no.
- Jagdwulfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The G36 which is an outstanding weapon compared to the M16 is one of the weapons being considered for the change. I fired that puppy in Kosovo while taking the German Marksmanship course (I will not attempt to spell it out would ***** it up). The G36 is much more accurate than the 16 and has red dot sight that is illuminated by sunlight during the day. They are still looking into it though for the new replacement for the M16 POS weapons system.
- Jomwilli, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3H&K Rocks, every combat soldier knows that. Most SOCOM, Rangers, LRRP's, Tactical Teams etc. have and wanted to use H&K's MP5's. Hell, I love that little bitch.
The modern day combat soldier needs something new and reliable. It needs to be NATO compliant (i.e. 5.56 or 7.62) and reliable.
Bullpups to whatever futuristic Soldier of Fortune whiz bang weapon du jour, you still will have Bureuocracy and funding problems.
This web site has a few of us ex military guys on it, but mostly has people who play video games and with that and wikipedia, and the History Channel is all they know about these weapons.
Geek out boys, but man I'm glad the Digg readership base doesn't decide on our future weapon systems. - CletusJones, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3MY DOUBLE BARREL AK-47 BAZOOKA ROCKET LAUNCHER 76MM, .38 CALIBER WITH LASER ACCURACY, NIGHT VISION SCOPE, AND A REAR-VIEW MIRROR (IN CASE SOMEONE TRIES TO TAKE MY WALLET) MAKES MY WEENER FEEL BIGGER THAN IT IS! RHHAAAAAA!
- MadMaxx426, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If anyone is interested in this technology, you can check out http://www.lwrifles.com for civilian-friendly (H&K 416 is not available to anyone but gov't agencies and police depts..not even individual officers can get them) rifles using the same technology.
- bkedersha, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0The M-16 sucks in reliability. Jams, barrels wearing down quickly, magazine issues, it is a piece of crap since it was introduced. Plus, it now really lacks the stopping power because of modern body armor. Barrett has created a 6.8 mm conversion, named the M468. It seems to be a good alternative to the M-16. Again the Military gets screwed because of the incompetence of Rumsfeld. Canceling Comanche, Crusader, and the M-8, and a whole host of stupid decisions. The man was in idiot to begin with, a failed SecDef under Ford, and a failed SecDef under Bush Junior.
Know with the M-16 is good for? Shooting the other guy to get his AK-74, AK-47 or AKM.- jdun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You don't know what the ***** you're talking about.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our