|
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » | |
| U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan | ||
|
Moderator(s): SiteAdmin, WizLoco, ANTONOVKGB, GetaLife[KGB], impcfast, yellowmanKGB, Thorn, Boogiemnstr
|
| Author | Post | ||
| xConvictx |
|
||
Registered Member #124
Joined: Sun May 09 2010, 01:29AMPosts: 139 |
Interesting Article .S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan FOXNews.com The U.S. military is re-evaluating the Army’s use of the M4 rifle in Afghanistan following concerns that the Taliban’s primitive AK-47’s are proving more effective. pr intemailshare recommend (11) The U.S. military is re-evaluating the Army’s use of the M4 rifle in Afghanistan following concerns that the Taliban’s primitive AK-47’s are proving more effective. The M4 is an updated version of the M16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. But while the weapon is better suited for the kind of urban warfare common in Iraq, some have questioned whether it is deadly and accurate for Afghanistan – where U.S. troops often find themselves in long-range combat. An Army study found that the 5.56mm bullets fired from the M4s don’t retain enough velocity past 1,000 feet to kill an enemy. In Afghanistan, forces are often up to 2,500 feet apart. “It just makes no sense,†said Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr., a Fox News military analyst. Scale s said the M4 is “unsuitable†for Afghan terrain and “notoriously unreliable†in the first place. The Army Times reported on an Army weapons test three years ago that found the M4 performed worse than three other newer carbines when subjected to an “extreme dust test.†Probl ems with the M4 locking up were also cited in a study last year on a July 2008 firefight that left nine U.S. soldiers dead in eastern Afghanistan. T he Taliban are meanwhile using heavier bullets that allow them to fire at U.S. and NATO troops from distances that are out of range of the M4. To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. The sharpshooters are equipped with the new M110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet. As for what could ultimately replace the M4, the Army’s center for small-arms development is trying to find a solution. Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, said the M4 has the advantage of more-rapid firepower. “ The 5.56 caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target,†he told The Associated Press. But he acknowledged the weapon is much less effective at 2,000 feet out. A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56 mm and 7.62 cartridges, Tamilio said. Scales said the U.S. military simply needs to engineer a better weapon – he said the M8, a weapon that was under development before being halted several years ago, could be revived and improved for Afghanistan. â €œWe’re the world’s largest superpower. Why don’t we just make one,†Scales said. “This isn’t rocket science. We’re not putting a man on the moon here.†The Associated Press contributed to this report. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| HK308 |
|
||
Registered Member #19
Joined: Mon Nov 23 2009, 04:59PMPosts: 235 |
The HKXM8 and the HK416 have been tested by our military. The 416 is a possibility. Many articles out there about it. I remember reading one about the 416 and how a special forces group chose it and a few months after receiving them, they were taken away because the government felt they needed to stay with the M4 due to uniform standards. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| xConvictx |
|
||
|
Registered Member #124
Joined: Sun May 09 2010, 01:29AM Posts: 139 |
Yea the 5.56 NATO is the big issue here, in regards to changing the caliber. Your right about the "Standards". Politics as usual. Edited Wed May 26 2010, 12:33PM | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Antilogic81KGB |
|
||
Registered Member #17
Joined: Sun Nov 22 2009, 11:27PMPosts: 355 |
The reasons for not going with the XM8 years ago were pretty much stupid, and smacked of "we have too many M4s it would be a waste to not use them regardless". Here's a wiki piece about the gun tests regarding the XM8, 416, and SCAR. "In the Fall of 2007 the XM8 was compared to other firearms in a 'dust test.' [1] The competition was based on two previous tests that were conducted in Summer 2006 and Summer 2007 before the latest test in the Fall of 2007. In the Summer 2007 test, M16 rifles and M4 carbines recorded a total of 307 stoppages. In the Fall 2007 test, the XM8 recorded only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR had 226 stoppages and the HK416 had 233. The difference between the XM8, HK416, and FN SCAR was not statistically significant when correcting for the less reliable STANAG magazine. [2] However, the discrepancy of 575 stoppages between the Summer and Fall 2007 tests of the M4 had Army officials looking into possible causes for the change such as different officials, seasons, and inadequate sample pool size but have stated that the conditions of the test were ostensibly the same. The Army countered the controversy surrounding the M4 by stating, in essence, that troops are generally satisfied with the M4. However respondents indicated in independent interviews quoted in Congress that they would much prefer the M4-derivative HK416 or the XM8 which it builds on." As for the caliber, I do not know for certain but don't we have to make sure a new caliber passes muster with the rest of the U.N. first, I believe it's called STANAG - standardized agreement. Which means a new caliber could be a long ways away, or not. Edited Wed May 26 2010, 05:23PM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Unsungx |
|
||
|
Registered Member #11
Joined: Fri Nov 20 2009, 09:42PM Posts: 175 |
Its not the gun people, its the round. you can take a M4 and throw in a few new pieces, and utilize the 6.5 grendel which is VASTLY superior to the 6.8 spc. Hell at 1000 yards it retains more of its knockdown than the .308 and at 1200 its got a flatter flight path than the .308. Its a 900 yard round. What blows my mind is the lack of consideration given to longer barrels. Velocity goes up the longer the barrel. frak the fishgun(xm8 melts after sustained fire.... hmmm HK didnt you learn your lesson with melting guns yet?) and the 416 is just a piston ar-15. The scar is a prettier ar-15, if we are going to be going to a new gun, it should really be the Masada. 2 pins to replace the barrel and bolt... 5.56 to 7.62 in a few seconds... yes please. Below are some charts showing the ballistics of common rounds used today. Below is a chart showing energy retention.  Another proving the grendel is a beast  Trajectory Comparison  Wind Drift  Velocity  Below is a comparison of the 6.5 Grendel with other common cartridges: 7.62x51 NATO, 7.62x39 Russian, 6.5x55 Swedish, 6.5 Grendel, and .223 Remington/5.56 NATO.  KNOWING IS HALF THE BATTLE, the other half is red and blue lazers.  Edited Wed May 26 2010, 09:51PM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| xConvictx |
|
||
|
Registered Member #124
Joined: Sun May 09 2010, 01:29AM Posts: 139 |
Thumbs up! Good stuff. My 2 cents: M4 is not made for long range. Like you mentioned, barrels take a huge role. Get a M4 dirty and you are hosed. I rather have a AK47 in a .223 cal than a M4 any day. The chance of jamming is a lot less. Range factor - Most combat situations are not long range conflicts. No matter what the caliber a M16 variant is high maintenace. Con cerning the graphs: The data seems accurate but why would they compare a Winchester load against a Black Hills Load in a different cal? That is like comparing a POS Pinto vs a Corvette. Knowing through experience even though the .223 has the velocity, it is not a for sure kill when it meets it target. One reason why I stopped using the round. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Unsungx |
|
||
|
Registered Member #11
Joined: Fri Nov 20 2009, 09:42PM Posts: 175 |
Con, no idea man, I was just trying to get some more people to come to the grendel dark side. I will be building one soon. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| xConvictx |
|
||
|
Registered Member #124
Joined: Sun May 09 2010, 01:29AM Posts: 139 |
Show me when you are done bro... Might have to get one myself. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| mackrevis |
|
||
|
Registered Member #4
Joined: Fri Oct 30 2009, 08:54AM Posts: 146 |
IMHO the .223 within 500 yards is tits. And I agree with you Convict, my AK-47 (Homemade...bet ter) will out perform just about any frak rifle out there. I would match it against ANY M4 and laugh as I pop out of the sand firing! | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Unsungx |
|
||
|
Registered Member #11
Joined: Fri Nov 20 2009, 09:42PM Posts: 175 |
Heres what the ACR should have been... Bushmaster frak it up royally. The Masada would have been the perfect, cost effective replacement for the M-16 platform. xConvictx wrote ... Thumbs up! Good stuff. My 2 cents: M4 is not made for long range. Like you mentioned, barrels take a huge role. Get a M4 dirty and you are hosed. I rather have a AK47 in a .223 cal than a M4 any day. The chance of jamming is a lot less. Range factor - Most combat situations are not long range conflicts. No matter what the caliber a M16 variant is high maintenace. Con cerning the graphs: The data seems accurate but why would they compare a Winchester load against a Black Hills Load in a different cal? That is like comparing a POS Pinto vs a Corvette. Knowing through experience even though the .223 has the velocity, it is not a for sure kill when it meets it target. One reason why I stopped using the round. To answer your question, after stretching my google-fu to it's limits, I've come up with this; Winchester doesn't make a 6.5 load yet. Also, aside from being called the 7.62x51 NATO, it is also called the 7.62x51 Winchester. I can't seem to find any information on the Winchester factory load 7.62x51 vs other loads, but then again I'm afraid to look too hard, for the chance that I might find a flaw in my glorious Grendel. Can't you just let me have this one!? lol Edited Fri May 28 2010, 12:05AM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System