What bothers me about modern military rifles.

[Ballbearing]

1. Why are there so many attatchment rails on them that make them so bloody heavy? Wasn't the AR-15/M-16 designed to be a lighter more user friendly rifle for soldiers and enable the average soldier to carry more ammuntion? A heavy rifle is a detriment to the average G.I..
2. Why are there so many high-tech gadgets and gizmos showing up on them that make them (again) more heavy and violate in all respects the long held and well established tenet that in order to insure proper function and reliability during the rigours of combat, any rifle issued to an infantryman should be designed to be simple and have as few moving parts as possible? More stuff, means more stuff that can fail.

The AR-15/M-16 with it's lightweight aluminum alloy reciever and hollow plastic stocks was a step forward in military rifle technology that made the soldier's rifle more soldier friendly and the 5.56 mm round was introduced in the AR to allow the ordinary soldier to carry more ammunition, is this not so? These new picatinny happy rifles are cumbersome, and unwieldy, and uncomfortable to hold. Does anyone else think likewise? Have any active duty soldiers voiced any complaints about these things? Just so you know, I did serve in the Navy in the 1980's and was a Gunners Mate and worked extensively with small arms, but to be completely fair, not on AR types. Our ship's armory was stocked with M-14's instead. The only AR types I worked with were in gunnery school.

[GlockMeister]

You remind me of Andy Rooney. lmao J/K

But for your entertainment. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFqiLGvZpVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0J56vwXqOA

But the real answer as to why there are so many high-tech gadgets and gizmos, because people will buy them and they know it. Make them, and they will buy them. Show it to them, and they will want it.

[ArkansasHunter]

I wonder what the average weight is for an M-16 with all the gizmo's on it ?

[jashoffa]

Pushing 10 lbs I bet.

[samuel]

The average replacement has all he (she now) can do to point the weapon in the right direction,disenguage safety,and pull the trigger.(and take cover if possible).I do believe the present soldiers are better trained to present/return fire than they were in the Vietnam era.I also believe the young soldiers have a good understanding of the bells and whistles of today and are very effective in deployment of them as witnessed in reduced # of casualties they suffer in a firefight compared to the casualties suffered in days gone by.The new gadgets must work and the increase in ammo must help.Any thing that saves casualties/lives sounds great to me.Admitting I know little about picitenny rails and gadgets,as long as they keep casualties down and still allow sucess in operations,I say ooohrahh! ,,,sam.

[nathangdad]

A rifle should not equal the hard points on a jet fighter wing to which you can attach all manner of things.

This rail idea has been taken to the point of being counter-productive.

[jmp8927]

Because several attachments increase battle effectiveness. A red/green dot sight allows much much faster target acquisition and also allows you to aim in very low light conditions. They also allow night vision optics that give an enormous advantage at night. A vertical foregrip allows more control and more comfort in maneuvering the firearm. Flashlights can serve a purpose as well with tactical urban ops where you have to bust down doors. I've heard a problem is when they do that, the transition from light to very dim inside the building impairs vision for a minute and can get a soldier killed. A flashlight in the same situation allows them to see and blinds the enemy. However, after that I don't see any use for things like laser sights, bipods, high power scopes, etc on an assualt rifle. Combat has evolve a LOT since the WWs and soldiers have adapted their rifles to fit it.

[jerry]

The tool has to fit the job. Holding back technology may be a hinderance in some scenerios, that said, all combat guns do not need additional gagets. Some mission requirements may require specialized weaponry and should be available for supervised used by trained personell. My duty weapon is the standard A2, I have no use for gadgets. If I were in a situation that my life depended on tipping the scales at a higher hit ratio to ensure the safety of myself and my team, I'd buck up and deal with the extra weight.

[jrswanson1]

I've noticed that there are some folks who feel a rifle isn't "combat ready" if it does not come with rails. ??? I have rails on two of the three ARs I own, and on my one Mini-14. They do come in handy for lights and grips and such. My one AR that does not have rails on the hand guard has a flat top for easier scope mounting. Find whatever suits you.

Jim

[SightNSqueeze]

Originally Posted by Ballbearing

1. Why are there so many attatchment rails on them that make them so bloody heavy? Wasn't the AR-15/M-16 designed to be a lighter more user friendly rifle for soldiers and enable the average soldier to carry more ammuntion? A heavy rifle is a detriment to the average G.I..
2. Why are there so many high-tech gadgets and gizmos showing up on them that make them (again) more heavy and violate in all respects the long held and well established tenet that in order to insure proper function and reliability during the rigours of combat, any rifle issued to an infantryman should be designed to be simple and have as few moving parts as possible? More stuff, means more stuff that can fail.

The AR-15/M-16 with it's lightweight aluminum alloy reciever and hollow plastic stocks was a step forward in military rifle technology that made the soldier's rifle more soldier friendly and the 5.56 mm round was introduced in the AR to allow the ordinary soldier to carry more ammunition, is this not so? These new picatinny happy rifles are cumbersome, and unwieldy, and uncomfortable to hold. Does anyone else think likewise? Have any active duty soldiers voiced any complaints about these things? Just so you know, I did serve in the Navy in the 1980's and was a Gunners Mate and worked extensively with small arms, but to be completely fair, not on AR types. Our ship's armory was stocked with M-14's instead. The only AR types I worked with were in gunnery school.

Well, I'm with you on that issue. If it were me, I would keep my weapon as "gadgetless" as possible. Prior to going to Iraq with DoD in support of 1st MLG, I was issued an M9 service pistol and two mags; that’s it. Since I flew a lot from site to site, I opted to use a simple radio pouch for a ballistic vest holster and an aftermarket leather OIF-Victory shoulder holster while inside the camps, which for me was most of the time. I noticed that most of the Marine logistics personnel were issued rifles and they kept them as gadgetless as possible too. Security and convoy personnel on the other hand showed a mix of preferences, especially the Army personnel who had just about every inch of rail on their new M16A4s and M4s clustered with IR and UV lights, lasers sights, battery power, optics, vertical grips, bipods, and everything short of a DVD player. Granted, they almost always performed better than the enemy in urban warfare where support is as far away as your vehicle, but how will all of that fare out in the boonies like the Afghan mountains? Just talking to some of the guys who have been there, the priority is less “stuff” and more ammunition, water, and only the most basic load essentials. I think that as the mission changes from urban to boonies; we’ll see less non-essential weight on the warrior and his weapon. For their sake, I hope so.

[Ballbearing]

I see. Well you don't learn if you don't ask questions, and I've learned something. Combat situations have developed that require more specialization and in some cases, these add-ons become desirable and necessary. But at the same time this necessary diversity seems to have become a hinderance to the simplicity and standardization that have been an effective means of lowering costs and have probably increased necessary training as well. But all in all, it seems to be a matter
of "Do what you gotta do to get the job done.", Like it's always been. Good luck to you men and women still serving, wherever you are, and I hope you get the necessary weapon to perform your function, whatever it may be.

[commondude]

many people just think its cool to have all the stuff imo. give me an eotech and a forward handgrip and im set. thats all i have on my personal ar15. if i didnt have to have the laser on my issued m4 i would take it off as well.

[TACAV]

All the "gadgets" do is simply enhance the shooter or the weapon itself.

Assuming you have mastered them, iron sights are excellent and should always be there but a quality red dot will make target acquisition faster and easier under stress.

Magnified optics allow target identification and allow for faster and more accurate shooting at distance In fact its advantage is so pronounced the USMC is now making and planning on implimenting the 4 power ACOG a standard piece of issued equipment with all issued rifles. Some of my Marine buddies were all issued them with their rifles and qualified as such.

When working in darkness an LED or incandescent light on your weapon is necessary for all sorts of reasons. You need to be able to ID your targets and see where you are going.

IR Lasers and illuminators allow troops to take full advantage of nightvision equipment allowing someone with an IR laser to quickly aim his own weapon in darkness or designate and spot targets/threats to everyone else in his squad also using Night vision.

an IR illuminator is basically an infrared flashlight which works the same way as a standard light, only with the caveat that only your fellow troops with NVGs can see the light and what is illuminated.

Vertical grips are personal prefrefence but in many cases aid in close in weapon handling and engagements. Most of today's combat is in more urban and or close in anyways.

You could go all the way into "gadgetry" and look at some of the camera systems being developed that allow a solider to point his weapon up or around cover/corners/objects so he can view and engage the threat without directly exposing any part of his body. The weapon mounted camera feeding those images back into his eye protection or even streaming intel back to the command post.

Everything you stick on your weapon has a purpose and or is a solution to a problem and thats how you should plan your build. You shouldn't just throw stuff on there to make it look cool.

These are all tools to make the end goal of finding, IDing, and engaging your target, faster and more efficient and most of them work very well.

[larmus]

I know for me when i put the vert. grip on my ar, my wife said it was easier for her to use i add a light for night use and that is it... maybe a laser later on, as she cant use optics very well and the laser is point and shoot for her... all the other is to much for me, same with my other semi, vert grip, flash light and maybe a laser...

[Ballbearing]

Perhaps one day soon, some enterprising young inventor can wrap all of these features up into one package, in a new rifle that can do all of the things the
modern soldier needs, without being cumbersome and weighty. A rifle having one sight
that can be used both day and night and incorporate all of the necessary other
gadgetry into the stock so that all of those rails won't be needed, and so whatever
the soldier needs at the time can be accessed with the push of a button or even by
voice recognition technology, so the G.I. can once again carry the same weapon as
every other soldier. Arming all of the soldiers, sailors and marines with so many different weapons with so many different features must not only be inefficient, but also a logistical nightmare.

[TACAV]

Originally Posted by Ballbearing

Perhaps one day soon, some enterprising young inventor can wrap all of these features up into one package, in a new rifle that can do all of the things the
modern soldier needs, without being cumbersome and weighty. A rifle having one sight
that can be used both day and night and incorporate all of the necessary other
gadgetry into the stock so that all of those rails won't be needed,

Some already do things like that the HK G36 or the Isralie TAVOR already incorporate advanced optics etc.

The whole point of the M4 SOCOM package etc with all the rails or the new FN SCAR series of rifles is that it does just that. Allow each soldier to tailor his weapon with what he needs or wants for his mission. The whole point is modularity. If you start to add stuff in there as a default part of the weapon system you may be adding in stuff that is not wanted or needed or the opposite, not adding in something that someone needs for a specialty type mission and you then must add it on.

[Pothole]

Originally Posted by commondude

many people just think its cool to have all the stuff imo. give me an eotech and a forward handgrip and im set. thats all i have on my personal ar15. if i didnt have to have the laser on my issued m4 i would take it off as well.

you may have hit a point there, i bet half the soldiers out there just like having a bad ass looking rifle, yes they may not need some of the things that are hung off it, but if it add confidence that's worth a couple ounces in my book

[sea_chicken1]

all I have on my AR is a barska M-16 sight (looks similar to an acog) and bups, seems to handle fast and acurat enough for me to engage multiple targets onj tactical courses.

[at4rxj]

Originally Posted by Ballbearing

1. Why are there so many attatchment rails on them that make them so bloody heavy? Wasn't the AR-15/M-16 designed to be a lighter more user friendly rifle for soldiers and enable the average soldier to carry more ammuntion? A heavy rifle is a detriment to the average G.I..

Tell me, what's heavier? If you go with a good quality rail, it doesn't make them heavy... (pics are from bravo company...)

USGI (Colt) M4 handguards
Delta Ring Assembly
OEM Barrel Nut
Handguard Cap
9.1 oz


DD 7" Carbine Rail
8.4 oz

Originally Posted by Ballbearing

2. Why are there so many high-tech gadgets and gizmos showing up on them that make them (again) more heavy and violate in all respects the long held and well established tenet that in order to insure proper function and reliability during the rigours of combat, any rifle issued to an infantryman should be designed to be simple and have as few moving parts as possible? More stuff, means more stuff that can fail.
The AR-15/M-16 with it's lightweight aluminum alloy reciever and hollow plastic stocks was a step forward in military rifle technology that made the soldier's rifle more soldier friendly and the 5.56 mm round was introduced in the AR to allow the ordinary soldier to carry more ammunition, is this not so? These new picatinny happy rifles are cumbersome, and unwieldy, and uncomfortable to hold. Does anyone else think likewise? Have any active duty soldiers voiced any complaints about these things? Just so you know, I did serve in the Navy in the 1980's and was a Gunners Mate and worked extensively with small arms, but to be completely fair, not on AR types. Our ship's armory was stocked with M-14's instead. The only AR types I worked with were in gunnery school.

While I haven't ever been enlisted, I know that if I was, I would want certain things along with my rifle. I'll take my aimpoint, quad rail and grip, and a light. Depending on the situation, take or add things accordingly.
The technology is what makes our military so great. Yes, we have training, dedication, intelligence, and sheer numbers, but look at what all our guys can do... It's amazing.

[CrazyIvan]

You also must consider that a lot of grunts aren't humping it across large distances anymore. More and more, they are dropped and extracted very close to their target, or they move in with a vehicle, do their thing and leave. Or, they are accompanied by vehicles and tanks that can carry their extra ammo and supplies for them.

Back when the M-16 was originally designed, it was in light of WWII and the Korean War, where troops were isolated out in the middle of nowhere for days, even weeks. They got sick of carrying around a heavy, wood-stocked rifle with large, heavy ammo. But, now when they tote around on their HMMV's and are in constant radio contact with HQ, they don't have to be worried about being stuck out in the middle of nowhere for long periods of time without assistance and supplies. Our military did not know at the time of selecting the M-16 that our electronic technology would get to a point where soldiers would not be stuck in the sh!t without help.

Now, in light of the way things are now in the military, they are focusing on effectiveness over comfort. Because, after you go out on patrol for a few hours, sometimes on foot, sometimes with mechanized, you are back at HQ.

Now when it comes to Special Forces or teams like the SEALS, where they might have an extended mission, they have every choice of how to customize their weapons, making them as heavy or as light weighted as they want. And, they usually make them to where they can break the weapon down, making them lighter, if needed, yet still effective to use. So they might have a scope, laser, supressor, light, etc.. But, they can strip all of that off, leaving a standard M4 with iron sites if they are on the run and need to lighten their load.