Is the m-4 junk ?

gbear-48 · 10-17-2009, 04:18 AM

Wet on the inside , dry on the outside -- shut the dust cover.

www.vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/weapon-lubrication/

Squirt some lub in the BCG vent holes from time to time , during lulls in firing. The DI system will blow dry the inside of the BCG.
Put a rubber band around the mag that's in the gun to help keep dust out. That's only on the " walking around " mag --not the others.
The biggest single reliability issue with the M4 is a brain dead boss who demands that people walk around with the magwell empty & wide open.

Bayou Bluetick · 10-17-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbear-48

Wet on the inside , dry on the outside -- shut the dust cover.

www.vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/weapon-lubrication/

Squirt some lub in the BCG vent holes from time to time , during lulls in firing. The DI system will blow dry the inside of the BCG.
Put a rubber band around the mag that's in the gun to help keep dust out. That's only on the " walking around " mag --not the others.
The biggest single reliability issue with the M4 is a brain dead boss who demands that people walk around with the magwell empty & wide open.

I went and read the link you provide.It seemes that it is no secret that the m-4 needs lots of cleaning and lubricate....It also seems from reading the article that it is no secret there are whole families of weapons availbe that require little lubricate and cleaning.........So Why are our soldiers fighting in the sands of the middle east with the totally wrong weapon???????????????????????????????????????????? ???

gbear-48 · 10-18-2009, 09:02 AM

You tell me.

Rex in OTZ · 10-21-2009, 09:45 PM

One time it was volly fire and massed bayonet charges of the battle lines then times and improvements the worlds military's took awhile to figure what to do with what they had then when machineguns came along they had battle rifles in both world wars, by WWII the worlds armies were starting to figure the battle rifles were too much power they needed massed fire to advance on a position so they figured they needed a assult rifle with a smaller cartridge cause all they needed was to throw a hail of bullets so the enemy would keep ther heads down and not return fire or they might at worst get killed and at best get wounded so the trooper would be evacuated tieing up the support infrastructure with wounded, the AR rifles are a product of that emergeing science of assult warfare it was at the time our best attempt to field a effictive tool to assult positions with massed fire power to take a position to counter what the reds had at the time, any real killing is done by the medium & heavy machine guns in conjunction with gernades, rockets and mortars and artillary back up.
The AR is a assult rifle designed for assulting positions and wounding at best, killing at worst not really a primary defence weapon ment for serious killing like a crew served weapon.

YugoM59/66 · 10-23-2009, 12:52 AM

i loved my M4. i've never had any problems with my m4 in afghanistan. i got my hands on a SAW for a little bit and when i tried using that thing one night on post it didnt work. fortunately my life wasn't in huge danger at the time and the situation de-escelated quickly. turns out the bolt was wearing down and it wasnt catching the rounds and feeding them into the chamber off of the feed tray. faulty gun but a lot of the m249 SAW's we had were junk. our 50's were good as long as you lubed the hell out of them which you had to do in the spur of the moment bc you cant roll around with them lubed they'll just cake with dust. the 240's were your best bet. never had any problems with those. That's my baby. i'm a machine gunner so machine guns are kinda my thing. but after that SAW i had didnt work i got my m4 back and didnt have any problems. i am comfortable with that weapon. thats why im partial to it. but im sure an m14 or something else would be a better battle rifle...they would just have to retrain everybody. it would be hard getting used to a different weapon for me at this point...clean the m4 before and after patrol, you'll have no problems with it

and machine guns are mainly used to keep the enemy's heads down while the Marine's with the M4's locate, close with, and destroy the enemy. mortar's and helo's are the real killers over there in afghanistan.

You Tube

thats me at 17 seconds

Cyrano · 11-04-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SightNSqueeze

They had a chance to convert every M4/M4A1 and every M16A2/A3/A4 in the entire U.S. inventory with Heckler & Koch made upper receivers, barrels, and "gas pistons" in place of the filthy grimy "gas tubes" that are causing much of the problem due to carbon blown straight onto the bolt face and into the receiver. The new caliber would have been "6.8mm" and all existing mags could have still been used. Instead, they are still grinding out new M16A4s and M4A1s with the “same” faulty gas system and the “same” insufficient 5.56x45mm caliber.

What was the rationale behind not making the changeover? Apart from it making sense, improving the Poodle Shooter and maybe saving a few lives, I mean?

10-17-2009, 04:18 AM	#21
gbear-48 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 104	Wet on the inside , dry on the outside -- shut the dust cover. www.vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/weapon-lubrication/ Squirt some lub in the BCG vent holes from time to time , during lulls in firing. The DI system will blow dry the inside of the BCG. Put a rubber band around the mag that's in the gun to help keep dust out. That's only on the " walking around " mag --not the others. The biggest single reliability issue with the M4 is a brain dead boss who demands that people walk around with the magwell empty & wide open. Last edited by gbear-48; 10-17-2009 at 05:35 AM. Reason: Detail & Clarity.

10-21-2009, 09:45 PM	#24
Rex in OTZ Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: NorthWest Alaska Posts: 975	Tactics One time it was volly fire and massed bayonet charges of the battle lines then times and improvements the worlds military's took awhile to figure what to do with what they had then when machineguns came along they had battle rifles in both world wars, by WWII the worlds armies were starting to figure the battle rifles were too much power they needed massed fire to advance on a position so they figured they needed a assult rifle with a smaller cartridge cause all they needed was to throw a hail of bullets so the enemy would keep ther heads down and not return fire or they might at worst get killed and at best get wounded so the trooper would be evacuated tieing up the support infrastructure with wounded, the AR rifles are a product of that emergeing science of assult warfare it was at the time our best attempt to field a effictive tool to assult positions with massed fire power to take a position to counter what the reds had at the time, any real killing is done by the medium & heavy machine guns in conjunction with gernades, rockets and mortars and artillary back up. The AR is a assult rifle designed for assulting positions and wounding at best, killing at worst not really a primary defence weapon ment for serious killing like a crew served weapon. Last edited by Rex in OTZ; 10-21-2009 at 09:47 PM.

10-18-2009, 09:02 AM	#23
gbear-48 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 104	You tell me.