Senators want army to reconsider purchasing M4s.

Gio · 05-07-2007, 12:51 PM

I dont get why we still deploy these guns when there are clearly better choices.
Senator Tells Army to Reconsider M4

samuel · 05-07-2007, 01:41 PM

I am sure it has nothing to do with campaign contributions.After all we passed campaign finance reform and got all special intrest money out of elections. samuel.

Gio · 05-07-2007, 01:57 PM

Colt has been making the army guns for a very long time now too.

CrazyIvan · 05-07-2007, 02:57 PM

This article hits me not quite right.

I wonder if these senators saying the M4's are not the best are receiving contributions from competitors of the rifle.

Also, The M4's have been in use for so long...it is very costly to train an entire army on a new standard weapon, to allow them to qualify and succeed with the use of that rifle. I'm not saying we shouldn't move on at some point. But you have to think about the future of weapons and whether or not it is a wise decision to spend so much money on something that may not last that long before some hi-tech weaponry comes out, like the OICW (Modern Firearms - Alliant / HK XM-29 SABR / OICW assault rifle). So they train exhaustingly on new weapons then shortly after something else comes out like this that they decide to go ahead and use, then must retrain again...

I use computer systems here at the office. You know, when a new version of the software comes out, sure it has some upgrades, it might have more versatility. But, sometimes it is better to wait 2-4 versions before upgrading, or it just does not prove to be efficient or productive. I'm not trying to equate sitting behind a computer here in Denver, CO to ducking behind a stone wall with bullets flying overhead, but I think the comparison of weaponry to software is fair.

And, sometimes a person can not be as effective with a new version of something everytime it is released as they can be with something they have become accustomed to, tried and true. So, sure the new weapons may have more ability themselves, but would the soldier have an equal increased ability with the new rifle? Give a cowboy with who is accustomed to a lever action rifle a SAW and see how effective he is with it...pfft...spray and pray at best.

samuel · 05-07-2007, 03:21 PM

The first m16 I saw was in ,66 as I recall.no cleaning instructions.no maintenance manuel and a screw togather rod that broke faster than you could assemble it.The first thing I said was "what idiot designed this toy gun to blow all the carbon in the mechinism???They finally learned after 40yrs and now arent smart enough to issue them.Shameful!!!! Furthermore a fighting man,cowboy or otherwise can adapt to any weapon available.This new system just sounds more dependable. samuel.

Bravo · 05-07-2007, 03:43 PM

In my opinion, not only is a new gun needed, but wouldn't upgrading the caliber at the same time be more effective? Say to the 6.8mm Rem SPC? I thought that cartridge was designed to replace the 5.56mm round.

CrazyIvan · 05-07-2007, 03:50 PM

We're in a war, and troops are becoming more difficult to come by. I doubt they want spend time shipping all the combat troops back to camp for training.

troylaplante · 05-07-2007, 03:54 PM

Just give AK47s to everybody. Maybe Hi-Point 995 carbines. (those ones were for Joe)

samuel · 05-07-2007, 03:59 PM

Is it better to leave them in combat and possibly being killed because their present weapon jammed or doesnt have debilitating capability,s equal to the 7.62by 39???

CrazyIvan · 05-07-2007, 04:08 PM

LOL, well they have left them in combat for worse reasons than a weapon with an out-of-date design...so I wouldn't put it passed them. Money and Power is all they care about, not the amount of lives lost. Proof is in the pudding when they talk about the "strong economy," how many jobs have been created under "their administration" and conveniently leave out how many caskets were shipped home.

knightRider · 05-07-2007, 04:12 PM

my uncle was a marine and he liked the m16 , my step dad was a green baret and air bourne < morun baret> and he liked it also . where any of you in service with these weapons? just asking not being an as$ .

Gio · 05-07-2007, 04:13 PM

From what the article said the HK 416 uppers fit on he M16 lowers and M4 lowers. So how different could they be? Also it wouldn't take boot camp to learn to use the gun. It would have the same sights and stupidly the same ammo, but be way more reliable. Also it wouldn't be all at once. It would be gradual.

The demonstrations I saw of the gun on TV on future weapons amazed me. He pulled the gun out of the sand shook it and fired. Did the same with water. They also hook a drum magazine on it and fired the gun on full auto continuosly from all angles. Not one jam.

M16 has one of the most dangerous design flaws for a combat rifle. It shits where it eats.

JoeLee · 05-07-2007, 04:13 PM

The M16 was Robert Mcnamara's love child,being LBJ's right and left hand he said,this is the rifle like it or not.The nots had the vote but the White House had the power.Myself if I were President I'd issue the Troops AKs and be done with it.10-4?

Gio · 05-07-2007, 04:16 PM

AK and M16 seem to be both extremes. In my opinion neither are good for an army who has access to much more balanced rifles.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior.
Its in the article.

troy2000 · 05-07-2007, 04:19 PM

"Special operations forces, including "tier one" units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Development Group - or SEAL Team Six - have used their own funds to purchase the Heckler & Koch-built 416, which uses a gas-piston operating system less susceptible to failure than Colt's gas-operated design."

It tells us what we need to know, I think.

While we're at it, how about the Trophy anti-RPG system the Army turned down, so they could sign a contract with Raytheon to build a system from scratch that won't be ready until 2011, even if it works?

The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation (OFT) tested Trophy, an Israeli-built system, and rated it 98 percent effective. But the Army killed battlefield testing of it in Iraq, claiming Trophy was "simply not ready." Excuse me? It's less ready than Raytheon's system, which doesn't even exist yet?

CrazyIvan · 05-07-2007, 04:19 PM

Hmm, we also have the ability to just keep ground troops out and just flatten whatever territory we wish. Why don't we do that dammit?

Gio · 05-07-2007, 04:23 PM

Dont get off track keep it on the gun. Dont need a thread locked.

Saw demonstrations of the Isreali system online though and it was cool looking. It was like the rockets hit an invisible wall.

Midas · 05-07-2007, 04:28 PM

Our Govt, always has the troop's best interests at heart

just_a_car · 05-07-2007, 04:30 PM

If they're advocating the H&K 416, it's not exactly replacing the M4, it's just giving it a new upper.

Also, I think they'd be smart to check the LWRC M4 (Awesome new M-4 platform from LWRC), as it has the same function and reliability of the 416, but at a much more reasonable price... and civilians can buy them from their site!

wolverine · 05-07-2007, 04:33 PM

The M-16A2s we had when i was int eh army were worn out rattletraps that couldnt hit the broadside of a barn at 300 meters. The uppers and lowers were so loose to each other from wear, i generally stuck a dime in one side of the gap so it would shoot decent. They always went bang but where the bullet went was up to question. the only guns we had that were in good shape were the M-203s. We got them not long before i got to my unit and they were still in A1 shape.

SW

05-07-2007, 12:51 PM	#1
Gio Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 804 Trader Rating: (0)	Senators want army to reconsider purchasing M4s. I dont get why we still deploy these guns when there are clearly better choices. Senator Tells Army to Reconsider M4 __________________ Blow you up.

05-07-2007, 01:57 PM	#3
Gio Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 804 Trader Rating: (0)	Colt has been making the army guns for a very long time now too. __________________ Blow you up.

05-07-2007, 02:57 PM	#4
CrazyIvan Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Englewood, CO Posts: 2,299 Trader Rating: (0)	This article hits me not quite right. I wonder if these senators saying the M4's are not the best are receiving contributions from competitors of the rifle. Also, The M4's have been in use for so long...it is very costly to train an entire army on a new standard weapon, to allow them to qualify and succeed with the use of that rifle. I'm not saying we shouldn't move on at some point. But you have to think about the future of weapons and whether or not it is a wise decision to spend so much money on something that may not last that long before some hi-tech weaponry comes out, like the OICW (Modern Firearms - Alliant / HK XM-29 SABR / OICW assault rifle). So they train exhaustingly on new weapons then shortly after something else comes out like this that they decide to go ahead and use, then must retrain again... I use computer systems here at the office. You know, when a new version of the software comes out, sure it has some upgrades, it might have more versatility. But, sometimes it is better to wait 2-4 versions before upgrading, or it just does not prove to be efficient or productive. I'm not trying to equate sitting behind a computer here in Denver, CO to ducking behind a stone wall with bullets flying overhead, but I think the comparison of weaponry to software is fair. And, sometimes a person can not be as effective with a new version of something everytime it is released as they can be with something they have become accustomed to, tried and true. So, sure the new weapons may have more ability themselves, but would the soldier have an equal increased ability with the new rifle? Give a cowboy with who is accustomed to a lever action rifle a SAW and see how effective he is with it...pfft...spray and pray at best. __________________ "Minimum wage, minimum effort." "Never underestimate the power of stupidity." ~Me Last edited by CrazyIvan; 05-07-2007 at 03:01 PM.

05-07-2007, 03:21 PM	#5
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,056 Trader Rating: (0)	The first m16 I saw was in ,66 as I recall.no cleaning instructions.no maintenance manuel and a screw togather rod that broke faster than you could assemble it.The first thing I said was "what idiot designed this toy gun to blow all the carbon in the mechinism???They finally learned after 40yrs and now arent smart enough to issue them.Shameful!!!! Furthermore a fighting man,cowboy or otherwise can adapt to any weapon available.This new system just sounds more dependable. samuel. Last edited by samuel; 05-07-2007 at 03:25 PM.

05-07-2007, 03:50 PM	#7
CrazyIvan Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Englewood, CO Posts: 2,299 Trader Rating: (0)	We're in a war, and troops are becoming more difficult to come by. I doubt they want spend time shipping all the combat troops back to camp for training. __________________ "Minimum wage, minimum effort." "Never underestimate the power of stupidity." ~Me

05-07-2007, 01:41 PM	#2
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,056 Trader Rating: (0)	I am sure it has nothing to do with campaign contributions.After all we passed campaign finance reform and got all special intrest money out of elections. samuel.

05-07-2007, 03:43 PM	#6
Bravo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 1,775 Trader Rating: (0)	In my opinion, not only is a new gun needed, but wouldn't upgrading the caliber at the same time be more effective? Say to the 6.8mm Rem SPC? I thought that cartridge was designed to replace the 5.56mm round.

05-07-2007, 03:54 PM	#8
troylaplante Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Selma, NC Posts: 2,223 Trader Rating: (0)	Just give AK47s to everybody. Maybe Hi-Point 995 carbines. (those ones were for Joe)

05-07-2007, 03:59 PM	#9
samuel Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,056 Trader Rating: (0)	Is it better to leave them in combat and possibly being killed because their present weapon jammed or doesnt have debilitating capability,s equal to the 7.62by 39???

05-07-2007, 04:08 PM	#10
CrazyIvan Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Englewood, CO Posts: 2,299 Trader Rating: (0)	LOL, well they have left them in combat for worse reasons than a weapon with an out-of-date design...so I wouldn't put it passed them. Money and Power is all they care about, not the amount of lives lost. Proof is in the pudding when they talk about the "strong economy," how many jobs have been created under "their administration" and conveniently leave out how many caskets were shipped home. __________________ "Minimum wage, minimum effort." "Never underestimate the power of stupidity." ~Me Last edited by CrazyIvan; 05-07-2007 at 04:14 PM.

05-07-2007, 04:12 PM	#11
knightRider Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: you know where Posts: 2,599 Trader Rating: (0)	my uncle was a marine and he liked the m16 , my step dad was a green baret and air bourne < morun baret> and he liked it also . where any of you in service with these weapons? just asking not being an as$ . __________________ I'm part kalishnakov, part heckler and Koch.

05-07-2007, 04:13 PM	#12
Gio Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 804 Trader Rating: (0)	From what the article said the HK 416 uppers fit on he M16 lowers and M4 lowers. So how different could they be? Also it wouldn't take boot camp to learn to use the gun. It would have the same sights and stupidly the same ammo, but be way more reliable. Also it wouldn't be all at once. It would be gradual. The demonstrations I saw of the gun on TV on future weapons amazed me. He pulled the gun out of the sand shook it and fired. Did the same with water. They also hook a drum magazine on it and fired the gun on full auto continuosly from all angles. Not one jam. M16 has one of the most dangerous design flaws for a combat rifle. It shits where it eats. __________________ Blow you up.

05-07-2007, 04:13 PM	#13
JoeLee Banned Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North New York State. Posts: 1,241 Trader Rating: (0)	The M16 was Robert Mcnamara's love child,being LBJ's right and left hand he said,this is the rifle like it or not.The nots had the vote but the White House had the power.Myself if I were President I'd issue the Troops AKs and be done with it.10-4?

05-07-2007, 04:16 PM	#14
Gio Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 804 Trader Rating: (0)	AK and M16 seem to be both extremes. In my opinion neither are good for an army who has access to much more balanced rifles. According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. Its in the article. __________________ Blow you up. Last edited by Gio; 05-07-2007 at 04:17 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-07-2007, 04:19 PM	#15
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 9,142 Trader Rating: (0)	I think this quote from the article hits home "Special operations forces, including "tier one" units such as the Army's Delta Force and the Navy's SEAL Development Group - or SEAL Team Six - have used their own funds to purchase the Heckler & Koch-built 416, which uses a gas-piston operating system less susceptible to failure than Colt's gas-operated design." It tells us what we need to know, I think. While we're at it, how about the Trophy anti-RPG system the Army turned down, so they could sign a contract with Raytheon to build a system from scratch that won't be ready until 2011, even if it works? The Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation (OFT) tested Trophy, an Israeli-built system, and rated it 98 percent effective. But the Army killed battlefield testing of it in Iraq, claiming Trophy was "simply not ready." Excuse me? It's less ready than Raytheon's system, which doesn't even exist yet? __________________ If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. -Anatole France Last edited by troy2000; 05-07-2007 at 04:21 PM.

05-07-2007, 04:23 PM	#17
Gio Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 804 Trader Rating: (0)	Dont get off track keep it on the gun. Dont need a thread locked. Saw demonstrations of the Isreali system online though and it was cool looking. It was like the rockets hit an invisible wall. __________________ Blow you up.

05-07-2007, 04:28 PM	#18
Midas Troll B' Gone Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Springdale, Arkansas Posts: 3,709 Trader Rating: (0)	Our Govt, always has the troop's best interests at heart __________________ "Recoil lasts for a second, gravity lasts forever" Last edited by Midas; 05-07-2007 at 04:30 PM.

05-07-2007, 04:30 PM	#19
just_a_car Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Edmonds, WA Posts: 3,422 Trader Rating: (0)	If they're advocating the H&K 416, it's not exactly replacing the M4, it's just giving it a new upper. Also, I think they'd be smart to check the LWRC M4 (Awesome new M-4 platform from LWRC), as it has the same function and reliability of the 416, but at a much more reasonable price... and civilians can buy them from their site! __________________

05-07-2007, 04:33 PM	#20
wolverine Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 132 Trader Rating: (0)	The M-16A2s we had when i was int eh army were worn out rattletraps that couldnt hit the broadside of a barn at 300 meters. The uppers and lowers were so loose to each other from wear, i generally stuck a dime in one side of the gap so it would shoot decent. They always went bang but where the bullet went was up to question. the only guns we had that were in good shape were the M-203s. We got them not long before i got to my unit and they were still in A1 shape. SW __________________ http://snfwtp.blogspot.com/