AR15 Forums banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The 5.56mm M-16 has been the USA's primary battle rifle since the Vietnam war, undergoing changes into progressive versions like the M16A2 widely fielded by the US Marine Corps, "Commando" carbine versions, et. al. The M4 Carbine is the latest member of the M16 family, offering a shorter weapon more suited to close-quarters battle, or use by units who would find a full-length rifle too bulky.

The M4 offers a collapsible buttstock, flat-top upper receiver assembly, a U-shaped handle-rear sight assembly that could be removed, and assortment of mounting rails for easy customization with a variety of sight, flashlight, grenade launchers, shotgun attachments, et. al. It achieves approximately 85% commonality with the M16, and has become a popular weapon. It has a reputation for lightness, customizability, and, compared to its most frequent rival the AK-47, a reputation for accuracy as well. The carbine's reputation for fast-point close-quarters fire remains its most prominent feature, however. After Action Reviews done by the Marines after the early phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom revealed that urban warfare scenarios made employment of the M16A2 difficult in some situations; Marines were picking up short AK-47s with collapsible butt-stocks, or scrounging pistols for use inside buildings.

Like its predecessor the M16, the M4 also has a reputation as an excellent weapon – if you can maintain it. Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli "Galil" applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt's M16 and M4 have never done so.

The original order for the M4 Carbine in the mid-1990s was a small-scale order, for a specifically requested derivative of the Army's primary battle rifle, to equip units who would otherwise have relied on less accurate 9mm submachine guns. As such, its direct development and sole-source contract status raised little fuss. Subsequent contracts also raised little scrutiny.

So, what changed?
Extended combat in dusty, sandy environments that highlighted the weapon's weak points as well as its comparative strengths, leading to escalating volumes of complaints;

The emergence of alternatives that preserve those strengths, while addressing those weak points;

The scale of the current request for funding.



 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
"The Israeli "Galil" applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt's M16 and M4 have never done so."
So, we are spending money on equipment that has known limitations and no one has developed a better solution. Thus we dump money into equipment that is not suited to the task. Better buy a Galil. They figured it out. Or, just do like anyone else in this situation would do and start "picking up short AK-47s with collapsible butt-stocks, or scrounging pistols for use inside buildings".

The scale of the current request for funding.
Sounds like a bad investment.
Good weapon, but there are ones better suited to the environment, that is, Warfare Abuse!

At least that's one aspect I took from the article;)
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Ya know this has an interesting twist to it.

If it is realized that an AK is better suited to the environment that is warfare and it's abuses to mechanized things, why don't we (Gov) place an order with SA and all the other big name suppliers to start making AK-74's if they want to stay with the 5.56?
Are we too proud to use a superior design?
Can't we just say we stole the design and make it ours?

Then again, why don't we just make a purchase and distribute an old rifle to a few of the good folk we have serving (their choice, it's on the truck, grab what you want style). to supplement their issued weaponry.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
You know, this makes me wonder if I should rethink my pending AR build. Might I just be better finding me an AK that eats the same thing my two SKSs do, and dont have to worry about different kinds of ammo. What to do what to do.

Jeffrey
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
You know, this makes me wonder if I should rethink my pending AR build. Might I just be better finding me an AK that eats the same thing my two SKSs do, and dont have to worry about different kinds of ammo. What to do what to do.

Jeffrey
Nah, everybody should have at least one :mrgreen:
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Ya know this has an interesting twist to it.

If it is realized that an AK is better suited to the environment that is warfare and it's abuses to mechanized things, why don't we (Gov) place an order with SA and all the other big name suppliers to start making AK-74's if they want to stay with the 5.56?
Are we too proud to use a superior design?
Can't we just say we stole the design and make it ours?

Then again, why don't we just make a purchase and distribute an old rifle to a few of the good folk we have serving (their choice, it's on the truck, grab what you want style). to supplement their issued weaponry.
That would be different twist. The Russains have been appropriating our designs for a while now. I liked my SKS I had but I also like my AR as well. I think the Springfield SOCOM 16 would be a great rifle to replace the AR-15:eek:, oops did I say that out loud.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Sadly, one of Russia's past Premiers offered
to make and sell to the US of A, their Soviet
produced AK-47. He did so in :twisted: remarks by
dissing the M16. He offered to sell us all we
wanted to buy at $4.00 a pop!

Some might say that we screwed the pooch
when we did not take him up on his offer! and
I am one of them.

Ed
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Sadly, one of Russia's past Premiers offered
to make and sell to the US of A, their Soviet
produced AK-47. He did so in :twisted: remarks by
dissing the M16. He offered to sell us all we
wanted to buy at $4.00 a pop!

Some might say that we screwed the pooch
when we did not take him up on his offer! and
I am one of them.

Ed
Yea, you could even call it a big dog.
$4.00 .......... Heck I'd have bought a few thousand for that price.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
$4 OMG I'll take 500 please!!!!!!!
Sadly, one of Russia's past Premiers offered
to make and sell to the US of A, their Soviet
produced AK-47. He did so in :twisted: remarks by
dissing the M16. He offered to sell us all we
wanted to buy at $4.00 a pop!

Some might say that we screwed the pooch
when we did not take him up on his offer! and
I am one of them.

Ed
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
You know, this makes me wonder if I should rethink my pending AR build. Might I just be better finding me an AK that eats the same thing my two SKSs do, and dont have to worry about different kinds of ammo. What to do what to do.

Jeffrey
Theyre still great guns, as long as you dont play in the sandbox with them
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top