M-4: Is this rifle costing American Lives?

[Decoy]

The M16 replacement dust tests

"The U.S Military's XM8 program was cancelled in the Fall of 2005 after being suspended earlier that year. Had this program not been cancelled, the XM8 system may have faced competition from weapons such as from the FN SCAR and H&K 416. Independent work by H&K on the XM8 has continued. It was altered and entered as a candidate for the SCAR competition but was unsuccessful.[1]

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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM8_rifle

 

[240 towles]

peopl have been complaining about the M16/M4 platform since vietnam. The rifles suck, they are a happy invention for NATO and geneva, they are not "Battle rifles". The army likes to say that, "we don't need AK's, we clean our rifles, and every soldier is a marksman" It's crap. Soldiers need a rifle that is Keep It Simple, Stupid proof. They need to fire when it's dirty, when it's rusty, and when it's wet. 5.56 is a sucky round that will ricochet off a piece of paper if you angle it right.

 

[3rdRcn]

Did you guys read my post? The reason guys are now able to do this is because of the proliferation of 4x optics w/BDC reticles in both the Corps and Army. The Trijicon TA31RCOM4 is the standard 4x issued to the USMC and now the Army (for use on the M4) which adopted the USMC requirement. The Corps uses the RCO A4 for their M16A4s. Hitting a 200yd head shot with a 4x does not take a highly qualified marksman- all it takes is a guy applying good fundementals of marksmanship. If anyone doubts this, come up to Mifflintown next time we go and you can see it firsthand on steel plates at 200 and even further.

This can also be done with a standard aimpoint compM4 as you have witnessed, shooting 8" steel plates (bout the size of a standard nugget) at 200 was not what I would call difficult with either of these optics. Sometimes folks don't understand what a rifle is capable of because they aren't capable of doing it with that rifle.

 

[3rdRcn]

peopl have been complaining about the M16/M4 platform since vietnam. The rifles suck, they are a happy invention for NATO and geneva, they are not "Battle rifles". The army likes to say that, "we don't need AK's, we clean our rifles, and every soldier is a marksman" It's crap. Soldiers need a rifle that is Keep It Simple, Stupid proof. They need to fire when it's dirty, when it's rusty, and when it's wet. 5.56 is a sucky round that will ricochet off a piece of paper if you angle it right.

I would respectfully disagree with that statement as a whole 240.

 

[Russ D]

There isn't a single battle rifle being used right now that I'd take over an M4.

 

[Kevp]

peopl have been complaining about the M16/M4 platform since vietnam. The rifles suck, they are a happy invention for NATO and geneva, they are not "Battle rifles". The army likes to say that, "we don't need AK's, we clean our rifles, and every soldier is a marksman" It's crap. Soldiers need a rifle that is Keep It Simple, Stupid proof. They need to fire when it's dirty, when it's rusty, and when it's wet. 5.56 is a sucky round that will ricochet off a piece of paper if you angle it right.

You are seriously making me question your experience and knowledge level with these statements. BTW- there are piles of dead "paper skinned" bad guys out there that have been killed by the "sucky round".

 

[aquaman]

You are seriously making me question your experience and knowledge level with these statements. BTW- there are piles of dead "paper skinned" bad guys out there that have been killed by the "sucky round".

Sure 5.56 is lethal, but 240 has an attitude about that cartridge that is not uncommon. We use a cartridge to kill people I would not use on deer. The .223 Remington is just an improvement of the .222 Remington designed to kill varmints. People are not varmints, hence the criticism.

 

[Kevp]

Whatever you say. I've carried both an AK and a M4 in combat and I'll take the M4 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I don't know what more of a qualifying statement I could make on this subject and that is based on real experience and not the "I read it, watched it on TV, or my great uncle told me" perspective. Oh yeah, and I've shot a lot of deer too.

 

[aquaman]

I was not talking about the M4,AK, M14, just the 5.56/.223 round for killing people and the statement 240towels made. Criticism of 5.56 for killing people is valid, like i said it was designed for killing varmints, sure there are pros/cons of larger rounds and I'm not commenting on those. KevP i doubt you use .223 to shoot deer right?

 

[Russ D]

Deer are atleast 10x harder to kill then people.

 

[racinghoss]

Your statement about open sights reminds me, my buddy in the Marines says they now allow people to qualify with their optics. Good idea or no?

If that is true (this is the first I have heard of it), then I think it is a very bad idea. Both for reasons of tradition and function. Marines should know how to use their weapons in the weapon's most basic form. An M-16A2 should be as lethal to 500 yards as a another form with an ACOG. The USMC shoots to 500 yards for a reason. I never had an ACOG on my rifle. At the range (where they keep score) I always shot VERY well. I was once the range high shooter in Okinawa. It stood for several years, AFAIK.

Scopes defininetely have thier place. They can be a big advantage in combat. However, they are not indestructable. Things may happen where it quits working or is damaged and the Marine has to revert to iron sights.

Qualify with iron sights. Get some range time with the ACOG. Then both sides are met.

KEVP, those Marines could make those head shots with iron sights. Many have, many do, and many more will. Agreed that it is an advantage, but not necessary at 200 yards. I used to shoot 10 round groups at 200 yards off-handed that would all fall well inside an 8" circle. Hell, I used to paint 10 round groups at 500 yards that would meet that criteria. Granted, it was on the range, not in combat. Lots and lots of jarheads shoot that good or better.

 

[boricuamaximus]

My only problem with ith the M4/M16 is the round.5.56 is a killer and there are plenty of people burried cause of it but it's intention was to wound. Takes 1 down and 2 to carry the wounded person out.

While it's effective against human beings that use an uniform and follow the conventional rules of warfare, that's not the best scenario vs jerks that hide in mosques, use children as body armor, etc. Shit it wont work against China because they dont use FMJ ammo (heard it during a TIanamen Square Documentary).


Most weapons will fail because of dust, it's a given. I would be a little more worried about wet environments, mud and accuracy personally. Even with larger and heavier bullets, it's best to have a larger round. Aside from that the M4 platform is like a barbie doll. There's way too mny accessories for it that will make it a fit for everyone.

 

[racinghoss]

It is the 5.56 NATO round. It is unlikely that we change to a 6.8. It was adopted by the organization for more reasons than power.

It is a plenty powerful round and the "killing power" has been studied several times. Its behavior, weight and accuracy are part of the reason it is considered so lethal. Sure, 7.62 and a host of other calibers can be more deadly. But can they be trucked or humped as easily? Can it be as accurate? Can it have more power? Can it be used by our allies' weapons? Find me one that meets all three and I will concede this argument.

 

[Kashmir1008]

What kind of bush? The female Bush is causing this problem??/

Well I know personally the female bush has caused lots of problems for me with overheating and jamming.

It's the lower receiver that seem to be the issue. Once it's stripped bare and had a good going over a few times it seems to be ok but I would say generally it's pretty high maintenance.

I mean I've spent hours sometimes working on the lower receiver alone, while not ignoring the uppers mind you but the lowers are where the action is. Sometimes I would spend hours on them till my shoulders were all hunched up.

 

[Splitter]

Historically speaking:

This debate was had a long time ago.

The "old guard" military did not want a small caliber weapon perceiving it to not have the knockdown power or range. The "new guard" saw advantages in a lighter, high velocity round. Think post Korea to Vietnam era.

Essentially, the decision was initially made based on the number of rounds that could be carried and correlating that to the number of rounds (statistically) that it took to kill an enemy soldier. The specific round was also based on what our allies used and the ballistic characteristics of a small, high velocity round.

The argument goes back even further, really. At one time, many military leaders did not want weapons that could fire faster than a bolt action. They figured more rapid fire would lead to waste of amunition (less aimed shots) and additional costs. Think WWI and II.

Hell, going all the way back to the Civil War, many military leaders thought that more than 3 rounds per minute would be wasteful as soldiers would not take as careful aim.

By the time decisions were made concerning the M16, it really was a matter of statistics to a large degree. Studies were done saying that it took "x" number of shots to kill an enemy soldier so a higher volume of fire, even with a smaller round, won out. Soldiers could carry twice as much of the smaller caliber for the same weight.

Again, I am just giving a brief summary of thought process that went behind our present platform for the military. That summary is incomplete for brevity and really doesn't contain personal opinion....so if you choose to argue it, it's nothing personal for me so let 'er rip.

Splitter

 

[Splitter]

Well I know personally the female bush has caused lots of problems for me with overheating and jamming.

It's the lower receiver that seem to be the issue. Once it's stripped bare and had a good going over a few times it seems to be ok but I would say generally it's pretty high maintenance.

I mean I've spent hours sometimes working on the lower receiver alone, while not ignoring the uppers mind you but the lowers are where the action is. Sometimes I would spend hours on them till my shoulders were all hunched up.

Here again, it's a matter of maintenance. I have found that keeping the lower well lubed will help when tolerances are too tight. Your attention to detail is admirable!

Splitter

EDIT: CLP is not appropriate to use....don't ask me how I know.

 

[Mdphotographer]

The .223 was developed for several reason the biggest one being controlability on full automatic.In the 50's the Brits where developing their .280 round to replace the vaunted .303,the U.S. pressured NATO in adopting the 7.62x51 as the standard battle rifle round for the FN-FAL in place of the .280 Brit round.The U.S. said if the 7.62x51 was adopted they would buy the FN-FAL of course after this arrangement the U.S. backed out and adopted the M-14.The M-14 was the shortest lived main battle rifle in U.S.Army history because you couldn't control it on full auto,as well as the rifle and ammo being heavy.The FN-FAL was a very marginal platform for the 7.62x51 round and the Brits didn't even issue full auto versions of the rifle to their troops because they felt is was uncontrollable.During the Falklands war both the Argentinians and Brits were armed with FN's the Argentine models had full auto and the Brit soldiers would discard their semi-auto rifle for the Argentine models whenever they could.Now after much debate most people seem to agree that an intermediate cartridge would of been better from the start instead of going from a full power .30 call to a varmint cartridge and the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC are in vogue.Imagine how things would be different if the .280 Brit in the 50's or even the .276 Pederson in the .30s had been adopted.There is a good article on the subject here... http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/3006m_070607/

Just a thought

 

[Capt.Link.]

This has been a great post to read some of you having used the M-4 in combat some having variants of it.I know the 5.56 NATO round is a very lethal round at least it was out of a car-15 the great grandfather of the M-4.I don't think the platform needs to be abandoned but some changes are due.The piston upper is a great idea that needs to be fully developed and when it is the GI in the field can do the upgrade,with the piston the gun runs cooler and the action stays cleaner.I also believe that the twist rate should be made slow again my CAR-15 had a one in twelve twist and not many bullets ever exited the target most tumbled or key holed on impact I have had to many men tell me of bullets penciling through.I think those changes alone would help the AR platform as far as it being even more reliable and more lethal than it is now and it could be done without having to retool our war machine would love to hear from any men that have used the M-4 in combat and or the AK-47 having used both myself .

 

[Onua]

would using steel case ammo aleviate some of the jamming issues? along with not being able to service the firearms properly in the forward bases due to logistics? Is the piston upper idea something feasable to test in the field?

 

[Echo Victor]

would steel cased ammo aleviate jamming???

call me a donkey, but how could this help?