just a few morning observations...
Just got back from my mornng run so I feel I can take on anything...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Wat gramor?
I have a few "issues" with the SCAR, and substantially fewer with HK-416, but they are not really relevant here. I see the Rangers are deploying with the SCAR any day now.
I rather like the G-36KV, but any 5.56mm with a 14-16 inch barrel will do the job.
The key to my mind is the MIL-STD 1913 rail and the ability to swap out Sighting Systems and things like the EGLM. It is in my opinion the most important development in infantry weapons since the advent of 5.56mm, and 40mm.
I would like to know your issues are. I need all the info I can get. I live in a dream world most of the time. PR Hacks/Marketing make sure that their wares are shown in the best light possible and they "never" malfuntion. So any outside source is welcome. Sorry for using my public "open" Email account but it's hardly ever used so it's pretty secure.
I think I have the right HK 36KV, you are talking about the new version, right? It is a very good weapon though niether it or the XM8 take the std m16/NATO magazine. Not really a sticking point since HK will gladly change basically anything for a few hundred thousand unit order. :rolleyes:
However, the reliability tests were done with the special polymer magazines. I wonder what the tests would have been like if they had used std M16 magazines? The FN SCAR and the HK 416 were done with M16/NATO snd mags. However, it's just one of the things you have to consider when you evaluate "test' data.
However, it a very light weight weapon that hasn't been tested in the field enough to know how reliable it really is. All tests that I have knowlege of (Thank goodness for the God of coffee) have been done in controled enviorments. So time will tell.
It has the ugliest stock in existance. :eek:
As far as Mil accessory equipment rails, I think the British had the right idea of making a small optical sight as part of the standard rifle. Several companies are making optics as part of the overall package available. However, nothing comes free so most buyers still shun them.
Off topic: I think small optics and the M262 type round will be the wave of the future if there is going to be an upgrade of present rifles. This is where the HK 416 Upper receiver upgrade makes sense. Hope HK can keep its costs down.
Yes, I concure that the various new underbarrel GL launchers are a serious boost to unit effectveness, especially if they can use the new 40X51 rounds.
Long ago on a galaxy far away we had the
M1 and M2 Carbine. They were issued by the ton in WW II and worked fairly well for the last year or so of the war. We took 'em to Korea. In the winter of 1950, it was discovered that the Carbine had a tendency to freeze up in extreme cold AND that it would not stop charging Korean or Chinese troops with heavy padded jackets. Voila, the Carbine disappeared almost overnight, replaced by the M1 which would stop most anything -- and do at reliably at 6-700meters.
The M4 worked reasonably well in Iraq, no one there had many complaints. OTOH, in Afghanistan, it had two big problems. Range for the open spaces and knockdown on stoned Afghans who are made of different stuff than Iraqis. Afghanistan was relegated to a side show so the fact that Iraq had no major complaints overrode the grumbling from Afghanistan. That grumbling will now get louder. We'll see what happens with that.
I mention the carbine only to highlight that we have in the intervening 59 years gotten so bureaucratic that we can no longer make life saving decisions in a timely manner...:mad:
I helped run the original troop test on then AR 15 in 1963. We -- the Army -- recommended that a few be bought for special purpose units but the M14 be retained for world wide service. That was based primarily on the 5.56 varmint cartridge rework poor results on the hundreds of pigs we killed for the Oscar Meyer Plant in Fayetteville. Instead, McNamara canceled the running M-14 contract and ordered the M-16 into production. I'm sure the fact that TRW had contributed to Nixon's campaign while Colt had contributed to Kennedy's had no bearing on the decision. :rolleyes:
I carried one in combat for two years, It is not a good weapon, never has been and the dumb things the Ordnance Corps did to it did not help. Nor did Barry Mccaffery -- the godfather of the M4 -- help. I've always been fascinated by that bolt closure device on the Ma1 and it's clones...
As AlexTX ret says it's the weapon we have and there are sure a lot worse ones around, all it needs for now is a decent cartridge; the new Brown Tip may do the job. We'll see about that as well, I guess.
However, just this once...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
M1 and M2 Carbine. They were issued by the ton in WW II and worked fairly well for the last year or so of the war. We took 'em to Korea. In the winter of 1950, it was discovered that the Carbine had a tendency to freeze up in extreme cold AND that it would not stop charging Korean or Chinese troops with heavy padded jackets. Voila, the Carbine disappeared almost overnight, replaced by the M1 which would stop most anything -- and do at reliably at 6-700meters.
The M4 worked reasonably well in Iraq, no one there had many complaints. OTOH, in Afghanistan, it had two big problems. Range for the open spaces and knockdown on stoned Afghans who are made of different stuff than Iraqis. Afghanistan was relegated to a side show so the fact that Iraq had no major complaints overrode the grumbling from Afghanistan. That grumbling will now get louder. We'll see what happens with that.
I mention the carbine only to highlight that we have in the intervening 59 years gotten so bureaucratic that we can no longer make life saving decisions in a timely manner...:mad:
I helped run the original troop test on then AR 15 in 1963. We -- the Army -- recommended that a few be bought for special purpose units but the M14 be retained for world wide service. That was based primarily on the 5.56 varmint cartridge rework poor results on the hundreds of pigs we killed for the Oscar Meyer Plant in Fayetteville. Instead, McNamara canceled the running M-14 contract and ordered the M-16 into production. I'm sure the fact that TRW had contributed to Nixon's campaign while Colt had contributed to Kennedy's had no bearing on the decision. :rolleyes:
I carried one in combat for two years, It is not a good weapon, never has been and the dumb things the Ordnance Corps did to it did not help. Nor did Barry Mccaffery -- the godfather of the M4 -- help. I've always been fascinated by that bolt closure device on the Ma1 and it's clones...
As AlexTX ret says it's the weapon we have and there are sure a lot worse ones around, all it needs for now is a decent cartridge; the new Brown Tip may do the job. We'll see about that as well, I guess.
I know a lot of people that swear by the M1 carbine. Some have tried to make them into deer rifles. However, you're right, the M1 cartridge is a might stained by practically everything it tries to do. However, the only criteria for its developement was that it could take the place of the various pistols used by most of the military. Given that parameter, was it better than a pistol to everyone not on the frontline?
As for the M4, it was never designed to take the place of the standard M16A2+. I think it was a failing of the Tactical Generals because they wanted to issue the M4 as an all purpose weapon. It still is better than a pistol or submachine gun.
As for the M16, 2 thoughts.
First: Where are all the advisors who said that the M16 would be a enemy force devisor. For every enemy soldier wounded would require up to as many as 4 other soldiers to get the wounded trooper back to an aid station? :mad:
Second: My AKMS never failed to fire. It had other issues such as battlefield identification because of its different sound when it fired. However, one SF soldier used a 30-30 so there was a lot of differences between established T&OE and what we actually fought with.
Going back to the M1 carbine, indirectly, it was part of the reason we got the M16. The military sort of fubared and forgot all the worst things about a small cartridge weapon. It rationalized that the the M1 Carbine was a success. I know they handed out enough of them to the ARVNs.
Everyone is entitled to my opinions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AlexTX ret
...Are all future wars going to be like this?
Almost certainly not. We can and should avoid wars like these and when a real war comes along -- and it eventually will -- people are going to be in for a big shock...
Quote:
I'll start with a few questions and hope I can get a few answers.
Keep the M4 as is for now, minimal mods, no new upper, simply improve the cartridges in general issue.
There are multiple reasons to change; maintenance intensity not sustainable in heavy conflict, inadequate lethality, unreliability -- but we should take the time to do it right. Not that we will do that... :rolleyes:
One pistol or SMG cartridge (9mm has major lethality problems for moderately trained shooters) and one for a carbine / rifle / AR / GPMG. No belt fed below company level (maintenance and training problem). Four cartridges at Bn level, pistol / carbine etc. / .50 / 40mm or whatever grenade like rounds we finally select. A real war will be far more supply intensive than anything seen by us in the last 50 years.
The LAW is good, need more and better and that's achievable; Javelin is good and needs to stay until a lighter, better replacement is developed. RPG has more disadvantages than advantages.
The F-22 decision has been made, Congress may or may not go along. Why would /do we need a better fighter at this time -- and if we developed one, would it be manned or unmanned?
Quote:
...Given that parameter, was it better than a pistol to everyone not on the frontline?
Yes and no. More range, less handy, more rounds per magazine, less lethal, more maintenance, less reliable. All weapons are compromises.
Quote:
Tactical Generals because they wanted to issue the M4 as an all purpose weapon. It still is better than a pistol or submachine gun.
Thus my lambasting McCaffery on the M4. It is better than the existing pistol, we have no SMG and both those are better in the proper caliber for some jobs than the M4. All weapons are compromises and the M4 is adequate but not as good a compromise as is possible.
Quote:
First: Where are all the advisors who said that the M16 would be a enemy force devisor.
Good question, been my observation that those who spout such idiocy are rarely seen carrying the weapon they tout in combat.
Quote:
I know they handed out enough of them to the ARVNs.
That's more because the ARVN hated the M1 which they also had in large quantities; the weapon was bigger than they were in some cases and the recoil was, to them, vicious. They were given the option of Carbines with less lethality and less recoil so they took it. Proving that the US is not alone in making dumb weapons decisions.