Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 243

Thread: Better than M4, but you canít have it

  1. #21
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Impressions? Or is it safe to say that the hands are still sore?
    What can you say. Fully supressed it sounded like a hundred rat traps slamming closed. It got HOT fast.. If I remember right the Mac 11 is only like .380 or 9mm. Not much whack but fun as heck to shoot. I never had any issues with it jamming but I wasn't in what you would call an operational environment. We were supposedly looking at them for entry weapons. That went away as the were considered to "aggressive".
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  2. #22
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    I haven't had too many problems with my M4 over the years and a significant number of those were caused by the magazine. That said I have a friend who has carried the HK version in harms way and he absolutely raves about it. The reason we can't have it though is because of contracting issues. For good or ill Colt has the inside track on contracts. The military seems to never have done well with weapons contracts or at least the Army hasn't but they usually fix or get rid of the ones that do not work eventually (The M9 pistol is a notable exception. For the life of me I don't know why we still have that *&%$*%# thing). The M16 was a piece of crap. The M16A1 was a hell of a lot better and the M16A2 was/is a pretty good gun, not perfect but pretty good and I really like the M4 (except for the fact that it is 5.56 but that is a different discussion). It should be noted that a number of tier 1 units in other countries use the M4. The maintenance on it is not that difficult and the accuracy is pretty good for a mass produced rifle.

    As for the MP5s, they have a place but if you are in full kit or you are carrying openly then that is not the place for a 9MM primary. If I had a choice I wouldn't even carry 9MM for a secondary.

    SFC W

  3. #23
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Interesting points about the M9 Uboat. In my case, I've fired thousands of rounds throuhg various issued pieces, and outside of a cracked locking block one time, have found it not that troublesome.

    I guess like most weapons, the primary cause of problems stem from the magazines, and without proper maintenance and cleaning, and weapon with close tolerances for accuracy will be susceptible.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Going With What We Have

    I don't know what the CPU for the 6.5 Grendel would be but I bet it would be well under the 1400$ H&K ceiling of their piece. It looks like their basic unit goes for about a grand. It's on an AR platform, a real flat shooter with more reach and alot more punch than the 5.56. I doubt its originator, Alexander arms, is tooled for any serious production numbers though and besides, Colt is so deeply entrenched with DOD they could hawk slingshots if they wanted to.

  5. #25
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default 6.5 Grendel

    Hey Goesh !

    Great post, we read about these rounds all the time here...Could put a bear down ! But you're right, a lot of competition from Colt.

    http://www.65grendel.com/

    Alexander Arms offers SBR users an upgrade in lethality and accuracy and penetration by chambering a mil-spec M4-style 10.5" carbine, first introduced at SHOT Show 2007, in its highly effective 6.5 Grendel cartridge. Alexander Arms has four factory 6.5 Grendel loadings of its own, but of special interest to military and security contractors is the new Black Hills Ammunition 6.5 Grendel loading for Les Baer Custom using a 6.5mm 123-grain Sierra MatchKing. This gives operators a ďBig BrotherĒ loading to the 5.56mm 77-grain SMK in the popular Mk262.
    This part me likes !

    When your 5.56 10.5" SBR needs the added punch of a ďBig Brother,Ē get yourself a 6.5 Grendel 10.5" SBR upper and give the enemy some nasty surprises.

  6. #26
    Council Member SGTMILLS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    33

    Default H&k

    I have actually laid hands & eyes on the H&K M4. An operative who rolled with us on a trailblazer mission had one. Very clean weapon, less jamming, all around better made weapon. H&K's use of the gas piston def. keeps things cleaner. my M4 (after cleaning) was much dirtier than his, with fewer rounds through it. I would LOVE it if the military ACTUALLY switched to these. No one would care that it's 1 lb heavier (hello, landwarrior @ 13 lbs, IBA @ 32 lbs, mitch @ 8lbs...i could go on)
    Speaking of weight, does anyone know exactly WHY the military didn't pass dragonskins body armor?
    SGTMILLS

  7. #27
    Council Member SGTMILLS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Greenville, SC
    Posts
    33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uboat509 View Post
    I haven't had too many problems with my M4 over the years and a significant number of those were caused by the magazine. That said I have a friend who has carried the HK version in harms way and he absolutely raves about it. The reason we can't have it though is because of contracting issues. For good or ill Colt has the inside track on contracts. The military seems to never have done well with weapons contracts or at least the Army hasn't but they usually fix or get rid of the ones that do not work eventually (The M9 pistol is a notable exception. For the life of me I don't know why we still have that *&%$*%# thing). The M16 was a piece of crap. The M16A1 was a hell of a lot better and the M16A2 was/is a pretty good gun, not perfect but pretty good and I really like the M4 (except for the fact that it is 5.56 but that is a different discussion). It should be noted that a number of tier 1 units in other countries use the M4. The maintenance on it is not that difficult and the accuracy is pretty good for a mass produced rifle.

    As for the MP5s, they have a place but if you are in full kit or you are carrying openly then that is not the place for a 9MM primary. If I had a choice I wouldn't even carry 9MM for a secondary.

    SFC W
    GOOD POINTS!!! ALL OF THEM.. I absolutely do not understand why we don't switch to 7.62 X 39 on all of our primary's. I do disagree, however, on one point. I LOVE my beretta. It has never given me a problem (knock on wood.) I would like to have the side arms that a certain COL. (made famous by movies, but is actually a pretty good guy) gave his PSD. They ALL carried glock .40's. Very good side, just not much support from standard army supply.
    SGTMILLS

  8. #28
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SGTMILLS View Post
    I have actually laid hands & eyes on the H&K M4. An operative who rolled with us on a trailblazer mission had one. Very clean weapon, less jamming, all around better made weapon. H&K's use of the gas piston def. keeps things cleaner. my M4 (after cleaning) was much dirtier than his, with fewer rounds through it. I would LOVE it if the military ACTUALLY switched to these. No one would care that it's 1 lb heavier (hello, landwarrior @ 13 lbs, IBA @ 32 lbs, mitch @ 8lbs...i could go on)
    Speaking of weight, does anyone know exactly WHY the military didn't pass dragonskins body armor?
    SGTMILLS
    Reasons why Army didn't pass DragonSkin:

    1. The spec was written for X weight and Y coverage. DragonSkin is Z weight and Q coverage. But the testers at least admitted it to the test, misfit or not. Technically, DragonSkin "might" be lighter per inch covered, but it's heavier, overall (with an advertised 20% more coverage.)

    2. DragonSkin failed the initial test because, while it works marvelously under "their" testing conditions, once you put it through the "torture test" of high temps and soldier abuse, the discs it's made of come loose, and if one disc is out of place, the entire thing loses its structural integrity. (The owner of the company claims it was a glue problem, since fixed)

    3. The DragonSkin people have become uncooperative and have started accusing the testing people of dishonesty. This initially led to a rare public overreaction by one of the testing people, but since then, the Army has offered to reopen the testing, but the DragonSkin people will only test if "they" control the testing conditions.

    4. DragonSkin, for some reason, keeps hawking Level III when the Army is interested in Level IV. I get confused at this point, and do not follow either side of the argument.

    5. DragonSkin is 1000% the cost of their competition.

    At this point, I will inject my own opinion. When I was in college, on a whim, I studied under a museum armorer by the name of Matthew Rutz. In the course of my studies, I learned that while some armor is made of rigid plates, and some armor is made of flexible plates, the end result was counterintuitive. Armor made of flexible plates, tended to be MORE restrictive then well-fitting armor made of rigid plates. Historically, Armor made of flexible plates was for the lower-class warriors for economy reasons. The folks I know who've owned and worn DragonSkin say that they felt well-protected, but they felt like The Michelin Man.

    The new SAPI with the increased protection is probably the best armor for US troops. Once they can figure out how to get it out there.

  9. #29
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SGTMILLS View Post
    GOOD POINTS!!! ALL OF THEM.. I absolutely do not understand why we don't switch to 7.62 X 39 on all of our primary's. I do disagree, however, on one point. I LOVE my beretta. It has never given me a problem (knock on wood.) I would like to have the side arms that a certain COL. (made famous by movies, but is actually a pretty good guy) gave his PSD. They ALL carried glock .40's. Very good side, just not much support from standard army supply.
    SGTMILLS
    I'm still a big M1911 fan. And being completely recoil insensitive, (used to box) I wouldn't mind a patrol carbine in 7.62 x 51.

  10. #30
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default 1911s

    I still carry my Wilson Combat 1911. Yes, a bit expensive, but no competition and less recoil that any 9mm.

    http://www.wilsoncombat.com/p_tactical_supergrade.asp

  11. #31
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default COIN and the .45

    Talking about handguns and calibers if somebody can find "The Hatcher Study" which was done by General Hatcher you will find that the reason for the .45 comes from US Army experience with the Moro tribe in the Phillipines Counter Insurgency. I read the study years ago and I might have a hard copy somewhere but maybe it is online now. Hatcher believed that any handgun caliber is to weak to stop somebody with any reliability but the .45 was the best choice (and still is in my opinion) and still maintain control of the weapon. It is a very good read if you can find it. Those old guys new about fighting up close and what it really takes.

  12. #32
    Council Member Uboat509's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    681

    Default

    Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the main reason that we switched to 9MM was because of commonality of ammunition with NATO. If that is the case then I think we can safely dispense with the 9MM, thank you.

    SFC W

  13. #33
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Was the .45 developed to stop Muslim fanatics?

    Here is a link about the .45 and the Philippines, it also has a remark the .45 being the round designed to stop Muslims .
    http://www.gunweek.com/2006/feature1010.html

  14. #34
    Council Member bismark17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Why the 7.62x39 and not the 7.62x51? I could see as a soldier wanting the x39 round due to its proliferation throughout the world but here in CONUS I would think the x51 would be more plentiful due to the amount of M1As being used for marksmanship. I'm still debating about getting a whole new AR in 7.62 or just keeping my M4 L.E. and buying one of those SOCOM scout rifles....

  15. #35
    Council Member bismark17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    206

    Default

    My understanding is that we went to the .45 for the heavier bullet and bigger magazine capacity. The wheel guns being used at the time were not doing the job. I have read that the "G"s would get hopped up on some type of drugs prior to doing "kamakazi" style attacks on us. Much like these idiots we have to deal strung out on PCP. Calibre Press discussed an incident at one of their street survival seminars of a suspect having the strength to rip out a shotgun out of a patrol car still in it's bracket. He was able to chamber a round and kill the officer. They changed the design of the brackets from that point forward so that it couldn't be repeated. I would much prefer a .45 over my .40 that I carry.
    Last edited by bismark17; 02-26-2007 at 02:21 AM. Reason: proper grammar....

  16. #36
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bismark17 View Post
    My understanding is that we went to the .45 for the heavier bullet and bigger magazine capacity. The wheel guns being used at the time were not doing the job. I have read that the "G"s would get hopped up on some type of drugs prior to doing "kamakazi" style attacks on us. Much like these idiots we have to deal strung out on PCP. Calibre Press discussed an incident at one of their street survival seminars of a suspect having the strength to rip out a shotgun out of a patrol car still in it's bracket. He was able to chamber a round and kill the officer. They changed the design of the brackets from that point forward so that it couldn't be repeated. I would much prefer a .45 over my .40 that I carry.
    Actually, we were using the Colt .38 ACP automatic to begin with in the Phillipines, which proved ineffective, so several commands went back to the Colt 1873 single actions in .45 Colt. The requirement for a .45 auto was then put forward to replace the venerable Peacemaker.

    In reality, mag capacity isn't that important; (7+1 versus 5) but a mag reloads a lot quicker.

    I have and treasure "Hatcher's Notebook".

  17. #37
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    And would said notebook happen to be in, say, .pdf format?

  18. #38
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    If it's free online, I'd be mightily pissed. I've purchased two of them because someone didn't return a copy I lent them. They are not cheap.

    Edited to read: Here, buy your own copy, you cheapskate! ;^)

    http://www.amazon.com/Hatchers-Noteb.../dp/0811707954

  19. #39
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I had no idea it was an actual book with a darn ISBN...It's at the base library, fortunately.

  20. #40
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    JC, it's not just a book (you should get it anyway) he wrote several studies on wound ballistics. the one I am thinking about was probably done when he was a major during the process of adopting the .45 automatic. Chuck Taylor and Jeff Cooper used to talk about this study alot. Cooper is dead and I don't know what Chuck is doing now a days, but I am still looking. You might try Chuck Melson he knows alot about that stuff and time period, he found out that the famous Fairbarn Commando knife may have come from the Marines during the Boxer rebellion in China. Three as matter of fact all named Sam and they became known as the 3 Sams of combat knife deisgn or something like that. If I can find it I will post it pass on what I find out.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •