Results 1 to 20 of 243

Thread: Better than M4, but you can’t have it

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member CPT Holzbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    74

    Default LOVE this weapon.

    From what Ive seen and read the thing certainly is superior to the M-4. They had it on that show "FutureWeapons" on the discovery channel a couple nights ago. Very cool. Id give anything to get one. Hopefully they'll produce a civilian version eventually.
    "The Infantry’s primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final." - Paragraph 1-1, FM 3-21.8: Infantry Rifle PLT and SQD.

    - M.A. Holzbach

  2. #2
    Council Member sullygoarmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Fort Stewart
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Reading the incident with CPT Self reminds me of similar stories from the Vietnam war of soldiers found dead with cleaning rods in their hands as they tried to clear jammed M16s. It sounds like the HK 416 is close in price and far superior to the M16/M4 family. Anyone know if disadvantages to the HK 416 other than the fact we would need to start replacing the M4 family of weapons?

    Seems like an interesting rifle.

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

    Default Many choices

    There are a number of gas piston rifles out there, Sig 556, Magpul Masada, the defunct XM-8.

    I don't think any of the qualities of a gas piston rifle would prevent the problems that Capt Self or Sgt Miller had, nor the slew of problem that were supposedly marched out by the soldiers in Afghanistan.

    The gas piston rifles do one thing particularly well, and that is they release gas and carbon fouling outside the weapon somewhere near the front sight. Just before the gas and carbon is ported out, the gas impinges on, and activates, the piston, driving it into the modern version of the bolt carrier's gas key. All this does is reduce the amount of crap getting into the receiver. It has nothing to do with keeping foreign matter out of the weapon, so if a weapon is dirty with sand/dust, the gas piston rifles are only going to have a longer time before carbon fouling becomes a problem at the chamber (compared to an M4).

    If the weapon isn't lubricated, the gas piston isn't a silver bullet. If a cartridge case ruptures in the chamber, a gas piston rifle still isn't the silver bullet. If you find yourself in a running gun battle and putting a lot of rounds downrange, and don't have time to perform a fieldstrip cleaning, then a gas piston rifle definitely has its advantages.

    As for the cleaning rod secured to the rifle forearm, I do not know of any unit that has an SOP like that, Ranger or otherwise. It seems totally impractical.
    Last edited by jcustis; 02-22-2007 at 01:52 AM.

  4. #4
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    This whole thing is screamingly similar to the problems the M-16 experienced in Vietnam, although at that time it was due to DoD's insistence on a type of propellant that was not within the original design specifications as well as misinformation to the troops that the M-16 didn't need to be cleaned. If memory serves it took them almost three years to correct that problem, and I don't see the wheels moving any faster in this case.

    The interesting thing about the Vietnam case is that it was two-tiered problem: improper propellant AND improper training. One of the difficulties with anecdotal evidence such as the article presents is that it's very compelling reading, but it often doesn't address what happened prior to the engagement (was Self's weapon damaged during the initial action? did Miller do routine cleaning and maintenance on his weapon? and so on). I'm not saying "competitions" are the way to go (since they are often stacked in favor of a particular weapon), but that you need a broad spectrum of input, including some that could be considered unbiased and fully tested. Anecdotes are often neither, and the same can be said for "trials."
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

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

    Default The MP5 was or is also better

    When Delta units visited us in Zaire in 93, their sidearms were modified (Wilson combat) 1911s and two versions of the H&K MP5 in either 5.56 or 9X19. Another version was a 7.62, but never saw one.

    Personally, my Colt Commander's model in .45ACP is still my favorite and I don't have to carry a cleaning rod around with me, nor perform double taps. One will do just fine

    I wanted the MP5, but can't buy one

  6. #6
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    MP5s have become, how shall we say?...passe. I was pleasantly surprised to see direct action forces transition to the M4, but wasn't surprised that a lot of PMCs were still slinging the MP5 in Iraq when things started cooking. Those guys learned eventually, the hard way, but I still catch a photo of a tm leader carrying one every now and then.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Morning Calm
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Hwne I did the MiTT thing I had an MP-5 for a brief period of time. It would have issues in the sand like the M-4 at times. The H&K systems appear to have some advantages, but the magic quetion is do the advantages outweigh the acquisition costs, and does the opportunity cost to purchase the H&K weapons offest the opportunity cost of other things (better vehicles, coms, NVG, etc.).

  8. #8
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default MP5s have become, how shall we say?...passe.

    JC,
    My days in M88s and XM1s (they weren't M1s yet) were coupled with M3 grease guns and later M4s.
    Those who desire can keep the M4 with the M16s and mess with jams. The M3 worked better, just a bitch to reload, but never jammed. I have now dated myself.

    The lowest bidder to a USG contract (ahem)

  9. #9
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sullygoarmy View Post
    Reading the incident with CPT Self reminds me of similar stories from the Vietnam war of soldiers found dead with cleaning rods in their hands as they tried to clear jammed M16s. It sounds like the HK 416 is close in price and far superior to the M16/M4 family. Anyone know if disadvantages to the HK 416 other than the fact we would need to start replacing the M4 family of weapons?

    Seems like an interesting rifle.
    Very tragic and horrifying. But didn't they narrow that down to the powder used in the ammo? Not to take away from the underlying weakness to begin with. I don't know the difference between an M4 and the GAU-5 I was issued in the Air Force. But I did like it better than the M-16 rifle for obvious reasons. It was smaller and better suited for airborne jumps. Ironically, I scored better with the GAU-5 than the standard M16 rifle. The HK416 is an improvement of design and if it is good enough for Delta than it is good enough for my ladies. I find it a little strange that Delta is even being advertised as promoting this weapon. We normally don't have a need to know about such things.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  10. #10
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Very tragic and horrifying. But didn't they narrow that down to the powder used in the ammo? Not to take away from the underlying weakness to begin with. I don't know the difference between an M4 and the GAU-5 I was issued in the Air Force. But I did like it better than the M-16 rifle for obvious reasons. It was smaller and better suited for airborne jumps. Ironically, I scored better with the GAU-5 than the standard M16 rifle. The HK416 is an improvement of design and if it is good enough for Delta than it is good enough for my ladies. I find it a little strange that Delta is even being advertised as promoting this weapon. We normally don't have a need to know about such things.
    The army changed powder without informing/asking the manufacturer. Add to this mix no training, lack of chrome bores and chambers and no forward assist, and you have a recipe for disaster.

    HK has a history of failing to meet Army approval for their products, and then trying to force the Army to buy them anyway by running media circuses (is that circii?). HK also has a history of poor product support.

    The XM8 was just a repackage of the HK36, which exhibited poor plastic strength over 120 degrees F and whose primary sight had the quality of something found in a gumball machine. The USP continues to be a horrendously overpriced, problemmatic, finicky piece of junk, and the HK416 looks "crude" and offers nothing over the other piston uppers being offered as an improvement to Mr. Stoner's desing. Colt has offered more than one piston-operated version of the M16. But the Army continues to say "no thanks", and frankly, I agree with the Army. Each and every criticism of the direct-impingement, 5.56 system has really good counter-points.
    Last edited by 120mm; 06-26-2007 at 04:02 AM. Reason: Head removed from rectal region

  11. #11
    Council Member Dominique R. Poirier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    137

    Default On .45 vs 9mm and more.

    Gentlemen,
    I tried a lot of guns when I was gunsmith and for some times I used to try each and every gun that fell in my hands on a car’s wreckage. The car was a strongly built old German Opel of the 60’s. It was an interesting experiment, indeed. Since you are preoccupied with calibers I deliver to you my observations from recollection.

    .45 ACP ranks well behind the 9mm Parabellum in performance when it comes to penetrating power.
    Shoot with a 45 ACP pistol in the trunk of a good car from a distance of 20 yards only and its occupants will just have to hide behind their rear seat to be sure they will get unarmed.

    A solution consisting in raising the velocity of a .45 ACP bullet would produce stronger recoil which, in turn, would be detrimental to the capability accurately aim and shoot again. A 9mm can do better in the same circumstances.

    My experiments demonstrated that nearly all 9mm bullets shot from the same distance got through everything in the car until being struck in some part’s component behind the dashboard. These tests I did with 1911 and 1911 A1 ordnance pistols were performed with .45 standard military ammunitions of U.S. origin and modern ammunitions of civilian origin (Norma and Federal). Overall the perforating power of a .45 is similar to this of a .32 ACP pistol and superior to this of a 25 ACP which ranks the poorest among all modern pistol calibers.
    The cause stems from a bullet-diameter/velocity ratio. Increase significantly the speed and the perforating power will know some improvements; or, reducing the diameter of the bullet is another way to obtain similar improvements.

    Strikingly enough, shots done at the same distance with a .22LR carbine and Remington Hi-Velocity cartridges performed the same as with 9mm pistol. That is, nearly all 9mm bullets shot from the same distance got through everything in the car until being struck in some part’s behind the dashboard. It doesn’t mean that 9mm has poor performances. It means that .22 Long Rifle has a very high perforating power because it travels at fast speed and its bullet’s diameter is small.

    As a matter of complementary information, .30 NATO, 30-06 and 8mm Mauser shot from the same distance continued their course after they got their way out of the radiator or a headlight when they didn’t get stuck by a steel component in the engine. Their performances are similar.

    High velocity .30 calibers rifle cartridges (i.e. up to 2200 fps) do not easily “atomize” or separate into multiple tiny pieces of lead and copper when they hit metal objects; whereas smaller diameters do in most instances.
    For example, shoot a 223 bullet through two thin metal sheets 1 or 2 feet apart and you’ll have a clean small hole on the first and a quarter-coin diameter on the second. The cause is that the bullet fragments into tiny metal particles while going through the first sheet. Such phenomenon hardly, if ever, happens with pistol and revolver bullets, of course. 308 (7.62mm) and up to rifle calibers are not much concerned with this problem (when it is considered as a problem).

    About stopping power and the competition .45 ACP vs 9mm I recommend this interesting reading available at the following link:
    http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=69

    There is a possibility to significantly improve the stopping power of a 9mm in using hollow point or semi-jacketed bullets--I’m not sure it’s legal, according to international laws on war, however. The same trick applies to .45 ACP, of course. Technically, stopping power relies on several different parameters.

    The bigger the diameter is the greater the stopping power. That’s the basics.

    But a small bullet such as a .223 traveling at fast speed and shot from short distance (a hundred of yards or so) may cause a huge cavity in a human body and vital organs during a handful of milliseconds, thus creating a nervous shock whose effects are similar to this of a great stopping power. Also, it matter whether a given bullet get out of a human body or get stuck in it. For, the remaining kinetic energy will be absorbed by the body in the latter case as a punch would do.

    If a given bullet is semi-jacketed it will be prone to mushroom and so its diameter will get larger. Therefore, its stopping power will know a significant increase.
    But, the mushroom effect depends on the bullet velocity. A slow velocity such as this of a .45 (about 675 to 840 fps) is not sufficient enough for a mushroom effect to occur in gelatin (of flesh, if you prefer and since we have to call a spade a spade at some point). It is more likely to occur with a 9mm, in revenge, because the velocity of this caliber is much higher (1,020 to 1,140 fps).
    Improving significantly the mushroom effect of a .45, and so its stopping power, would consist in using semi-jacketed hollow point bullets.

    The most “devastating” and incapacitating effects on a human body are likely to be obtained with a special kind of ammunition conceived for target competition: I name the full lead “wadcutter” bullet.

    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadcutter

    But the problem is that this kind of bullet is fit for revolvers, though .45 sport guns are adapted to it. When fired with an automatic pistol it is a cause of frequent jamming. Also, lead bullets dirt quickly barrel and other components.

    Further questions on ballistics will be welcome.
    Last edited by Dominique R. Poirier; 07-01-2007 at 11:18 AM.

  12. #12
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    I have shot a lot of .45 ACP, .40 S&W and 9mm, and have to say that I don't have a problem with any of the three, though I will admit that 9mm has it all over the other two for longer range shooting. Between 50m and 100m I would feel comfortable in engaging a man sized target with 9mm. I've tried it with .45 ACP and .40 S&W and just didn't have much luck.

    If you get up to .45 Super or .44 Magnum velocities, you should be able to take care of business, but at the expense of recoil and excessive wear on the machinery.

  13. #13
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default Just my observation -

    I hear and understand a lot of the grief given the M16/M4, and I'll just add this -

    My issued M4, which I maintained reasonably (as opposed to spotlessly)downrange, never failed me in over 300 rounds of service use. Never had a jam on a range either.

    I can't really say I saw any major issues with any of my soldier's M16's/M4's downrange, as long as they cleaned them regularly (wipe down daily, detailed 1x/week)

    Stopping power is another discussion, but fortunately there aren't a lot of big burly Iraqis.

  14. #14
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I like this concept weapon, especially considering what I currently do in light armor.

    http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/PDRtech_PR.pdf

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oLcHkCcz_c

  15. #15
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Only problem I have with all the neat weapons designed

    for use by vehicle crews or those not normally engaged in direct ground combat is what do those folks do if circumstances change and they are suddenly engaged in direct ground combat...

    That said, that one makes more sense than do the ones with the weird little cartridges.

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
  •