Posted on 08/20/2024 12:30:12 PM PDT by whyilovetexas111
The M4 Carbine dates back to the Vietnam War when the Long-Range Reconnaissance Patrol soldiers needed a weapon that was compact and still semi-concealable so they could snoop deep into enemy territory without being seen. This was the CAR-15, the older brother of the M4. The M-16 was longer and cumbersome in close combat situations, so special operations personnel later preferred the smaller size of the M4, especially when they jumped out of airplanes.
The M4 then spread to light infantry units later in the 1990s. Some soldiers and marines still used the M-16A2 and A3 until the Second Gulf War and you can see photos of marines still using the M16A4 in combat as late as 2004.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalsecurityjournal.org ...
Bullpup designs seem to be better at the task.
Not really. They don’t feel right, in the ignition of the cartridge is much closer to your face. There’s a reason those haven’t really taken over.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2022-04-20/army-soldiers-weapons-new-rifles-ammunition-sig-sauer-5745050.html
Give them a few years and they'll circle all the way back to a 30 caliber carbine.
The replacement is a 6.8 with a high pressure loading.
It looks like soldiers have some difficulty shooting it.
They needed it for long range engagements in Afghanistan but it came too late for that.
Bullpups come with a list of problems. They sure look cool, though.
In the end, the armed forces will procure whatever provides the greatest kickback to the politicians.
The AR/M4 type platform is a very mature and reliable design these days. The availability of commercial parts makes it easy to customize and very versatile. The only drawback I see, and its only in the most recent decade or so, is that modern body armor has become so prolific and the 5.56 was not really designed to defeat this. This is the only reason that the services have sought out a replacement, the need for a capability to defeat the armor defended enemy.
The down side for civilians will be the cost both in platform and per round to keep up with the innovation the government spends your money on for our troops. I think this is great for our troops. I just wish the reality was that new platform and ammo didnt cost so much. But hey, I wish I had a good blaster and a light saber, too.
They did eventually come out with a shorter version of the M-16 called a GAU. Our Flight Chiefs in SAC used to carry them.
Bullpups aren’t kind to lefty shooters. Brass in the face. Been there, done that.
A bullpup always has a horrible trigger.
Both will come down in cost, if we remain a free Republic.
Plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 5.56 cartridge is way underpowered in the combat arena. Bad guys getting shot several times and still in the fight.
Maybe the replacement in 6.8mm will help that...
Have one in my rack, only thing that keeps me from having fun with it is the price of ammo, about a dollar a round last time I checked.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner.
Agreed, they just don’t feel right. I think their popularity has more to do with looking cool.
I spent about 23 years and four deployments to using the M4 as an Infantry guy.
I love it.
Versatile, reliable, accurate, customizable, LIGHT...small..
Its great.
The only issue is when contact is greater that 400 meter...it becomes lackluster. But in those cases you have the M240, M249, and aviation or indirect anyway.
I used the British SA-80 Bullpup...it was clunky, awkward, and didn’t do anything better then the M4 did.
I used Russian Ak-47s and AK74s, both of which were heavy as hell, and didn’t do anything better then the M4....hugely overrated. Then if you talk about the Chinese, Chech or any other nationality that made the AK....they are utter trash. Especially any AK using Stamped steel versus honed steel.
I also hate the safety mechanism on AKs...which is awkward and slow compared to the M4...and unlike loading an M$ magazine that you literally can drop the old one with a button and slap the new one in...with an AK...you have to “Rock” the magazine out and “Rock” a new one in.
Then I used the M14 with the specter receiver on it...but it was also heavy, and awkward.
I love the M4.
No...the 5.56 kills people just fine.
Bad guys get shot several times with 7.62 and still run..having the bullet go right through them alot of times.
It really just matters what the bullet hits.
If you got hit center mass with a 5.56, your not gonna stay in the fight.
Nah 5.56 is fine. The M855 has had some zip issues but the M855a1 is phenomenal, so is mk-262. 5.56 will absolutely pop someone’s melon and evacuate their head. Further, the old double tap bullshit is long out of fashion….. training now consist of putting 5,6,7, 8,9 rounds into the target. Blow out the T zone, spine or hips if they’re in armor.
Manufacturers already make AR style rifles chambered in 300 Blackout.
300 Blackout is already in use in the Netherlands, the UK, Germany and the U.S. Special Operations use the 'MCX Rattler' Short Barreled Rifle.
The cartridge is made from an AR-15 shell that's cut before the taper which saves on manufacturing costs. It uses the same magazines and hardware as 5.56. The performance is a bit better than .30 M1 Carbine:
https://www.foundryoutdoors.com/blogs/caliber-ballistics-comparison/30-m1-carbine-vs-300-aac-blackout-ammo-comparison-ballistics-info-chart
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.