Skip to comments.
Marines might replace M-16A2 with M-4
Pacific Edition, Stars and Stripes ^
| Sunday, August 4, 2002
| Mark Oliva
Posted on 08/04/2002 11:34:22 AM PDT by demlosers
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next last
To: demlosers
21
posted on
08/04/2002 12:41:26 PM PDT
by
decimon
To: VaBthang4
Marines replacing M-16A2 with M-4 PING!!!!!!!!
22
posted on
08/04/2002 12:42:33 PM PDT
by
spetznaz
To: LibKill
If range is a consideration the old M-14 is good to 1,000 meters.I like my old M-1 at 1000 meters... now if that empty clip just didn't make that distinctive sound.....
To: Prodigal Son
Many good points. I'm with you being to engage targets out as far as I can. There will be a time the Marines get into a fire fight with their M-4s in the open and they find the enemy has a longer reach than they do.
Zeroing the M16 wasn't hard for me either, easy as 1 2 3.
I think overall, I agree with someone else that perhaps having one weapon that solves all problems is not really practical- perhaps a mixture of different weapons that accomplish different tasks being brought to bear on the enemy as part of a fire team as opposed to an individual.
Yes I tend to agree, until the military does get the "perfect rifle" thats seems the way to go.
Comment #25 Removed by Moderator
To: Long Cut
. Furthermore, while the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO round is quite good, it too has been around for quite some time. Personally, I'd like to see someone come up with something between it and the 7.62x51mm NATO. They did. Its called .243 Winchester. A high performance cartridge--100grain bullet with muzzle velocity of 2900fps. It is a necked down .308/7.62 case with a 6mm bullet. Short maximum length of 2.7-in.--ideal for automatic weapons. Light recoil. Women and children have been knocking off white tail deer with this for years.
26
posted on
08/04/2002 12:49:13 PM PDT
by
J Jay
Comment #27 Removed by Moderator
To: demlosers
At first glance I dont like the decision one bit...
The one total and complete advantage the M-16 has over the Ak-47 is range.
We were able to drop Iraqis from ranges they couldnt concieve of. All their infantry troops could do was run for cover as they tried to elevate their AKs in a vain attempt to reach us.
Individual Marines were able to snipe Iraqis at standoff distances. I understand the Amry using the M-4....Army soldiers already cant engage from great distances, so giving them a rifle with a shorter range only seems appropriate....but taking an advantage away from Marines is not something I like at all.
Sounds like some jealous geek Marine decision to me. The M-4 looks cooler.
To: demlosers
A few threads up ahead, there was a report from Afghanistan -based troops, suggesting the M4 was unreliable, because it was almost impossible to keep clean.There were also problems with the SAW (squad automatic weapon).
Time to break out the "old" 7.62 mm M-14's, and come up with a 7.62 BAR.
Re-organize the squad into 3 four man fire teams-one BAR un each team.
To: demlosers
Am I missing something? With the exception of the usual upgrades common to the system, don't we still have a CAR15?
Great for patrolling in thick vegetation, great balance with a 20 round magazine, sight radius about as useful as your standard .45 M1A1. Should be great for support or rear troops.
As for line troops, I'd like to see us adopt the 7X57 Mauser, or similar, fired by a caliber-scaled M14 action. Not the sissy loading that the ammo manufacturers produce as a safety measure, but a hotter military specific loading.
30
posted on
08/04/2002 1:10:00 PM PDT
by
x1stcav
To: Prodigal Son
I distinctly recall an account of a firefight where a grunt said words to the effect "We were nervous until we saw our marksmanship was better than their's."
That doesn't sound like there were toe to toe. Range and accuracy may matter. OTOH, that was a SpecOps unit, and may have had snipers along.
31
posted on
08/04/2002 1:10:37 PM PDT
by
eno_
Comment #32 Removed by Moderator
To: genefromjersey
A few threads up ahead, there was a report from Afghanistan -based troops, suggesting the M4 was unreliable, because it was almost impossible to keep clean.There were also problems with the SAW (squad automatic weapon). Yeah I know, that's my post also. It did rate a 89% confidence level wil the troops who were asked to assess the weapon. But, as one soldier pointed out, If I did not have so many opportunities to clean [my M-4] Im not sure how reliable it would have been.
To: Beenliedto
"
I like my old M-1 at 1000 meters... "
I'll second that. Over 2500fps & 150 + grns.
"now if that empty clip just didn't make that distinctive sound.....
Not to worry.....at a 1000 meters yards.
34
posted on
08/04/2002 1:16:50 PM PDT
by
G.Mason
To: x1stcav
The 7mm-08 would be a very good choice. If it will knock over the 500 meter sheep silhouettes,it's plenty powerful. Also,I can attest from experience,it won't beat you to death with recoil. Fired offhand,from a bolt action rifle,it can be comfortably managed by just about anyone-and "anyone" includes the 80 pound young lady,age 16,who won the last match I was at. If chambered in a gas operated self loader,it ought to be just about perfect.
To: demlosers
Two recent articles are of interest. In last month's SOF there was a story about the M4 that claimed a great many long range kills during Anaconda. Most recenly in USNI Proceedings Maj. Anthony Milavic, USMC(ret)attacks the decision to go to the M4 because of his belief in the inadequacy of the 5.56 cartridge. He includes anecdotals from Nam, the Gulf, Somalia, and Afghanistan testifying to the inability of the 5.56 to put down a target.
Two contradictory articles. As a buff and not a vet I leave it to the experienced to make a judgement.
Comment #37 Removed by Moderator
To: demlosers
If you insist on a poodle shooter at least get one with a 18" or 20" barrel...slightly
greater velocity & range shooting heavier bullets (>than 55 gr FMJ)...Personally after a year in Vietnam as a grunt and medic (with the 9th Inf Div/ Mobile Riverine Force) ...I'd like to see our guys at least have the option of something more powerfull...more reliable (in blowing sand) shooting at least a 150 gr FMJ ...imo
To: *bang_list
Ill Advised switch to carbines?? BUMP
39
posted on
08/04/2002 1:32:58 PM PDT
by
xsrdx
To: J Jay
Didn't Armalite chamber one version of their AR-10 in that caliber? It does sound like the correct path, at least. Hopefully more serious work will be done on the problem. At the least, we should try some different actions besides the direct-gas system of the M16.
I would like to see what American arms designers could do with such things as gas-pistons(AK, M14,), or delayed-recoil(Browning M2, Thompson) and a cartridge such as the .243.
BTW, I also don't think we need all the geegaws we seem to hang or attach to the rifle. What we need is something which follows the concept of RAM-D(Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, Dependability) first and only then play with the toys. Weapons following this concept well are much liked. Witness the affection of older vets for the M-1/M-14 rifles. It's near universal. The M16 has been "controversial" for 40 years, and is still viewed with suspicion by a great many who use it.
This alone should tell us something about what to replace it with.
40
posted on
08/04/2002 1:49:44 PM PDT
by
Long Cut
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-160 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson