MAF abandon Steyr after 15-year service
-
Wall Hacking?
-
u all quarrel with so much passion over this..
whether it be a good rifle or not...
1 bullet enuff to kill u if not cause ALOT OF DISCOMFORT -
- You keep blabbering about HK better than Colt as if anyone is debating that.Originally posted by gary1910:I'm a very obstinate person ???
- I am not saying M4 is the best weapon. I am saying the M4 is best for MAF, after all things considered.
- SAS of 3 countries' usage is still not proof enough that it is a above average weapon. As if you know better?
- furthermore, a license to make the HK416 isn't appearing from H&K.
- and that the HK416 is probably too expensive for MAF.
Maybe you are not obstinate - just very blur sotong.
-
If a MAF soldier is about to shoot Gary in the nuts with an M4, he'll probably just stand there and "laugh out loud" and telling him to go buy a HK416 instead.Originally posted by Rockhound:u all quarrel with so much passion over this..
whether it be a good rifle or not...
1 bullet enuff to kill u if not cause ALOT OF DISCOMFORT
Soon-to-be-eunuch Gary is not concerned because according to his internet sources, the M4 is not accurate, has short range, will probably jam, and bullet won't be effective due to short barrel. And also becos the firer is a "rojak" Malaysian soldier. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Gary is saying the M4 is crap and need to be replaced by the HK416. Read his posts again.
I doubt Gary nor anyone else is saying that the M4 is an inferior weapon.Originally posted by Shotgun:
What makes a rifle 3G?
Its just not a "3G" weapon that the MAF boasts it to be.Originally posted by Shotgun:
Wrong, no single bullet fired from any 5.56mm M16 rifle can penetrate a brick wall at whatever distance. The recommended method is to fire a burst - preferably in a "U" shape.
Just a few notes I've gathered from some experience from Iraq and Afghan. Whether the M4 can shoot through a brick wall, is questionable. That extra barrel length only goes to help the rounds to go through.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1999/99-16/appendc.htmOriginally posted by Shotgun:
I give up...
I think it's been an interesting thread so far. Whatever anyone choose to believe, a lot of useful info had been posted,
For me, the most important one was finding out that the famous "jamming" cases in Iraq and Afghanistan happened to guns not previously fired before. So the jamming had nothing to do with the gas system.
They jammed due either to bad magazines, poor maintenance, the fine sand and wrong lubricant. The SAS, IDF (for decades) used the M16/M4 in the desert with no problems. -
That is becos I want to show you that gas blowback design is flaw in the first place!!!Originally posted by chino65:- You keep blabbering about HK better than Colt as if anyone is debating that.
- I am not saying M4 is the best weapon. I am saying the M4 is best for MAF, after all things considered.
- SAS of 3 countries' usage is still not proof enough that it is a above average weapon. As if you know better?
- furthermore, a license to make the HK416 isn't appearing from H&K.
- and that the HK416 is probably too expensive for MAF.
Maybe you are not obstinate - just very blur sotong.
H&K416 is basically similar to M4 except that one is gas piston and the latter is gas blowback.
And yet US Delta Force is willing to collaborate to produce "gas piston M4" which is the H&K 416.
Why the hell they want do that if the gas blowback M4 is so good ???
You said M4 is best for MAF, why is it the best?
Logistical, that I have already rebuttal it, if it truly logistical, then Steryr AUG A1 to A3 will be more logical.
Only thing going for M4 is cheap, but does it represent the next generation AR ?
SAS are using the M4 , but US SF are discarding M4 and replace it with 416 , does this tell you anything?
As I already said, SF like to use M4 due to it's compactness and lightweight especailly good for airborne operation, that is why they like it.
If M4 is such good weapon as Standard infantry AR, how come no country in the world use the M4 as such??? Care to explain that?
Article after article said that the M16 gas blowback cause reliability issue, that is fact.
Are you saying all those US vets are all lying thru their teeth and those test results were falsified!?!
I have fired live rds from AR-15 to M16S1, SA80 to SAR-21( SAR-21 is tested but not trained),I have also fired full auto live rds with M16S1.
All of you know how much carbon deposit in the bolt area in M16 design but do you there is little carbon deposit in the bolt area in gas piston AR?
Likewise , I have also fired more than 50 rds live rds in a very quick succession( the Encik want to clear the rds becos of excess rds during special training non CTSS , I went thru quick turnaound at 300m, fired , clear arm and collected ammo and fired again x3 , no rest in between, dun even bother abt result.)
At the end of day, the bolt carrier is stone dry, I could only conclude that due to quick succession of firing ,the heat generated is so much that it dried up the whole bolt carrier!!!
Imagine that in real contact where one contact is more than 100rds, when all lubricant all went dry ,it will be metal against metal. then parts will wear off faster , let alone that it might cause jamming.
You are loser instead of debating with me in points, resorting to name calling, a sure sign of a loser!!!! -
Originally posted by chino65:
But the Main issue here we are talking about is replacing their main force AR, not their SF as they are like aforementioned using CAR-15
-SAS of 3 countries' usage is still not proof enough that it is a above average weapon. As if you know better? -
It is true that the HK416 addresses the key weakness of the M4, which is the direct gas blow back. And the HK416 is being recognized as the replacement for the M4 by SF communities.Originally posted by chino65: I think it's been an interesting thread so far. Whatever anyone choose to believe, a lot of useful info had been posted,
For me, the most important one was finding out that the famous "jamming" cases in Iraq and Afghanistan happened to guns not previously fired before. So the jamming had nothing to do with the gas system.
They jammed due either to bad magazines, poor maintenance, the fine sand and wrong lubricant. The SAS, IDF (for decades) used the M16/M4 in the desert with no problems.
3 Types of Jams occur with M-16 systems. Half, Double and No -feeding. I'll be honest with you, I've only encountered half feeds once, and that was due to a faulty magazine. But the ones that i encounter the most, that pisses me off the most are still the no-feeding, where no round is chambered, and the bolt carrier is left the forward position.
Im no pro when it comes to guns, but i figured that wasn't due to a magazine fault since I loaded those rounds myself and felt the spring tension on those magazines.
In any case, I spent the next half n hour cleaning n scraping off carbon off my bolt carrier assembly before I went for my night shoot. The rifle worked like a charm there after.
I figured the weapon was blowing more carbon and spraying it against my bolt carrier than it was blowing sufficient gas to cycle the weapon. I don't know, I think our 2 gun-pros here can answer better.
Is the M4 a good weapon? I've never handled it, but seeing its wide adoption, I think it has to be good. But it has problems that plague the whole AR-15 series of weapons, problems that have been fixed by new generation of assault rifles and carbines. -
Is it possible that we have missed some points here? Weapons procurements tend to be decided by a variety of factors. Maybe the economic considerations influenced the decision, namely the weak USD. Perhaps the Colt people showed the MAF some new equipment for the M4 which they liked and suited their future doctrine. It is possible that they wanted another weapon but this was beyond their budget. What I am trying to say is that since we don't have access to all the info in the procurements process, it is possible that other reasons may have been involved. After all, if weapons selection is based purely on military reasons with no consideration given to budget or political considerations I suspect we would see all generals submitting requests for equipment which the country may not be able to afford. I'm just guessing.
-
it might be true... because they have tested the HK416 and XM8 too...yet they still choose M4A1...and posibly futher develop the A16A2
-
Is it a good weapon? Yes.
Is it a good enough weapon? Yes
Is it a good enough weapon to kill you if it's pointed at you? YES!
(Excuse me this is not BF2, hit a bit can still run around)
Besides, one more thing, will -we- know how to use the m4 if we pick it up? Yes -
IDF used the M16 series for decades without serious jam issues.Originally posted by gary1910:That is becos I want to show you that gas blowback design is flaw in the first place!!! blah blah blah
So stop being obstinate. -
do we share the same magazine and bullets? yes?Originally posted by CM06:Is it a good weapon? Yes.
Is it a good enough weapon? Yes
Is it a good enough weapon to kill you if it's pointed at you? YES!
(Excuse me this is not BF2, hit a bit can still run around)
Besides, one more thing, will -we- know how to use the m4 if we pick it up? Yes -
how many parts have comonality with m16? : 80%
how many m16 they have? : too many
..... does everyone in their armed forces knew how to operate M16? : yes , because its their basic training weapon. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
No one is denying the HK416 isn't better, that's the whole point.
It is true that the HK416 addresses the key weakness of the M4, which is the direct gas blow back. And the HK416 is being recognized as the replacement for the M4 by SF communities.
But we are not talking about the HK416 since that possibility no longer exists for MAF.
Either through cost or other reasons, MAF is NOT getting the HK416.
Only someone really dim like GARY keeps going on about something that is no longer gonna happen.Originally posted by Shotgun:...that pisses me off the most are still the no-feeding, where no round is chambered, and the bolt carrier is left the forward position.
Actually a dirty bolt causes half or double feed. No feed is usually caused by dented magazine lips.
Im no pro when it comes to guns, but i figured that wasn't due to a magazine fault since I loaded those rounds myself and felt the spring tension on those magazines.Originally posted by Shotgun:
I would pick a HK416 over an M4, but if the MAF can't afford one, the M4 isn't bad at all.
In any case, I spent the next half n hour cleaning n scraping off carbon off my bolt carrier assembly before I went for my night shoot. The rifle worked like a charm there after.Originally posted by Shotgun:
he M4 is the weapon of choice by professional who do have a choice - like the SAS. And they chose the M4.
Is the M4 a good weapon? I've never handled it, but seeing its wide adoption, I think it has to be good. But it has problems that plague the whole AR-15 series of weapons, problems that have been fixed by new generation of assault rifles and carbines. -
anyway they can replace the upper receiver assemblies of M4 with the HK416 ...just minor modification.....U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa did that by buying the upper receiver and modified it in their machine shop...
-
My guess:Originally posted by xXhuskyXx:But the Main issue here we are talking about is replacing their main force AR, not their SF as they are like aforementioned using CAR-15
A typical MAF section, 9 men broken into 2 fire teams:
Sect Cmdr - M4 w scope
Sect 2IC - M4 w scope
LAW - M4 w scope
M16/M203
SAW
M16/M203
LAW - M4 w scope
SAW
Plenty of weapons that can reach out and touch you wherever. Plus in the jungle, you can't see clearly beyond 50m.
It is not as if every member of MAF will be using only the M4. -
Okay, lets just sum up my view, and thats the last of it, at least from me.
The M4 is a good and established weapon.
However, whether a short barreled weapon such as it is suitable as a standard infantry issue is questionable due to its reduced wounding capability, and reduced engagement distance.
Point noted, in the jungle, one can hardly see 50 meters. But not all combat will take place in the jungles, and even within the jungle, but there is no manueverability restriction for a full length M-16.
US Army units are still equipped with M-16A3s despite its full length, and remain to be actively engaged in FIBUA environments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Note that they do have a mixed complement of M4s and full length weapons as well. Of course we are not saying that MAF would equip all their riflemen with M4s... but as a standard issue, that is what one is implying.
Is an M4 the best choice for a standard infantry issue, my opinion is no. But I guess people like me would get used to me one day, like how the old guys who converted from the M-14s to M-16s did. I bet many of them were kicking a fuss over using "smaller" bullets.
The reason to MAF's selection of the M4, as I've said much earlier, is that they probably don't have much of a choice. There are not many systems out there that would sell their licenses to manufacture. HK won't sell the 416's license, thats for sure. If they did, the other questions is whether MAF wants to pay that much for it? I heard the other tempting offer they got was for the AK-101. Any details on this? -
my guess is they are going to give the M4 to the light brigade..such as the Para or recon unit...and they will use also M16A2 for the other standard infantry battalion
-
Those standard annual markmanship ranges that most SAF soldiers went thru are just markmanship training.
Those M16 firing does not reflect how reliable the weapon will be , as it does not reflect real combat situation.
For example 300m rundown, IIRC 7 mags of 3rds= 21 rds.
Usually, each firer will go thru one run down in the morning, i.e. 21 rds , then you wait till the afternoon for the 2nd rundown in the afternoon and perhaps even 3rd rundown.
In between , there will be waiting, i.e. after every rundown there is more than sufficient time for the weapon to cool down.
But in real combat situation, you could fire more than 100 rds within 10mins, becos of that, the heat generated is much more higher than the 21 rds.
How will the weapon perform in such condition?
I believe it is worst as compare to ranges.
So the experiences in ranges cannot be used as a yardstick to gauge the reliability of a weapon in a real combat situation. -
I do recall Colt identifying an issue with their M4s, where the bolt lugs actually broke off after 10,000 rounds. It was only pertaining to the M4s due to the shortened length or something. I cant remember clearly what it was though..Originally posted by gary1910:Those standard annual markmanship ranges that most SAF soldiers went thru are just markmanship training.
Those M16 firing does not reflect how reliable the weapon will be , as it does not reflect real combat situation.
For example 300m rundown, IIRC 7 mags of 3rds= 21 rds.
Usually, each firer will go thru one run down in the morning, i.e. 21 rds , then you wait till the afternoon for the 2nd rundown in the afternoon and perhaps even 3rd rundown.
In between , there will be waiting, i.e. after every rundown there is more than sufficient time for the weapon to cool down.
But in real combat situation, you could fire more than 100 rds within 10mins, becos of that, the heat generated is much more higher than the 21 rds.
How will the weapon perform in such condition?
I believe it is worst as compare to ranges.
So the experiences in ranges cannot be used as a yardstick to gauge the reliability of a weapon in a real combat situation. -
Those M16 firing does not reflect how reliable the weapon will be , as it does not reflect real combat situation.
they have use M16 for combat...surely they know its capability -
im sorry i made a mistake....thos pic that i post some are not M4....its M16A1 Carbine or Car15A1 or Colt M653...try to look which is which...
-
Completely unrelated to the previous posts, here is a crazy twist to the M4 story.
I have previously seen some pics of supposedly PLA troops in the jungle with M4. They were wearing camo and the old style PLA helmet with the metal cap badge.
They were covered in mud.
Though I knew that China produces M16 and M4 copies, I thought those pictures of muddy "PLA with M4" were just very dedicated Chinese air-softers.
But then, I just found this pic at Defense Forum again captioning a M4-carrying soldier as PLA. So what are they up to? First they cahnge their entire line of uniform from No3 to No4 all to western style. Then they adopt the US-style helmet.
If they fight with Taiwan, just by uniform alone it is impossible to tell them apart. But they take this even further by arming their covert troops with M4s. Hmm.. what's the game plan?
-
that dude looks caucasian to me