MAF abandon Steyr after 15-year service
-
Not picking sides here ... I think both Gary and Chino have good points but are just not seeing each others' points
Originally posted by gary1910:
But this is too good to pass up ...
Lastly as I asked you guys is there any army using M4 as a standard infantry AR???
Remember the operative word is standard infantry, not SF.[/b]
From US Army (army.mil) Fact File on the M4 Carbine
"It achieves more than 85 percent commonality with the M16A2 rifle and will replace all .45 caliber M3 submachine guns, selected M9 pistols, and M16 series rifles.""
Looking through the Iraq pics on Milphoto.net, the M4 really looks to be becoming more prevalent these days in line units. -
On the contrary, he looks definitely Asian.Originally posted by tankfanatic:that dude looks caucasian to me -
Originally posted by kotay:
The M4 is ALREADY the standard arm for the US Marines. The IDF had the M4 on widespread issue. THough I won't quote IDF as an example as they seldom officially standardise anything.
Not picking sides here ... I think both Gary and Chino have good points but are just not seeing each others' points
But this is too good to pass up ...
From US Army (army.mil) Fact File on the M4 Carbine
"It achieves more than 85 percent commonality with the M16A2 rifle and [b]will replace all .45 caliber M3 submachine guns, selected M9 pistols, and M16 series rifles.""
Looking through the Iraq pics on Milphoto.net, the M4 really looks to be becoming more prevalent these days in line units.[/b]
I though it was good enough to quote that the SAS of 3 countries use it as standard. But apparently, this holds no water for gary that the M4 is indeed a very good weapon despite certain US army members making noise.
The IDF used the M16 system in the desert as the weapon of choice over other system for decades without problem.
...
The US army, complain after a one or two years.
They also only started complaining as the battle in Iraq got bogged down and the troops became frustrated. So go figure.
So some experts looked into the problem and found that the jams happened to previously unfired weapons. So this had nothing to do with the so-called "gas problem". It was a combination of sand and the wrong lubricant the US army issued.
gary as usual sticks to his guns in the face of facts. -
My understanding is that the M16A4 is still the primary AR for the USMC ... I could be wrong but I'd appreciate if you can share you sources.Originally posted by chino65:The M4 is ALREADY the standard arm for the US Marines. -
Haha .. its funny how the M-16/M4 supporters keep misquoting things.
In the US - The marines and everyone else preferred the AK they confiscated, cause the M-16/M4 jams easily on sand. This was widely reported on US Army New, Pentagon Channel TV, etc.
In IDF - Same problem with the US, that's why they developed the Tavor/TAR-21.
Almost everywhere else, people are choosing something else to replace the M-16.
Malaysia themselves picked up the Steyr over their M-16, and now they're going back to the M4, that's why its funny.
It wouldn't be surprised if one day they report that some angmoh treated someone coffee to buy the M4. -
Whats done is done. They'll start questioning their procurement policies ... maybe.
"Why did we buy 18 'brand new' MiG-29Ns that had to be 'refurbished' so quickly?"
"Why did we not buy more F/A-18 instead when they proved to be more serviceable than the MiG-29?"
"Why can't we drop bombs on Singapore with our F/A-18s?"
"Why did we by Polish customized 'PT-91s' when they closed down all its production? Where will we get spares when no one else operates PT-91s"
"Why did we adopt a '3G' M4 when everybody else is moving away from it?"
"Why hasn't anyone translated the French manual!?" -
The M4 is issued to the USMC and US army along with the M16 as standard. It's just not blanket issue.Originally posted by specialOps:Haha .. its funny how the M-16/M4 supporters keep misquoting things.
Please show us the link where the IDF is said to to dumping their M16/M4 due to jamming. Thanks.Originally posted by specialOps:In the US - The marines and everyone else preferred the AK they confiscated, cause the M-16/M4 jams easily on sand. This was widely reported on US Army New, Pentagon Channel TV, etc.
In IDF - Same problem with the US, that's why they developed the Tavor/TAR-21.
I fail to see why things have to be either black or white with you.
We are merely saying the M4 is NOT crap, but neither is it a "laughing stock" as gary puts it. -
Let me quote Mr Gary: "Remember the operative word is standard infantry, not SF."Originally posted by kotay:My understanding is that the M16A4 is still the primary AR for the USMC ... I could be wrong but I'd appreciate if you can share you sources.
And now let me quote Mr Wikipedia:
"The basic infantry weapon of the U.S. Marine Corps is the M16 assault rifle family, with a majority of Marines being equipped with the M16A2 or M16A4 service rifles, or more recently the M4 carbine—a compact variant."
The USMC is not SF, right?
To recap -Gary is saying
1) the gas system is crap and
2) the barrel is too short.
On point No 1, the M16 shares the same gas system so it really doesn't make a big difference whether it is the M16 or M4. And I have already shown incidents where the jam happened to rifles that had not yet been fired. This points to magazine problem or the combination of sand and wrong lubricant. These problems can occur to many other weapon types, not just M16 family.
On point No 2, he says the short barrel makes the M4 impotent. Yet he raves about the HK416, which has the same length of barrel as the M4.
If the M4 is so impotent due to the short barrel, why is HK so stupid as to build a piston version with the same barrel length? -
The HK416 suffers from the same problem as the XM8 as they are both much better weapons than the existing M16 family.
But they are not a quantum leap as to make the US military want to spend billions just to move half a step forward. -
Chino, the Hk416 is adopted by the SF community.
There is a need for a weapon, effective out to 200meters, with compact mobility of an SMG, and penetration roughly equivalent of a rifle.
So because there is demand for a weapon, HK produced a more reliable HK variant of it. Which addresses the direct gas blow back causing too much carbon build up in the bolt carrier assembly n the "cauliflower." -
Shotgun, I know.Originally posted by Shotgun:Chino, the Hk416 is adopted by the SF community.
But I thought we were talking about non-SF.
How come the goal post keep shifting?
-
I take it your source is Wiki? Not what I was looking for but thanks.Originally posted by chino65:And now let me quote Mr Wikipedia:
"The basic infantry weapon of the U.S. Marine Corps is the M16 assault rifle family, with a majority of Marines being equipped with the M16A2 or M16A4 service rifles, or more recently the M4 carbine—a compact variant." -
Gas bolwbackOriginally posted by chino65:Let me quote Mr Gary: "Remember the operative word is standard infantry, not SF."
And now let me quote Mr Wikipedia:
"The basic infantry weapon of the U.S. Marine Corps is the M16 assault rifle family, with a majority of Marines being equipped with the M16A2 or M16A4 service rifles, or more recently the M4 carbine—a compact variant."
The USMC is not SF, right?
To recap -Gary is saying
1) the gas system is crap and
2) the barrel is too short.
On point No 1, the M16 shares the same gas system so it really doesn't make a big difference whether it is the M16 or M4. And I have already shown incidents where the jam happened to rifles that had not yet been fired. This points to magazine problem or the combination of sand and wrong lubricant. These problems can occur to many other weapon types, not just M16 family.
On point No 2, he says the short barrel makes the M4 impotent. Yet he raves about the HK416, which has the same length of barrel as the M4.
If the M4 is so impotent due to the short barrel, why is HK so stupid as to build a piston version with the same barrel length?
First thing first, I never said that M4 is a total crap but it is not as reliable as many other newer weapon.
Becos there are plenty of reports stating that the gas blowback is the cause of higher incident of jamming and higher wear and tear, I have already posted 2 reports abt it , you just chose to ignore based on your those limited ranges that you have attented as the ultimate the truth!!!
And the reason why I bought out H&K416 is the fact US SF is now replacing the gasblow back M4 to gas piston M4, i.e. H&K416. It show that US SF is not satisfied with their gas piston M4!!!
Why?
Shorter barrel
As I already said SF units like the M4 due to it's compactness and light weight becos at time , they need to paradrop into AO, a compact and ligth weight is better in such operation.
So dun mixed up why SF unit want the M4 or 416 as if it is a better weapon, actually they want a short & light weight weapon , not becos they want a short barrel weapon.
Becos:
A shorter barrel = lower muzzle velocity = lower effective range and lower kinetic energy.
The above is scientific fact, is not something that I make up.
Since standard infantry does not airdrop, therefore he does not need to have a short & light weight weapon , he does indeed want to have a weapon to have the same effective range as it's adversary.
Today standard infantry AR are mostly come with 20" barrel, so if you are using a shorter barrel which means lower effective range and lower kinetic energy weapon. You are actually giving the advantages to your adversary.
Btw, H&K 416 comes in 4 different barrel length, from 10.4" to 20".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_HK416
So in conclusion:
1) gas blowback has higher incident of jamming and higher wear and tear. (There are plenty of reports that stated that, go read it up!!!)
2)A shorter barrel = lower muzzle velocity = lower effective range and lower kinetic energy.( This is a scientific fact!) -
Originally posted by kotay:
Well, as you already stated, the standard infantry AR is the M16, there is reports that they are requesting for more M4 becos there are now operating practically only in urban area in Iraq against the insurgency and no where else.
Not picking sides here ... I think both Gary and Chino have good points but are just not seeing each others' points
But this is too good to pass up ...
From US Army (army.mil) Fact File on the M4 Carbine
"It achieves more than 85 percent commonality with the M16A2 rifle and [b]will replace all .45 caliber M3 submachine guns, selected M9 pistols, and M16 series rifles.""
Looking through the Iraq pics on Milphoto.net, the M4 really looks to be becoming more prevalent these days in line units.[/b]
Therefore it is logical for them to request for a shorter weapon.
But do note that the requirement is for a shorter length weapon and not a shorter barrel weapon.
That is why nowadays , bullpup is getting more and more popular, shorter weapon and yet has a 20" barrel. -
Also, to add on, in SG, the CAR-15 is also standard issue..... to vehicle crews.
Our M-16s are standard issue, to infantry (replaced by SAR-21).
Similarly, the USMC would issue their M4's to vehicle crews, and other personnel in need of shorter weapons. It doesn't mean their M4s are standard infantry issue. -
I think you misread the quote ... the essence of the quote is that the M4 is replacing the M16A2 in the US Army. This is supposedly not theatre specific.Originally posted by gary1910:Well, as you already stated, the standard infantry AR is the M16, there is reports that they are requesting for more M4 becos there are now operating practically only in urban area in Iraq against the insurgency and no where else.
As such it is very arguable that the standard (or soon to be standard) AR in the US Army is the M4.
That was my understanding of the situation for the USMC. Pics I've seen recently seem to show a prevalence of the "long" M16A4 among line Marine units. Notwithstanding that TO&E may equip certain vocations with the M4.Originally posted by Shotgun:Similarly, the USMC would issue their M4's to vehicle crews, and other personnel in need of shorter weapons. It doesn't mean their M4s are standard infantry issue.
I was hoping for more substantiation from Chino for his claim but seeing as that I don't have sources for my view, I'll let it lie. -
This may be the REAL reason why the M4 is so beloved amongst the "go-faster" crowd ... so many toys!
-
An April 2002 presentation by the Natick Soldier Center presented by LTC Charlie Dean and SFC Sam Newland reported on lessons learned from M4 use in Afghanistan (such as use during Operation Anaconda):
34% of soldiers reported that their M4's handguards rattle and become excessively hot when firing.
15% reported that they had trouble zeroing the M68 reflex sight.
35% added barber brushes and 24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits.
Soldiers reported the following malfunctions:
20% reported double-feeding.
15% reported feeding jams.
13% reported that feeding problems were due to magazines.
89% of soldiers reported confidence in the weapon.
20% were dissatisfied with its ease of maintenance.
Soldiers requested the following changes:
55% requested the firearm be made lighter
20% requested a larger magazine -
"In a routine acquisition notice March 23 [2007], a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbinesÂ…. According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."
since MAF is not USMC and....there may be a possibility they do this above. After all MAF tested HK 416 and XM8 after they confirmed the M4 deal. They might already know this problem (since their SF have been using it for ages) -
Originally posted by kotay:That was my understanding of the situation for the USMC. Pics I've seen recently seem to show a prevalence of the "long" M16A4 among line Marine units. Notwithstanding that TO&E may equip certain vocations with the M4.
I was hoping for more substantiation from Chino for his claim but seeing as that I don't have sources for my view, I'll let it lie."The M4 Carbine is the Army's primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces. Since its introduction in 1991, the M4 carbine has proven its worth on the battlefield because it is accurate, easy to shoot and maintain. The M4's collapsible stock and shortened barrel make it ideal for Soldiers operating in vehicles or within the confines associated with urban terrain. The M4 has been improved numerous times and employs the most current technology available on any rifle/carbine in general use today.
The M4 is the highest-rated weapon by Soldiers in combat, according to the Directorate of Combat Development, Ft. Benning, Ga. In December 2006, the Center for Naval Analysis conducted a "Soldiers' Perspective on Small Arms in Combat" survey. Their poll of over 2,600 Soldiers reported overwhelming satisfaction with the M4. The survey included serviceability and usefulness in completing assigned missions in Iraq and Afghanistan." -
Ironically, even Colt may have a better system ready to go. In a letter to Army Times magazine, Colt COO James R. Battaglini (US Marine Corps Maj. Gen., ret.) said:
ironically Colt can manufacture the gas piston system.... Unfortunately we would never know if MAF will ask the colt to do the changes.
"The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system. Rifles were being designed with these systems in the 1920's. Colt proposed a piston operated weapon to the Army in the early 1960's. Today Colt Defense has the ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the U.S. military services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon"
Unfortunately, fighting the Army for improvements is no easy task. Colt CEO William Keys, who is also a retired USMC General, explained out to Army Times that Colt has to build what the US Army asks for, to the Army's exact specifications:
"If we have a change that we think would help the gun, we go to the ArmyÂ… which is not an easy process, by the way. We spent 20 years trying to get [an extractor] spring changed. They just said 'well, this works good enough.' " -
It said "selected M9 pistols, and M16 series rifles.", and if US is going totally only M4 and no more longer barrel M16A2 in the future, it should be widely reported by now.Originally posted by kotay:I think you misread the quote ... the essence of the quote is that the M4 is replacing the M16A2 in the US Army. This is supposedly not theatre specific.
As such it is very arguable that the standard (or soon to be standard) AR in the US Army is the M4. -
ironicaly.. because the complain on M4 turn its volume during the Afganistan and Iraqi campaign..a study have been done to find out the reason.
"....current chamber test methodology misrepresents real-world conditions. The character of the soils and dust collected from areas of military activity in Iraq is greatly different from the material used in current weapons testing procedures. Current procedures employ laboratory generated dust that is 99.7% silicon dioxide (i.e. quartz), contains no salt or reactive chemicals, and contains coarser particle sizes than most of the Iraq samples. Use of this material cannot simulate conditions in Iraq that have contributed to the weapons failures."
the very fine particulates were unique to desert theater of operation and should not be use to justify that the M4 is a jam prone weapon. -
Colt have sent its rep to test the weapon early 2006..The MAF tested M4 Carbine, M4 Commando, M16A4 and Colt Submachinegun 9mm. So the M4 procurment maybe the tip of the iceberg, we just dont know yet.
m4 with a Red Dot System with 3x Magnification on one rail -
Originally posted by gary1910:
We could go on and on about the semantics of how that "," in the sentence above affects how we should read the continuation of the qualifier "selected".
It said "selected M9 pistols , and M16 series rifles.", and if US is going totally only M4 and no more longer barrel M16A2 in the future, it should be widely reported by now.
However, if I were to state that US Army infantry units will use M4 as the standard AR while US Army CSS units will continue to use the M16A2 ... will that satisfy the qualifier above as well as indicate that the M4 is the standard AR, at the pointy end of the combat arms, where it matters ... ?
In any case, tankfantic has provided a rather less ambiguos quote :The M4 Carbine is the Army's primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces.
The above quote is from US Army Press Release dated Mar 2007
Just because WE haven't heard it doesn't mean the world doesn't continue to evolve past our limited horizons.