• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Military’s gun of choice under fire

The_Real_ElRoi

The_Real_ElRoi

Active member
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
479
Reaction score
24
Political Leaning
Independent
Isn't this basically the same weapon that was jamming-up and in many cases exploding in the faces of soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam?

Military’s gun of choice under fire
Lawmakers — and some soldiers — question Colt’s lucrative M4 contract


updated 5:18 p.m. ET, Sun., April. 20, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. - No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives.

Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.

"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

(continued @ Military's gun of choice under fire - Military - MSNBC.com)


Related:

M4 does poorly in Army’s own test
Rifle jams more often than competitors, but military stands by it


updated 5:32 p.m. ET, Sun., April. 20, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. - When the dust finally settled, Army officials sought to put the best face on a sandstorm test that humbled Colt Defense's vaunted M4 carbine.

The tests were conducted at an Army laboratory in Maryland last fall. Ten M4s and 10 copies each of three other carbines — the SCAR from Belgium's FN Herstal, and the HK416 and the XM8 from Germany's Heckler & Koch — were coated in heavy layers of talcum-fine dust to simulate a sandstorm. Tens of thousands of rounds were fired through the rifles.

The M4s malfunctioned 882 times. Bullets that didn't feed through the rifles properly or became lodged in the firing chamber were the biggest problems.

(continued @ M4 does poorly in Army's own test - Military - MSNBC.com)
 
I was unaware that the 416 had a similar cost to the m4. If thats true, there is no reason not to switch. The 416 is much more reliable and much more modular. It has the same ergonomics as the m16, so retraining is minimal. However, given the rampant corruption in military procurement, its unlikely that a better weapon will be adopted for a while. Hk is one of the finest firearms manufactures in the world with many of the best designs, but they lack the inside contacts needed to get government contracts.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
Isn't this basically the same weapon that was jamming-up and in many cases exploding in the faces of soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam?

Military’s gun of choice under fire
Lawmakers — and some soldiers — question Colt’s lucrative M4 contract


updated 5:18 p.m. ET, Sun., April. 20, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. - No weapon is more important to tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan than the carbine rifle. And for well over a decade, the military has relied on one company, Colt Defense of Hartford, Conn., to make the M4s they trust with their lives.

Now, as Congress considers spending millions more on the guns, this exclusive arrangement is being criticized as a bad deal for American forces as well as taxpayers, according to interviews and research conducted by The Associated Press.

"What we have is a fat contractor in Colt who's gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

(continued @ Military's gun of choice under fire - Military - MSNBC.com)


Related:

M4 does poorly in Army’s own test
Rifle jams more often than competitors, but military stands by it


updated 5:32 p.m. ET, Sun., April. 20, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. - When the dust finally settled, Army officials sought to put the best face on a sandstorm test that humbled Colt Defense's vaunted M4 carbine.

The tests were conducted at an Army laboratory in Maryland last fall. Ten M4s and 10 copies each of three other carbines — the SCAR from Belgium's FN Herstal, and the HK416 and the XM8 from Germany's Heckler & Koch — were coated in heavy layers of talcum-fine dust to simulate a sandstorm. Tens of thousands of rounds were fired through the rifles.

The M4s malfunctioned 882 times. Bullets that didn't feed through the rifles properly or became lodged in the firing chamber were the biggest problems.

(continued @ M4 does poorly in Army's own test - Military - MSNBC.com)
Click to expand...

I believe the problem is not with the rifle, but with the clip. Put 3 or 4 fewer rounds in the clip and the rifle works fine. Fill the clip completely and the rifle jams.
 
Last edited:
The M4 works just fine. I had one on my first deployment to Southeast Asia. We worked in conjuction with the Special Operations Training Group and the Maritime Special Purpose Force, and certain Marines from my platoon were selected to carry M4's instead of our normally issued M16-A4. They are highly adaptable weapons, very accurate, and easily utilized.

I don't think the military needs another rifle, I do, however, think all basic Marine infantrymen should be issued M4's instead of M16-A4's along with their associated M203 (grenade launcher) counterparts. It always pissed me off when I saw non-infantry Marines or Soldiers walking around with M4's equipped with Aimpoints (reticle laser sites) and Eotechs (target reticle sites) in Iraq while I was still stuck with an M16-A4 and an ACOG (Advanced Combat Optic Gunsite).

They barely ever left the confines of the FOBs (foward operating base) so they had little to no use for such advanced optics and compact weapon systems especially when the grunts didn't even have them yet. Some of them never even loaded a single magazine into their rifles the entire time they were in country. Meanwhile my fellow Marines and I are lugging around sixty-plus pounds of gear in the hundred twenty degree heat trying to clear houses with a rifle that's maladapted to the purposes of CQB (Close Quaters Combat). Higher ups...gotta love em.
 
The M4 has a track record, the 416 while promising does not. You don't change horses mid race. We did that in Vietnam going from the m14 to the m16 which is where you all get your jamming information from.


Given a choice of what is out thier I would still choose an M4 over what else is available.
 
I've never heard a bad story about the M4, but the military should be backing whichever weapon works best regardless of the companies with the best contacts.
 
Them m4 is not a bad gun, but there are better choices out their. The 416 has extreme reliability, combined with extra features like quick detachable barrels. Combined with the same basic look and feel, it makes retraining very simple.

If adopted by the U.S. military it should get the hell tested out of it in every possible configuration and environment. The m16 did not receive proper testing for Vietnam, and the powder used in the bullets caused the rifle to quickly jam.

There are much better rifles out their then our currents ones, and there have been for some time. A combination of having to pay the cost of retraining and rearming in addition to defense company whoring have prevented the change. The 416 is hardly a unknown prototype. It uses stable and mature technology and is made by a company with an extremely good reputation for excellence in firearms.

The military needs to realize that infantry and going to play a significant part of current and future conflicts. The U.S. military lacks any real technological advantage in infantry combat except body armor. Funding should be moved away from areas where we already have a major edge into developing new small arms and body armor. The advanced combat rifle program showed many promising technologies. but there needs to be a follow up to try and mature them.
 
the chance of any nation adopting a foreign made arm as its primary infantry weapon is remote. It doesn't matter what H&K makes, the US will always go to war with a domestically produced rifle. There's just no way politicians could ever sell adopting a foreign arm to the public.

This is a perfect example of what I like to call "shadow-pork", pork-barreling obscured by "national interests"
 
mmm... I love H&K weapons.
 
That gun is making me think bad thoughts.
 
The_Real_ElRoi said:
Isn't this basically the same weapon that was jamming-up and in many cases exploding in the faces of soldiers in the jungles of Vietnam?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with who makes out weapons as long as it is an American company.Of course when I say American company I mean one that is on US soil and not a outsourced company.
 
...what if The Troops require a better weapon, made by foreigners?

Briefly peruse the history of American small arms...it's pretty shocking how ineptly we've equipped our troops throughout our history- generally in the name of domestic jobs.
 
new coup for you said:
...what if The Troops require a better weapon, made by foreigners?

Briefly peruse the history of American small arms...it's pretty shocking how ineptly we've equipped our troops throughout our history- generally in the name of domestic jobs.
Click to expand...

I think domestic suppling is a requirement for military arms. We would be quite at a loss if our military arms were supplied by China and we had a trade freeze or were at war with China.
 
The U.S. military already uses foreign arms in large quantities. The m240 medium machine gun and the m249 saw were both designed by FN, a Belgian arms company. If the U.S. military wants to maintain domestic production, simply use domestic manufacturing to license build the 416. On the extreme off chance that we somehow go to war with Germany again, we could continue to produce our infantry weapons without a hitch. Granted we would be stealing their intellectual property, but thats not terribly relevant during wartime. I see no reason not pick the best weapons we can for our soldiers, provided that we can assure domestic production.
 
we actually did exactly that during WWI. The M1903 Springfield was so similar to the Mauser Model 93 that the US government had to pay Mauser royalties...payments, of course, were suspended during the war.

The US arms market has been extremely conservative compared to Europe, for the majority of its history.

US arms designers created most of what today established a modern fire arm, but while European armies raced to consume American innovations the domestic market remained surprisingly tepid. For most of its existence the US military has been significantly under equipped when compared to European contemporaries. This was reasonable, considering historical American attitudes towards Federal standing armies and the enemies typically engaged by those armies. Indian tribes and Mexicans are hardly crack Prussian commandos.

This of course ended in WWII, when the US established itself as the premier arms designer and consumer.
 
Last edited:
new coup for you said:
...what if The Troops require a better weapon, made by foreigners?
Click to expand...

What if we one day end up going to war against that country?History and even recent history has shown us that allies can sometimes turn into enemies.
 
RightOfCenter said:
I've never heard a bad story about the M4, but the military should be backing whichever weapon works best regardless of the companies with the best contacts.
Click to expand...


I still don't think it is proven yet. and what is it's reliability/cost ratio compared with he m4?

I prefer to go with the devil I know.
 
Although I've used the M4 on occasion and it performed admirably, I much prefer the TAR-21 as a standard issue assault rifle.
 
Tashah said:
It's ergonomically more comfortable and provides a quicker manuever arc.
Click to expand...



I think the ejection port being so close to the face is more of a detriment than the benefits of a slightly improved "manuever arc".


Also every bullpup I have fired has a sluggish trigger pull due to thier "flexible rod system" has that been addressed in the Isreali weapon?

Also magazine changes are awkward at best and the balance is often to the rear or over the trigger system as opposed to between the hands.
 
Display Products

I've been eyeballing one of these in the 6.5 Grendel... :)

65g_123SMK_T145_50yds_Neck-1-.jpg



Very nice zombie killer. Plus I've been told that the military is eyeballing this round... I'm not sure how true it is.. but... they need to get away from the 5.56.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom