- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about It.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:49 pm to TheHarahanian
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:49 pm to TheHarahanian
quote:
The M14 is a hell of a heavy rifle.
You're right, though. It's the greatest of the battle rifles.
0
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Give me the option to swap to a 300 Blackout when I need it and call it good.
It seems like the "it's just not powerful enough" topic comes up every 5 years or so then it quickly fades away. I'm glad they mentioned the F-35 in the article because it looks like they want to have a round that does everything, but sucks overall.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:51 pm to upgrayedd
I loved my M4. It is an awesome weapon in urban warfare.
I could see where the boys in Afghanistan would want something with a little more power at distance, but I wouldn't trade it for anything on the market in close quarters. To me, it was telling that whenever I worked with guys who had the option to use something else because Uncle Sam would pay for anything their hearts desired, they still opted for the M4 more often than not.
I could see where the boys in Afghanistan would want something with a little more power at distance, but I wouldn't trade it for anything on the market in close quarters. To me, it was telling that whenever I worked with guys who had the option to use something else because Uncle Sam would pay for anything their hearts desired, they still opted for the M4 more often than not.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:52 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
This is an old wives' tale. The reason is weight. M16 was a smaller, lighter rifle than the M14. The M16's round is lighter than the M14, so you can carry more ammo.
I love me some M14. Beautiful weapon, great accuracy.
But I can't even comprehend having to hump that heavy sumbitch along with all the other bullshite we're expected to carry
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:53 pm to AbuTheMonkey
It almost sounded as if they were hinting at a bullpup design for the future which would probably end up dead in the water.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:56 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16.
quote:
Is this really true?
Headline seems pretty hyperbolic.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:57 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
As it is, weight was killing the average infantryman and still is. By the time you add up body armor, 35 pounds, rifle, 7 pounds, 7 magazines, 7 pounds, ACH, 3.25 pounds, so - that's 55 pounds and we haven't talked about uniform, boots or ruck, which can often get to another 35 or 40 pounds EASILY.
In Vietnam the soldiers didn't have body armor and didn't carry near as much stuff as soldiers do now. But you're right about the weight, it was a major design decision with the M-16.
Plus you must factor in that in 1965 the average soldier was a lot smaller since people didn't eat fast food every other meal back then.
My dad was drafted in 1965, did AIT in Benning in early '66. He said they trained mostly with the M-14 and then later switched to the M-16. He ended up carrying an M-16 (and an M-79 grenade launcher) when he reported to south Vietnam in summer of '66. He was 1st Cav (airmobile), so they traveled everywhere in Huey's. The lighter M-16 was definitely welcome.
This post was edited on 3/5/18 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:57 pm to upgrayedd
I loved my M16 my M21 my M4 and all of my M&Ms.
A soldier's mission is not to wonder why, a soldier's mission is to do or die.
It was usually the pussy-arse jar heads who complained and always wanted their precious M14s back because of the whole 7.62 thingy.
Listen, we need a longer range harder hitting lighter platform in Afghanistan. That's what this all boils-down-to.
Jarheads are gonna bitch about how much heavier 210 rounds of 6.8 or 6.5 is to hump compared to 5.56 ... because that's what jarheads do, they bitch and moan and gripe. They're like women, you can never make them happy.
A soldier's mission is not to wonder why, a soldier's mission is to do or die.
It was usually the pussy-arse jar heads who complained and always wanted their precious M14s back because of the whole 7.62 thingy.
Listen, we need a longer range harder hitting lighter platform in Afghanistan. That's what this all boils-down-to.
Jarheads are gonna bitch about how much heavier 210 rounds of 6.8 or 6.5 is to hump compared to 5.56 ... because that's what jarheads do, they bitch and moan and gripe. They're like women, you can never make them happy.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:59 pm to upgrayedd
(Sigh)
So, the M16/M4 is inadequate?
Maybe if we start calling AR platforms M4's then libs head will fricking explode.......
I loved my M16A2 while on active duty, and I love my AR now.....
Did somebody ask Yahoo if they know the difference, besides a selector switch to 3 round auto bursts and the option in civilian life between a 1/7 or 1/9 twist rate?
The report is old old news by the way....the bitching about the M16 platform has gone on for many years.... Fact is, if you take care of it, it will take care of you in battle.
So, the M16/M4 is inadequate?
Maybe if we start calling AR platforms M4's then libs head will fricking explode.......
I loved my M16A2 while on active duty, and I love my AR now.....
Did somebody ask Yahoo if they know the difference, besides a selector switch to 3 round auto bursts and the option in civilian life between a 1/7 or 1/9 twist rate?
The report is old old news by the way....the bitching about the M16 platform has gone on for many years.... Fact is, if you take care of it, it will take care of you in battle.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:05 pm to ChatRabbit77
quote:
6.5 grendel is better.
Nah.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:06 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
It seems like the "it's just not powerful enough" topic comes up every 5 years or so then it quickly fades away.
That's because most of the people who bring it up have never put 2-3 rounds into a person.
If anything, we need a better load.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:07 pm to ChatRabbit77
quote:
6.5 grendel is better.
There are a dozen AR cartridges better than 300 blk
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:08 pm to texag7
quote:
There are a dozen AR cartridges better than 300 blk
It's a good thing we aren't talking about an AR, then.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:13 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
AR/M4/M16 doesn't matter. 300 blk is a crappy round out of all three
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:13 pm to upgrayedd
Yeah, it's true. Any rifle with a "forward assist" built into the design jams too much. Anyone who has carried that in the sand has probably heard the dreaded screech a grain of sand can cause. Wanna know why there's no "S.P.O.R.T.S." for AKs?
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:14 pm to texag7
quote:
AR/M4/M16 doesn't matter.
Yes, it does. Your uses are different from the ones that matter.
quote:
300 blk is a crappy round out of all three
You're talking about killing paper. It's a cool story, but it's not an important one.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
How many US troops use the 300 blk?
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:18 pm to TaderSalad
The rounds used were never meant to kill, they were designed to spin and WOUND, theoretically causing Soldiers around them to be taken out of the fight to assist.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:20 pm to upgrayedd
Every platform has its flaws, but it really has seemed odd to me that for such a long time the preferred weapon of our enemy has been the AK47, with its nearly flawless chambering action, and we've stuck with the M16/M4.
Two cousins of mine (one Army, one USMC) served in Iraq during OIF. They had similar stories about having to keep their weapons extremely clean in the sandy environs of where most of our modern warfare has occured... while they both witnessed enemy combatants dig up shallowly buried AKs and immediately put them to use without issue.
I know H&K has been trying to produce some next gen military weapons for US forces for quite some time, but for whatever reason (cost is a strong factor if I hear correctly) we just haven't jumped on it.
Two cousins of mine (one Army, one USMC) served in Iraq during OIF. They had similar stories about having to keep their weapons extremely clean in the sandy environs of where most of our modern warfare has occured... while they both witnessed enemy combatants dig up shallowly buried AKs and immediately put them to use without issue.
I know H&K has been trying to produce some next gen military weapons for US forces for quite some time, but for whatever reason (cost is a strong factor if I hear correctly) we just haven't jumped on it.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:20 pm to texag7
quote:
How many US troops use the 300 blk?
Explain why you think that's a useful response.
Page 2 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News