- 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
Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about It.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:25 pm
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:25 pm
Is this really true? I've never heard of soldiers recently complaining about this platform. Sounds like the MIC is looking for $$$ for another boondoggle.
Yahoo
quote:
For decades, troops have been complaining about the limitations of the M16 rifle and M4 carbine, both of which are hindered by the same flawed operating system that makes the weapons jam easily. But after years of ignoring small arms in favor of expensive aircraft and warships, the Pentagon is taking a long, hard look at how to give the Army 11 Bang Bangs and Marine grunts a better weapon
Yahoo
31
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:26 pm to upgrayedd
This has been going on for years. I loved my m16 bc we spent so much quality time together. Faults and all.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:27 pm to upgrayedd
The M14 is a hell of a rifle.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:27 pm to upgrayedd
quote:Marines have already demanded a VTOL rifle
Sounds like the MIC is looking for $$$ for another boondoggle.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:28 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about It.
I know a few infantry guys who saw combat. They hated the round. Despite the media making it sound like the .223 round was extremely powerful, there are reports of soldiers shooting guys 3 and 4 times and watching them run away.
I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants. If we wounded them, then it would take 1-2 others to carry him out.
Before I lost mine in the boating accident, I use to enjoy the glorified .22 cal.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:29 pm to upgrayedd
Mine never malfunctioned in combat 
In fact, I can think of very few malfunctions I’ve had with the weapon even in training. And most of those have been from faulty magazines.
I would add that the average engagement distances in Afghanistan have been 300 meters or more so a more powerful round could be useful. But then you run into the problem of weight.
In fact, I can think of very few malfunctions I’ve had with the weapon even in training. And most of those have been from faulty magazines.
I would add that the average engagement distances in Afghanistan have been 300 meters or more so a more powerful round could be useful. But then you run into the problem of weight.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:29 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Is this really true
Yes
It's been an ongoing complaint from the combat arms folks
They're outgunned in terms of stopping power
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:30 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
glorified .22 cal.
It’s a good round for children because there’s little kick.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:31 pm to upgrayedd
Just give them all AR-15s. The media tells me it’s the most efficient means of killing people ever created. 
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:31 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Is this really true?
No.
Give me the option to swap to a 300 Blackout when I need it and call it good.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:32 pm to upgrayedd
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 5.56 in CQB style engagements all the way out to 250m as long you are using the proper Ammo. It can be very effective in the hands of a trained marksman. The Marine Corps just bought a bunch of M27 iar made by Hk which is a piston driven weapon rather than a direct impengment style like the original Stoner design. The piston runs cleaner and cooler when shooting suppressed and is a hell of a weapon (Hk416 variant).
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:36 pm to Iosh
quote:
Marines have already demanded a VTOL rifle
that was good...credit where credit is due...let's hope the rifle wont cost $140 million/copy
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:37 pm to TaderSalad
I was told by my DI in basic that the m16 was designed to wound not kill.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:38 pm to upgrayedd
5.56 is a great round. .224 Valkyrie is very interesting though
This post was edited on 3/5/18 at 5:39 pm
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:39 pm to TaderSalad
Supposedly the .223 round was used so that the enemy would have to spend more time picking up wounded from the battlefield. There was also another benefit: the M-16 and the .223 round were lighter than competing platforms like the AK-47. If you've ever held an M-16 with a full mag of ammo and then held an AK-47 with a full mag of ammo, there is a significant difference in weight. This is a big deal to the grunt having to lug around a rifle in the middle of a 95 degree jungle.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:41 pm to TigerinSC
quote:they should have just licensed the Adams arms piston conversion kit. My piston ar is the tits, so easy to clean
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 5.56 in CQB style engagements all the way out to 250m as long you are using the proper Ammo. It can be very effective in the hands of a trained marksman. The Marine Corps just bought a bunch of M27 iar made by Hk which is a piston driven weapon rather than a direct impengment style like the original Stoner design. The piston runs cleaner and cooler when shooting suppressed and is a hell of a weapon (Hk416 variant).
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:42 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants.
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.
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.
95 pounds is a figurative TON of weight (most don't carry it or don't carry it far, but still) even for a fit male of 225 pounds. And they want women to do that, right?
Now, double the weight of the rifle and almost double the weight of the ammo.
This post was edited on 3/5/18 at 5:44 pm
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:46 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants. If we wounded them, then it would take 1-2 others to carry him out.
That's a common myth. It was chosen for several reasons. Mainly being soldiers could carry more ammo than in 7.62x51.
Most rounds fired in combat are misses anyway. No reason to lug around all that extra weight when most of the rounds won't hit anything
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:46 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
both of which are hindered by the same flawed operating system that makes the weapons jam easily.
There is nothing wrong with DI guns.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:48 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Give me the option to swap to a 300 Blackout when I need it and call it good.
6.5 grendel is better.
Page 1 of 16
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News