Sunday, July 5, 2015

Lipstick on a pig.

Army aims for positive improvements with M4A1+

10 comments:

Deadmeat99 said...

I would hardly call the current M4 a "pig". These improvements will make it equal to what civilian versions have had for years.

Pat H. said...

Like it or not, the M16/M4/AR15 is the de facto standard battle rifle all across the US. There won't be any, "dropped once, just picked up" M14/M1A or AK variants anywhere. There will be lots of ARs that fit that description.

Want something else, you're going out on a limb of low parts availability and ammo shortages. The best thing is to have a number of ARs in your possession, THEN acquire something that you fancy.

Jerry The Geek said...

Perfect is the enemy of Good.

Block Of Instruction said...

As one who was in play when that weapon family was first fielded, it started life a POS and will end up that same way. Fair for 300yds an under, but on a true battle field in average or worst hands your better off using a push box(radio). When AR-10's first played tag they had the punch, but the US Army went to the pussyfied 5.56X45 for money reasons. (Like LBJ stealing the SS trust fund that was bulging at the seams was not enough to keep the 10's.) The 10's were better than the 14's in many ways, but the 14 had the backing of the M1 fan boy Generals an suites from Korea and WW II. The old saying hard to make chicken salad from chicken shit really apply's here. The 55gr an 14 twist gave big hole's, with today's twist an projos they just pencil threw, unless your very close where the speed does the work. Even then, no one stands out in the open, hard to kill them if you can't get threw the barricade. 10's an 14 never had that problem, but then again we are not in it anymore for a win anyway.

Anonymous said...

The only improvement that I could see that would be worth the cost and effort, and give a good ROI, would be the free-floating barrel. The rest are just lipstick on the pig.

B Woodman
III-per

MikeH. said...

Oh man, is my face red!!! I saw the photo and assumed this article was about Michelle O.

Personally, I don't know why the FN FAL didn't win the hearts and minds of those tasked with arming our brave young warriors. But then, these are the same syphilitic hermaphrodites who decided to retire the 1911.

MikeH.

Anonymous said...

Earlier we saw a post about kids smuggling salt and pepper into the lunch room in response to Ms. Obama's ideas of the perfect school lunch. Kale? Really?

Meanwhile our troops keep finding ways to smuggle 7.62x51 and .45 ACP weapons onto the battle field. Why would this be? Because while Gene Stoner's most famous platform isn't a bad rifle, it isn't a very good one either. In it's original role as a replacement for the USAF's shot out M1 Carbine's for flight line security it works fine. A battle rifle it isn't.

A friend once related that his Gunny once said something along the lines of "If you find yourself in a fair fight you've done something wrong." The rifle most often used by our adversaries fires the 7.65x39. It has ballistics somewhat like a .30-30. It does just fine in close up combat but sucks out past 150 meters. A fair fight would be to match our rifle to theirs and make sure our troops have their feet in the same bucket of cement that OPFOR is wearing. And that's pretty much where we are with the 5.56x45 NATO. And you can see people trying to correct this with a grab bag of alternative rounds that work in a different AR upper that our line infantry will never be issued.

IMHO, the idea would be for us to be able to engage and thin out the bad guys in the area between 500 and 150 meters before they can get into the game. I have several AR-15 clones and enjoy shooting them. But if things get serious the rifle I'll grab will be my M1A.

Or am I missing something really basic here?

Richard said...

Not up to joining the ballistics debate between 7.62 and 5.56. But I know what the 55 grain round does to southeast Asian bodies. One thing omitted in this debate is that the grunt has to carry what you give him. 10 mags of 5.56 and a carbine is not the same punishment as a comparable load of .308 and M14 along with mortar rounds, frags, machine gun ammo, illumination and whatever room is left for rations. And some days the weight kills you. Like the casualty we took who died from heat stroke mid-mountain. As a former grunt what I remember most is it mostly happened within shouting distance, you can't miss fast enough to win and I never saw a human body fail to be impressed by either AK or Stoner rifles. Given the same choice again, under the same conditions, I'd keep my A1 clean and leave the M14s to the purists among us.

Unknown said...

What I would do:
1) Standardize on AA53 MK252 Mod 1 as the standard issue round for all magazine fed 5.56 caliber weapon systems.
2) Go to a mid length gas system with a LaRue 12" rail (softer felt recoil)
3) Loose the USGI collapsible stock and go with a Magpul MOE or BCM Modstock
4) Tango Down PR-4 sling mount as standard issue
5) Standardize on Magpul Pmags (present USGI mags are the biggest single remaining weak point)

Anonymous said...

Heavier bullets work better than lighter bullets.
We have known that for a couple hundred years.
We're also aware that most fights are close, and decent light ammo
works ok.

ARs have come a long way on reliabilty, though they still aren't ARs.
The milspec standard isuues has been way civilian models for a long time.
The GIs I have worked with said it was common to use multiple non gi upgrades
overseas.
Most Importantly for me is the ability to build, own, supply,and modify a military
pattern rifle without compromise.
30cal ace in the hole not withstanding.