AR-15: Not bad, but could be better
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/
The article basically states that the M16/M4 family of rifles, far from being the best is only being kept around due to economic and political concerns.
Never having been a fan of the AR-15 type rifles, but neither having had to trust my life to them either, I simply have the choice of not buying one and leaving it at that. But given that the Army stated that switching over to something like the H&K 416 would cost about $1 billion, I fail to see why they couldn't simply axe just three F-22s from the Air Force's budget and give our infantry a more reliable weapon that's just as accurate as the old one.
The article basically states that the M16/M4 family of rifles, far from being the best is only being kept around due to economic and political concerns.
Never having been a fan of the AR-15 type rifles, but neither having had to trust my life to them either, I simply have the choice of not buying one and leaving it at that. But given that the Army stated that switching over to something like the H&K 416 would cost about $1 billion, I fail to see why they couldn't simply axe just three F-22s from the Air Force's budget and give our infantry a more reliable weapon that's just as accurate as the old one.
0
-
The F22 is cool.
What on earth would happen to the Air Force if they didn't keep getting lots of new toys.
I bet they hate keeping the BUFF.
D.0 -
H&K knows how to make a good weapons system but this is just a new improvement. Now if colt or other government contractors could produce a similar system ill bet it would catch on. 0 -
Only a billion? What a paltry sum, there's that much in change laying around the Capital. 0 -
If the military adopts somthing other then the M16 then maybe Colt would start building revolvers again[8D] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
I bet they hate keeping the BUFF.
Funny you mention that. Gen. Mosley visited Minot AFB this past week and that exactly what he said. He commented that he thinks the BUFF is a POS and if it were up to him it'd be scraped and replaced with more B-1B's and B-2's. I guess he forgot Minot has a higher mission capable rate than any base in the Air Combat Command.0 -
Dead Monkey: You sure like to pick on the administration and the Military. From the web site you posted: "M16 rifles and newer M4 carbines no longer were stored in clean arms room racks. They were now a soldier's constant companion, exposed to the super-fine dust and sand that blow across the desert landscapes of Afghanistan and Iraq. Still, the Army is quick to blame most M16 family malfunctions on soldiers not cleaning weapons properly.". The Army's statement looks wuite true. When ones life depends on a weapon it is HIS responsibility to keep it clean. Do you think this is the only war we had sand and dust? Or even freezing cold and snow and ice where we had to use the same weapon in all climates. We just werent given weapons for "certain climates" in WW 2, Korea or Nam. One takes care of his weapon as his life depends on it and if he goofs it is his azz if he doesnt. And just how can you get so "down" on the Military if you never tried it? And, by the way, even our famed M-1 rifles needed constant care. Sand and dust, frozen bolts in cold icy and snowy winters were common, but we did with what was issued to us, took
care of of our weapons and used them well. And yes, it was "corrosive" ammo we had to contend with, with was even worse. Still,
we even won the war. (Weapon care equals staying alive).0 -
Joe,
Well put. I became a fan of the M16 in the '60s, haven't changed my mind yet. However if a true improvement is made I would be all for the Military adopting it.0 -
"One of the bulldozers uncovered the decomposing body of an enemy soldier, complete with AK-47. I happened to be standing right there, looking down into the hole and pulled the AK out of the bog. 'Watch this, guys,' I said, 'and I'll show you how a real infantry weapon works.' I pulled the bolt back and fired 30 rounds - the AK could have been cleaned that day rather than buried in glug for a year or so. That was the kind of weapon our soldiers needed, not the confidence-sapping M-16."
http://www.sftt.org/ht.html0 -
joeaf,
Why settle for "good enough" when better is out there?
And while it's easy to blame the victim for not keeping his weapon clean, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there's only 24 hours in a day.
I also fail to see how you think I'm being down on the military. I may be down on the bureaucracy, but advocating getting our fighting men and women a more reliable weapon hardly qualifies as ragging on them. I suppose you think exposing the conditions at Walter reed was also another case of "being down on the military?"0 -
Quote: "And while it's easy to blame the victim for not keeping his weapon clean, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that there's only 24 hours in a day.". Yes, 24 hours in a day. But, some of those 24 hours one spends in weapon care is the most important time to a combat soldier. Eating, sleeping etc. are after weapon care. BTDT. 0 -
The stupidest policy our military ever enacted was the prohibition of US soldiers to procure their own weapon.
Pass legislation that any US soldier can purchase and field his own firearm but it has to use the same ammo as issued weapons.
A: US Army spends no money to modernize it's capability.
B: A variety of arms is fielded to enhance capability.
C: Users take their own spare parts saving money.
It's like insurance. If you want to ensure you survive combat do you want a weapon that's been in more hands than a $2 hooker? Or would a privately bought HK, Bushmaster Gas Piston, or other superior firearm actually prove how pitiful the M16 is?
In the Civil War a few folks forked out the dough for their own lever action rifles.....vaste superiority over their enemies single shots. Who financed that modernizarion?....soldiers themselves.
BTW the military doesn't use AR15s.0 -
joeaf,
Perhaps... but will that weapon stay clean?
When you have time to clean your weapon and the time you need it may be hours apart. I doubt any enemy will be so kind as to say, "Hmm.... they just ate, which means they cleaned their weapons beforehand. Now we can fight. Wouldn't want them going into combat with malfunctioning weapons, after all!"
If it is a problem that can be solved, then why not solve it?
And as s trivial as it may be to you, if it has cost lives, what is the justification in letting it remain an issue? Is the rationale behind it: "He didn't clean his rifle, so we didn't need him anyway? Let combat weed out those who don't maintain a spotless weapon?"
Mechanical Darwinism is a hell of a way to downsize our military to fighting trim, that's for damned sure.0 -
EMM,
What makes you think the M16 is not reliable? Reliability was never a problem in my units from 1967-1969. The M14 has very little "combat" experience compared to the M1, M16, and AK47. A Combat Infantryman will, above anything else, maintain his rifle, it is your life. As Joe stated, the much adored M1 was not "perfect", it required care, and I HAVE seen AKs malfunction.0 -
quote:Originally posted by ObiWan
The stupidest policy our military ever enacted was the prohibition of US soldiers to procure their own weapon.
Pass legislation that any US soldier can purchase and field his own firearm but it has to use the same ammo as issued weapons.
A: US Army spends no money to modernize it's capability.
B: A variety of arms is fielded to enhance capability.
C: Users take their own spare parts saving money.
It's like insurance. If you want to ensure you survive combat do you want a weapon that's been in more hands than a $2 hooker? Or would a privately bought HK, Bushmaster Gas Piston, or other superior firearm actually prove how pitiful the M16 is?
In the Civil War a few folks forked out the dough for their own lever action rifles.....vaste superiority over their enemies single shots. Who financed that modernizarion?....soldiers themselves.
BTW the military doesn't use AR15s.
Talk about a monkey humpin' a football. Out of the question. Can you imagine the cluster fudge of weapons these recruits would drag in? Not to mention a nightmare in the Armories trying to keep up with parts/repairs, etc. Would we train these GIs in gunsmithing so they can repair their own weapons? Is the Military going to give the troops the cash to buy expensive weapons and accessories of their choice? The M16 is pitiful? The list of reasons that make all this fantasy is too long to post.0 -
The M-16 is not pitiful.
This suggestion is outlandish, and obviously reflects the inexperience of the speaker.
D.0 -
Quote: " Perhaps... but will that weapon stay clean?" You sure better make damn sure it will function or its your azz. Seen the time in France I had to chip the ice off the bolt of my M-1 and put a K ration wax box over the bolt to keep it ice free during bad weather.
And like DAK68 said, it would be a cluster f--k to bring ones "choice weapons" to combat. With different mags and parts it would be a Armourers worst nightmare. One couldnt pick up spare mags without a
"scorecard" let alone the different mag pouches. DAK: Glad someone agrees with me. Specially another BTDT guy.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Dak To 68
EMM,
What makes you think the M16 is not reliable? Reliability was never a problem in my units from 1967-1969. The M14 has very little "combat" experience compared to the M1, M16, and AK47. A Combat Infantryman will, above anything else, maintain his rifle, it is your life. As Joe stated, the much adored M1 was not "perfect", it required care, and I HAVE seen AKs malfunction.
I didn't say it was unreliable, only that H&K seems to have come up with a solution that removes a problem that has been reported more than once. For the H&K 416 to be "more reliable" does not make the M16/M4 "unreliable" by default.
As a Soviet admiral was fond of saying: "'Good enough' isn't."0 -
quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
I didn't say it was unreliable, only that H&K seems to have come up with a solution that removes a problem that has been reported more than once.HK hasn't actually broken any ground here.0 -
quote:Originally posted by joeaf1911a1
Quote: " Perhaps... but will that weapon stay clean?" You sure better make damn sure it will function or its your azz. Seen the time in France I had to chip the ice off the bolt of my M-1 and put a K ration wax box over the bolt to keep it ice free during bad weather.
And if they had been able to come up with a weapon (this is entirely hypothetical, by the way) that was just as accurate and lethal as the M-1 AND was able to remain ice free without help, would you have turned it down just because?
I understand that weapons must be maintained. They have yet to make a maintenance-free weapon other than maybe a club. But if said maintenance can be reduced without affecting the accuracy, lethality, and portability of the weapon, where's the harm? It's not like H&K came up with a system that requires batteries or human sacrifice.
Nothing is perfect. Everything can be improved. To maintain the status quo out of inertia is what we call stagnation and that is never good for a military, no matter what flag it fights for.0 -
Txs,
No it hasn't. I think a few other folks have come up with a similar system, but they lack the production capacity H&K has.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
20 comments