HK XM-8 6.8 SPC: M-16A2 and 5.56x45 Successor?

[Sandmann]

Gents,

It appears that some I may have offended the senstitivities of some of youof you regarding this issue. If I have offended anyone, I apologize. It also appears that some of you are taking my comments on this thread personally. I have not once questioned anyones credentials, although some of you seem to be questioning mine.

I don't have as long in the military as long as some of you, but I do have 8 years in the USMC, and 6 years in Naval intelligence, both as enlisted and officer, supporting the warfighter and the SOF community, such as NSWG.

I am unsure why this is such as an emotional issue. Its not like I'm asking you to betray your country. I'm attempting to get feedback on what the status is of a the next step in procuring a SUPERIOR replacement rifle and cartridge. I am not saying that the current combination of M4/5.56 (whatever the grain 55, 62 green tip, 77) doesn't work. The M855 62 grain 5.56 does kill people. I'm not disputing that. The M-16 family of weapons has become, through lots of hard work, a great rifle platform. But it does have challenges. I have used the M-16A2, and M4, and it is a great light weight and handy weapon. But it is prone to malfunctioning when it gets dirty, and needs an inordinate amount of maintenance to keep it running properly due to the direct impingement gas system which spews carbon back into the upper receiver.

And whether you believe it or not, the SOF community call themselves operators, whether they are in the white or black commnity.

Regarding the Afghani claim that they are the size of Civil War vets; that may be true as an average. But there are many ethnic groups that make up Afghanistan, and the Pashtuns are a big people. Don't believe me, go there and see for yourself. I have.

Overall, I appreciate all of your feedback and I hope it continues to come in. All has been very enlightening and educational.

Very respectfully

 

[chopinbloc]

i don't think anybody got offended but some folks have made some really salient points and you have made a few yourself. you have also said things that are demonstrably false. like:

But there are many ethnic groups that make up Afghanistan, and the Pashtuns are a big people. Don't believe me, go there and see for yourself. I have.

while it is true that afghanistan is a mixing point for many different ethnicities, the folks tend to be pretty small in stature. whether they speak pashtu or dari. those pictures i posted were taken in the vicinity of FOB anaconda. recently. i'm not telling you something i heard. i'm telling you something i know. but since the opinion of sf officers is important to you, i just leaned over and asked the sf captain (i'm sorry he's not a major) if he thought the afghani people were big folks. he chuckled and said "hell, no." so hopefully coming from a captain - a genuine "operator" at that - instead of a lower enlisted schmuck you will believe that the "BIG and RUGGED mountain men" are definitely not the rule.

the other side is that no weapon system/ammunition combination has been shown to be superior enough to displace a weapon system that serves the purpose admirably.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's try and make some vague attempt to keep this remotely related to Rifles or take it to the appropriate forum (either here at THR or some other website).

 

[bnolsen]

Well, my unqualified opinion is:
260 remington out of a robarm XCR.

The 260 remington is a superior round to the 308, primarily due to BC and SD.

It's more controllable than a 308, ammo is lighter. This round could be used for both the infantryman and for light/medium machine guns. The would replace both the 5.56x45 & 7.62x51 making supply logistics simpler.

The only problem I see with the 260 remington is that it just won't perform out of a 12.5" barrel. Of course I don't know of any rifle round that performs out of a 12.5" barrel.

The biggest complaint I heard from guys who've done tours in Iraq is that the 5.56x45 is totally ineffective when a terrorist is driving right at you with a vehicle full of explosives.

 

[Tony Williams]

Well, my unqualified opinion is:
The only problem I see with the 260 remington is that it just won't perform out of a 12.5" barrel. Of course I don't know of any rifle round that performs out of a 12.5" barrel.

But some do better than others....and of course, that problem would be solved if the US Army adopted a bullpup.

The biggest complaint I heard from guys who've done tours in Iraq is that the 5.56x45 is totally ineffective when a terrorist is driving right at you with a vehicle full of explosives.

Frankly, I'd regard anything less than a 120mm tank gun HE round as being a bit iffy in such circumstances.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[NMshooter]

Mk-19 is not too shabby against vehicles...

AT-4/M-136 is a one man portable option.

From personal experience concrete barriers are absolutely wonderful lifesavers for that particular situation.

As for the big rifle question?

Bet you $5 Big Army says "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." regarding both rifles and ammunition.

But if they do not the 6.8mm does look more realistic out of the AR/M-16 platform, and a 7x42mm out of a new rifle could be a winner, depending on the rifle.

As for the bullpup vs. standard configuration, an adjustable length of pull stock on a bullpup rifle would help, so would a decent trigger. No current bullpup designs I would care to trust, but perhaps someone might come up with something decent.

Until any of that happens the M-16A4 and M-4A1 will get the job done.

 

[Langenator]

Another problem with bullpups is that changing mags is more difficult than with a conventional design, especially in the prone position.

And it's good to hear that the Army changed it's mind on the Auto-Rifle variant of the XM8 and wants an LMG-like the current SAW-instead. That thing had me a bit worried about things like barrel overheating and cook-offs. Also, as much of a PITA as the ammo boxes for the SAW are, the Beta-C mags (I saw one in an Army Times article on the XM8) are damn bulky, and don't hold as much ammo. Given the reports from downrange on ammo expenditure in combat, I don't want something that reduces my troops' ability to carry ammo. Also, the LMG is more flexible, in that it can be mounted on a ringmount on a guntruck for convoy security. Didn't look like the AR variant of the XM8 was set up to do that.

 

[Tony Williams]

There are, of course, pros and cons with bullpups (as with anything). What is important is to evaluate those and decide which 'cons' are worth accepting to get the more important 'pros'.

The two main issues with US rifles at the moment (apart from reliability) seem to be:

1. The pressing need to make the guns as compact as possible, due to cramped troop transports and the needs of urban fighting - this is driving the wide adoption of the 14.5" barrelled M4 and the specification of the standard version of the XM8 with a 12.5" barrel.

2. The patchy performance of the 5.56mm cartridge, most especially from short barrels which don't provide enough velocity for fragmentation.

There are two possible solutions to the above issues:

1. Change the ammunition to something which is much more effective from short barrels.

2. Adopt a bullpup.

Issues such as magazine changes are insignificant by comparison - I've seen British troops change mags with the SA80 and they are very fast.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Jeff White]

Tony,
You're buying into the internet BS about American small arms. Show me just one official report from the Infantry School's Directorate of Combat Development, the Command and general Staff College's Center for Army Lessons Learned or any other official US Army or USMC source citing reliability problems with our current rifles or terminal effects problem with our ammunition. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon to change things to whatever they think is the perfect weapon cartridge combination based on anecdotal reports coming out of the GWOT. Shall I dig into my modest library of military hisotry and find some stories from past battles that prove the .303 or M2 30.06 or 7.92 or 7.62x51 are combat ineffective?

The fact is that no American soldiers are dying and no battles are being lost because our small arms aren't up to the job. Are there better things out there then what we're using? Yes. Do they offer a significant enough improvement to justify the cost to replace our current weapons? I'd bet money they don't.

So what is the maximum range that M855 retains enough velocity to fragment from a 14.5" barrel? About 120 meters. What's the average engagment distance for small arms fire? Well under 100 meters.

Why do you think that having an ergonomic weapon is insignificant. You say you've seen British soldiers change SA80 magazines pretty quickly. How quickly. But I have to ask, have you ever done it yourself? Serve in the Infantry at some point? How about a police special unit? What personal experience do you have in this business that has made you believe this:

Issues such as magazine changes are insignificant by comparison - I've seen British troops change mags with the SA80 and they are very fast.

How many runs through the shoot house do you have under your belt?
Jeff

 

[Tony Williams]

Tony,
You're buying into the internet BS about American small arms. Show me just one official report from the Infantry School's Directorate of Combat Development, the Command and general Staff College's Center for Army Lessons Learned or any other official US Army or USMC source citing reliability problems with our current rifles or terminal effects problem with our ammunition.

Frankly, the very last people to admit any problems are the officials at the top. This not a US characteristic, it's universal. Take the British problems with the L85A1, for instance. Complaints were brushed aside and ignored, until the grumbles reached the news media who decided to make an issue out of them. The result; officialdom, pushed by politicians with an eye to the headlines, at last had to be seen to take action, so the British infantry finally managed to get a decent rifle in the L85A2. Similar stories have been repeated over and over, at many times and in many places.

In part, there is a justification for it as those in charge do not want to affect the confidence of their own troops in their own equipment. I mean, it's bad enough putting your life on the line without being told officially that your kit might fail you. But I suspect it is also a matter of people not liking to pass bad news upwards - it doesn't make them popular with the brass, who really don't want to hear it.

I have read and listened to a wide variety of first-hand accounts from soldiers on the ground who have being doing the job in Afghanistan and Iraq, with particular reference to the performance of the guns and ammunition. As you might expect, they differ in their views. However, the general conclusion I have reached is that, if it is to work reliably, the M16 family requires more careful attention to cleaning in the difficult conditions of Iraq compared to some others (for instance, the L85A2). The M4 seems to have some additional problems of its own, for technical reasons to do with the gas port location. I know I am not alone in making such observations; the enthusiasm for a gas-piston action to replace the current direct gas one seems to be pretty general (although not universal) among people with a great deal of experience with these weapons.

The fact is that no American soldiers are dying and no battles are being lost because our small arms aren't up to the job. Are there better things out there then what we're using? Yes. Do they offer a significant enough improvement to justify the cost to replace our current weapons? I'd bet money they don't.

As far as the effectiveness of the 5.56mm ammo is concerned, one of the most telling pieces of evidence for me is that it was people within SOCOM (who surely have more direct experience than anyone else in the US military) who initiated the development of the 6.8mm Rem SPC, because they were not happy with the terminal performance of the 5.56mm. Again, from soldiers in the field I have read various comments about ammo effectiveness, some in favour and some against, but there have been enough complaints to ring alarm bells. Presumably somebody in authority (other than SOCOM) shares this concern, otherwise why the introduction of the Mk 262?

So what is the maximum range that M855 retains enough velocity to fragment from a 14.5" barrel? About 120 meters. What's the average engagment distance for small arms fire? Well under 100 meters.

You are right to say 'maximum' range for fragmentation. According to AR15.com the normal fragmentation range of the M855 from an M4 is between 50 and 100m. And since fragmentation is not a requirement that is tested and ammo manufacturers vary, sometimes it doesn't seem to happen at all even within these ranges.

Why do you think that having an ergonomic weapon is insignificant. You say you've seen British soldiers change SA80 magazines pretty quickly. How quickly. But I have to ask, have you ever done it yourself? Serve in the Infantry at some point? How about a police special unit? What personal experience do you have in this business that has made you believe this:

How many runs through the shoot house do you have under your belt?
Jeff

None at all. I have never pretended to have military experience which means (for a Brit these days) almost zero opportunity to fire such weapons. However, I don't see how that affects my ability to judge whether magazines are being changed quickly or not. Certainly those British soldiers I have heard from - some of whom have worked with US soldiers and can make direct comparisons - don't regard this as an issue. In fact, one told me that when patrolling in vehicles the 'inboard' location of the L85's magazine was an advantage.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Jeff White]

Tony said;

Frankly, the very last people to admit any problems are the officials at the top. This not a US characteristic, it's universal.

So are you insinuating that the men and women from Directorate of Combat Developments and the Command and General Staff College and conducted the studies with our soldiers as soon as possible after combat, lied or otherwise falsified the data? Do you have any idea how those studies were conducted, who conducted them and what the results were? Perhaps the changes in equipment and doctrine that were rushed to the field after those studies were just a smokescreen to make the findings that there were no severe problems with our rifles, carbines or M855 ammunition seem to be correct?

But I suspect it is also a matter of people not liking to pass bad news upwards - it doesn't make them popular with the brass, who really don't want to hear it.

Let me assure you that American soldiers have absolutely no problem telling their superiors that a piece of equipment is junk. The fact of the matter is, that when they people from DCD and Ft Levenworth sat down with the Privates, Specialists and Sergeants who were on the pointy end of the spear, they were told the truth. No one was holding back. Equipment was scrapped, modified or procured based on the results of those studies. There aren't any sacred cows out there. If something wasn't working, the teams studying the issues heard about it. Not all of our small arms came through unscathed. The M9 pistol's previous good reputation was tarnished and deficiencies with the aftermarket magazines that had been procured were brought to light.

However, the general conclusion I have reached is that, if it is to work reliably, the M16 family requires more careful attention to cleaning in the difficult conditions of Iraq compared to some others (for instance, the L85A2).

The M16 family doesn't require any more maintenance in a desert environment to be reliable then any other automatic weapon. This I can tell you from personal experience, I have used the weapon in every climate this planet has to offer. I have no experience with the L85A2, but I can tell you that if you don't keep the sand and grit out of an AK, a FAL, an M14, M60, M240, M249 or M2, they will fail.

The M4 seems to have some additional problems of its own, for technical reasons to do with the gas port location. I know I am not alone in making such observations; the enthusiasm for a gas-piston action to replace the current direct gas one seems to be pretty general (although not universal) among people with a great deal of experience with these weapons.

Most of the gas piston M4 type weapons are being built on ultra short 10" barrels. There are no systematic problems with the gas systems on 14.5" or 16" barrels. I carry a Colt R6920 Law Enforcement Carbine daily as the long gun in my patrol car. In more then 10K rounds it has never had a malfunction that couldn't be traced to operator error (forgetting to push/pull locking the mag in place), a bad magazine, or ammuntion (had a squibb load with Federal XM193 at a class a couple years back.)

As far as the effectiveness of the 5.56mm ammo is concerned, one of the most telling pieces of evidence for me is that it was people within SOCOM (who surely have more direct experience than anyone else in the US military) who initiated the development of the 6.8mm Rem SPC, because they were not happy with the terminal performance of the 5.56mm.

Again this entire episode was based on an anecdotal incident. One man from 5th SF came home and started trying to fix this problem based on an experience he had. A small group of people came up with the 6.8 SPC, but failed to sell it to SOCOM or the Army. Personally I think the 6.8 SPC is a great round and possibly better suited for the infantry mission then M855. But once again we're into the cost/benefit thing. Is it a big enough improvement to justify switching? No, that decision has already been made.

Again, from soldiers in the field I have read various comments about ammo effectiveness, some in favour and some against, but there have been enough complaints to ring alarm bells. Presumably somebody in authority (other than SOCOM) shares this concern, otherwise why the introduction of the Mk 262?

MK262 was introduced for use with the Crane built SPRs to give Special Forces operational units a usable 5.56 sniping system. MK262 was developed to let them reach out past 500 meters and still have a heavy enough bullet to hit and have decent terminal effects at those extended ranges. It wasn't brought into the system as a replacement for M855.

You are right to say 'maximum' range for fragmentation. According to AR15.com the normal fragmentation range of the M855 from an M4 is between 50 and 100m.

See what I mean about buying into internet BS? Beware of what you read on any internet forum, even this one. Personally I haven't bothered with AR15.com in years. Very high signal to noise ratio there.

And since fragmentation is not a requirement that is tested and ammo manufacturers vary, sometimes it doesn't seem to happen at all even within these ranges.

There are many variables that go into fragmentation. Velocity isn't the only one, thickness of the jacket, if there is the little hollow space between the jacket and the steel penetrator, the density and makeup of the flesh it passes through all can affect the actual terminal effects of the round. Still no one is dying because the ammunition isn't up to the task and battles aren't being lost. Why do you think that is?

None at all. I have never pretended to have military experience which means (for a Brit these days) almost zero opportunity to fire such weapons.

If you ever make it to this side of the pond, look me up, I'll see you get some trigger time. I have a friend in Wales who I served with on a joint exercise with your army years ago who comes every couple of years to visit and shoot.

However, I don't see how that affects my ability to judge whether magazines are being changed quickly or not.

It affects your ability to pass judgement on the ergonomics of something you've never tried. I've watched Forumla One drivers race around the track. But I sure am not in any position to judge how ergonomic the controls of their cars are.

Lastly, if the L85A2 is so great, how come your nations special forces use M4s and C8s?

Jeff

 

[Tony Williams]

Tony said;

So are you insinuating that the men and women from Directorate of Combat Developments and the Command and General Staff College and conducted the studies with our soldiers as soon as possible after combat, lied or otherwise falsified the data?

If they claimed that there were no problems with the performance of the guns or the ammo, then they missed talking to some people. Publicity was recently given to a report on equipment performance by a USMC Sergeant, which got to the top of their hierarchy very quickly. A kept some quotes from it which related to guns and ammo:

"The M-16 is prone to jams. I can personally attest that I kept my weapon properly cleaned and lubed, yet within ten minutes, I had two jams that required remedial action in Al Fallujah. Also the round is too fast, too small, and too stabilized. It can not compete with the 7.62 fired by Warsaw pact weapons.....At the very least, the changes in ammo are needed."

Still no one is dying because the ammunition isn't up to the task and battles aren't being lost.

There are two specific accounts I know of which also achieved some publicity a couple of years back: one in which Sgt Kyle Cosner of US Army SOCOM won the Silver Star for a January 23rd 2002 raid in Afghanistan. He was doing room-to-room clearing and found three men in one room. He sprayed three of them and they went down, but he was attacked from behind by a fourth. He managed to deal with him but by that time the other three were getting up again and reaching for their guns. Sgt Cosner was fast enough to win - just - but was reportedly unimpressed by the M855...

Another incident on September 12th 2003 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, was more serious in that two Special Forces soldiers - Master Sgt Kevin Morehead and Sgt First Class Williams Bennett - were killed by an insurgent. This was after the insurgent had been fired at by several SO NCOs with 5.56mm weapons. He was killed by a Sgt Stringer immediately afterwards - using a .45 ACP. When his body was examined he was found to have received seven well-placed 5.56mm hits to the torso - before he killed the two sergeants.

Yes, I know you can prove anything with individual accounts, but it isn't true to say that no-one has died as a result of 5.56mm failings.

If you ever make it to this side of the pond, look me up, I'll see you get some trigger time. I have a friend in Wales who I served with on a joint exercise with your army years ago who comes every couple of years to visit and shoot.

Thanks - I'd enjoy that!

I've watched Forumla One drivers race around the track. But I sure am not in any position to judge how ergonomic the controls of their cars are.

No, but you can see whether or not the cars are being driven quickly...

Lastly, if the L85A2 is so great, how come your nations special forces use M4s and C8s?

They adopted those weapons in the days of the L85A1. Apart from the unreliability of that model, there were two reasons for this: the M4s and C8s are much lighter (an important issue for special forces) and they came with optional underbarrel grenade launchers (much favoured by special forces, not available on L85A1). The L85A2 has resolved the reliability issues and is now available with a grenade launcher, but it's still heavy.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[berettashotgun]

Seatbelt on, hands and feet inside.

6.8spc is never gonna happen, nothing is gonna happen to the rifle in use either. Anyone with a little imagination and a reloader bullet B.C. chart can conjure up all kinds of "Death-Rays"; but the facts and figures clearly point to nothing, like, nothing is gonna change for such a very modest performance gain.Let me see, an M14 isn't capable of anything nowdays, but the SPC, fer cryin' out loud, is a "special" round for someone really special . The Y2K problem and the 6.8 just never will happen. IMHO , now if someone would come up with a REAL improvement over what is out there right now- it is remotely possible something MIGHT:banghead: change. Nah, I don't think so.... BTW, does the 6.8 spc remind anyone else or just me of the .480 ruger

 

[Blackhawk 6]

one in which Sgt Kyle Cosner of US Army SOCOM won the Silver Star for a January 23rd 2002 raid in Afghanistan. He was doing room-to-room clearing and found three men in one room. He sprayed three of them and they went down, but he was attacked from behind by a fourth. He managed to deal with him but by that time the other three were getting up again and reaching for their guns. Sgt Cosner was fast enough to win - just - but was reportedly unimpressed by the M855...

The individual awarded the Silver Star for that incident was MSG Tony Pryor.

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/print.php?story_id_key=1689

Master Sgt Kevin Morehead and Sgt First Class Williams Bennett - were killed by an insurgent. This was after the insurgent had been fired at by several SO NCOs with 5.56mm weapons.

Interestingly, MSG Morehead is credited with killing approximately 50 AQAM personnel in Afghanistan with the SPR. Hardly an indictment of the weapon or the caliber.

 

[Langenator]

and you often have to fire around the "wrong" side of cover in battle. Therefore, all bullpups suck.

Actually, the FN2000 pushes the casings out the front. Ambidextrous.

The choice of rifle and ammo mean almost nothing in military combat, since the rifle doesn't account for more than 10% of casulties,and the troops fire over 50,000 rifle rds for every kill that they get.

I don't think anyone done any actual analysis on this for the current war. But I'd say the numbers killed by artillery,which previous held title for biggest percentage of kills, is way down, at least in Iraq. Arty isn't much used, because Haji likes to hide in urban areas, and levelling half a city block to kill a couple of them is somewhat frowned upon. Doesn't exactly do well in the hearts and minds department. So Haji tends to die from either small arms or other infantry (or soldier) wielded weapons. When they don't blow themselves up.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Frankly, the very last people to admit any problems are the officials at the top. This not a US characteristic, it's universal.

I believe if you take the time to read the PM Soldier Assessment Team Report you will find that no one is brushing anything aside. The report is a candid discussion of weapons and equipment and their performance in Iraq. I took the liberty of posting a few excerpts germaine to the discussion here. (My emphasis added.)

With regard to lethality:

It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired “better knock-down power” or a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) – controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition is lethal in close and long range.

Also regarding lethality (my emphasis added):

Discussion: There have been many engagements with the M855 spanning ranges from 10 feet to 250 meters against soft targets (non-armored individuals) during OIF. Observations from the field cover many different responses from “I shot him in the gut and he ran away”, “I had to put multiple rounds in him to stop him”, to “I shot him in the chest and he went down” and “I shot him in the head and he dropped on the spot”. There are many different views on the lethality of this round ranging from the need for a heavier bullet (the need for more stopping power), to “We have no complaints with the M855 ammunition. It is satisfying the operational need.” One brigade of soldiers interviewed made a very interesting statement concerning the lethality of the M855. Their focus groups indicated that based on proper target acquisition with the improved M68 (CCO), shot placement, basic rifle marksmanship, and firing controlled pairs they were very satisfied with the round’s performance/ terminal effects.

Recommendations: A Government Lethality IPT has been stood up to standardize GEL block testing and an engineering study will be conducted extensive, soft target terminal effects of COTS and military 5.56mm ammunition. The characteristics of each bullet terminal performance will be determined. Based on requirements and using the engineering information, a new round should be type classified and made available.

With regard to reliability:

The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the weapon after pulling it out of the dirt (“like you can do with the AK” was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability. This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.

The full report is available here:
http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

 

[Tony Williams]

The full report is available here:
http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm

Thanks for posting that.

My comment would be that it shows pretty much what I would expect; a rather mixed picture in respect of 5.56mm effectiveness. Presumably the report authors agree, which is why they conclude with a need to test available types of 5.56mm ammo to find the best option.

I do wish they wouldn't use the term 'lethality' though. All 5.56mm ammo is lethal - the issue is how quickly do hits prevent the target from shooting back, and how many hits does it take to achieve that. It isn't much comfort to know that the enemy you've just shot will be dead in 15 minutes if he's still shooting back at you for 5 or 10 of them.

I suspect that the effectiveness issue has been highlighted in Iraq, where the extent of close-quarter fighting means that it's really important for the bad guys to fall over quickly. If they're 200m or more away, they're less of a problem.

On the subject of M4 reliability, I suggest you try to see the article on the HK 416 in the latest Jane's International Defence Review (unfortunately not freely available). This spends some time summarising a 2001 Special Operations Command study on the M4 which is, to put it mildly, highly critical of its performance.

As ever, the answers you get depends on who you ask...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[reality]

the only thing that they have to do is change the bullet

to the hp or sp configuration. Since they wont do that, that tells you how much they care about saving the riflemen's lives.

 

[Kurush]