M4gery hate

[nordaim]

I have seen the references to m4gery and a bit of hate towards them.

I was just wondering why? Does this go with the whole Mall Ninja/"Tacti-cool" thought line?

 

[TechBrute]

Some people hate the AR because of it's gas system.
Others hate the AR because of it's 5.56 round.
Some hate black rifles in general.
Still others hate all things "tactical".

The first two could be legitimate. The last two are ignorant.

 

[itgoesboom]

Nordaim,

There are problably different reasons why different people hate the M4gery.

It could be that it the whole mall ninja, every tactical accessory possible mounted on what is supposed to be a lightwieght carbine....

Or

It could be that many people think the direct gas impingment system sucks, and shouldn't be used on a service rifle.....

Or

It could be that people feel the 5.56 round is underpowered out of a 20" barrel, and that going with a 14.5 or 16" is even worse.....

Despite those issues, I think the M4 and the M4geries are pretty cool, and I would love to have one.

I.G.B.

 

[nordaim]

Thanks for the replies.

It seems though that the gas system and the 5.56 cartridge though is a bit of a holy war. Be it the ballistics of the cartridge or over the purpose of the M16/AR-15 platform, further enhanced by the short barelled carbines.

 

[Zak Smith]

The M4 is a nice compact carbine.

"You know why they call it Lapua? Cause they can't write sh*t on the box."

Actually, it's cause they can't fit "Very uniform brass that needs no prep or sorting" on the box.

 

[Browns Fan]

What's not to like about a gas operated rifle?

 

[Dmack_901]

It's kinda like buying a Kia Amanti. Sure it looks exactly like a Mercedes, but it's just a copy. I used to feel the same way, but now that Colt isn't making ban-free M4s I've changed my mind.

 

[nordaim]

Zak Smith:

Actually, it's cause they can't fit "Very uniform brass that needs no prep or sorting" on the box.

The line in my sig comes from a friend of mine who shot on his high school rifle team.

They were shooting some Lapua match grade .22lr ammo. Their coach was not pleased with their shooting that day and was wondering what was going on. After firing off a few rounds of his own with the Lapua he was convinced it was the ammo. After switching to some russian match .22lr he confirmed it and uttered that line.

 

[itgoesboom]

What's not to like about a gas operated rifle?

I dislike that it is a gas operated rifle because I much prefer a roller delayed blowback design.

I.G.B.

 

[surr]

Some people prefer pump actions, too.

There's no reason for either preference.

 

[mustanger98]

It's not that it's gas operated. It's that it's direct gas impingement instead of gas piston.

gas piston (M1 Garand, M-14, AK47) = good

will run clean, dirty, or real dirty

direct gas impingement (M-16/M4/AR15) = bad

won't run clean; gets worse when dirty

I don't know too many Vietnam vets who'll trust a direct gas impingement system.

Don't like pump actions? That's okay, I don't care for a pump rifle either. Pump shotgun's another story though.

 

[Mulliga]

The term "M4gery" is quite neutral and used by AR enthusiasts and detractors alike.

I think the majority of "hate" directed towards the M4gery is directed to ARs in general. You've obviously seen the two biggest arguments - "unreliable system" and "wimpy caliber."

 

[Gewehr98]

Itgoesboom hit the nail on the head, repeatedly.

Gas-operated guns are indeed a good thing.

Gas-operated guns that poop where they eat are *not* a good thing.

Gas-operated guns that are lightened and shortened for urban combat could be a good thing.

Gas-operated guns that are lightened, shortened and weigh more than the original 20" HBAR because of all the lasers, phasers, and wind-speed indicators are not a good thing. Backpack full of batteries optional.

Gas-operated guns in .22 caliber that make troops in Iraq and Afghanistan requisition mothballed M14's to plant bad guys in the wide open spaces is not a good thing.

Gas-operated guns in .22 caliber that have 6" or more of barrel lopped off for urban combat, reducing the muzzle velocity and energy even further, and making the GI wonder why Mr. Achmed bin RPG doesn't lay down after being hit at 200 yards, is not a good thing.

But the M4geries are indeed fun. Mr. Potato-Head to the next level, mix & match mit der accessories...

(No hate here, I still have a couple AR-15's, and qualify M16 every year)

 

[Zak Smith]

The gas impingement hate is given more attention than it deserves.

A properly built AR15 will run for many thousands of rounds without cleaning. But, hey, I only shot about 10,000 223 rounds last year.

Dump enough sand in any semi-auto and it will start to choke.

 

[Kestrel]

Gewehr,

Well said.

 

[TechBrute]

Gas-operated guns that are lightened, shortened and weigh more than the original 20" HBAR because of all the lasers, phasers, and wind-speed indicators are not a good thing. Backpack full of batteries optional.

This kind of statement really irks me (with no offense meant toward the poster). Are you saying that there isn't a need for white lights? Are you saying that the VFG is worthless? Are you saying M68s aren't needed? Should we not issue grenade launchers? IR illuminators a bad thing? What are you saying?

You can make a darn good case that having an Aimpoint and Surefire is a good (or great) idea. Now take that same sight and light and hang it off your favorite M14. You'll realize that an M4 with 2 extra pounds on it is still a lightweight carbine. If you know of a lighter platform for the sight and light, let me know.

 

[Gewehr98]

Techbrute, I'm sure all those doodads serve a useful function.

I just find it ironic, re: 20" M16A2 HBAR weighing less than an M4 once "properly" equipped. How many steps forward vs. backwards is that?

And if Uncle Sam is so concerned about terminal performance with respect to ventilating bad guys that he's looking half-assedly at the 6.8 SPC for his SpecOps troops, then removing a couple hundred fps from the heavy-bullet .223 equation with the 14.5" barrel, or even more with the 11.5" barrel isn't exactly gonna help the situation a whole lot. You don't get your cake and eat it, too.

As I look at it, the M4 is *almost* reduced to a close-in SMG role. Truthfully, that may just be the ticket, and simply a result of the current doctrine for prosecution of urban warfare, longer shots are not offering themselves, or are left to crew-served weapons, artillery and guided munitions. That, or one comes up with the designated marksman concept to fill the void. Hence my lack of surprise when they're looking high and low for civilian and retired military M14 armorers to refurb the guns in depot storage for re-issue.

And for the record, I don't necessarily think the reborn M14 is the complete answer to the problem, either. As much as I like the gun and fawn over my own, it's not exactly a logistics sweetheart, and those guns still in the inventory date from when? How about the current number of armorers with an M14-specific MOS? That represents a rather finite resource, without an injection of cash from somewhere deep in the taxpayer's pockets.

(I'd probably be a bit less biased if my own pre-'94 Colt Competition HBAR didn't choke to a halt after every 200 or so rounds until I cleaned it spotless again...)

 

[DMK]

I have seen the references to m4gery and a bit of hate towards them.

A familiar bit of advice here is buy a rifle, buy ammo and get good with it. Know what you can do with your rifle. Optics are good, but throwing a bunch of money into accessories is not going to make you shoot better. Once you shoot the rifle a while, then yea, go ahead and fix any shortcomings that become apparent, but determine it's use, determine your needs, then buy with that purpose in mind. Fix the particular deficiancy that prevents your rifle from accomplishing it's intended use.

Below is an M4 carbine. Notice the simplicity? Usually, the term M4gery conjures images of rails, lights, lasers, Aimpoints, ad nausium. It almost seems like the idea is "he who dies with the most expensive rifle rifle wins". Many of these rifles are built purely for looks. You almost never see somebody say "here's my M4gery" and then show off a rifle like this.

 

[Zak Smith]

I just find it ironic, re: 20" M16A2 HBAR weighing less than an M4 once "properly" equipped. How many steps forward vs. backwards is that?

TechBrute made a good point.

What do you want to lose? IR illuminator? Primary optic? White light? Sustained fire capability (heavier bbl profile in some M4's)?

Stick the same stuff to get the same capability on an M16A4 and it'll weigh more than the M4 similary equiped.

And if Uncle Sam is so concerned about terminal performance with respect to ventilating bad guys that he's looking half-assedly at the 6.8 SPC for his SpecOps troops, then removing a couple hundred fps from the heavy-bullet .223 equation with the 14.5" barrel, or even more with the 11.5" barrel isn't exactly gonna help the situation a whole lot. You don't get your cake and eat it, too.

Don't be naive. The reason guys want shorter carbines is so they can maneuver better in close quarters and in and out of vehicles.

Given that a short carbine works a whole hell of a lot better for those applications, the question becomes: How can we improve terminal effects from shorter barrels? (Mk262 and 6.8SPC are two candidate answers.)

(I'd probably be a bit less biased if my own pre-'94 Colt Competition HBAR didn't choke to a halt after every 200 or so rounds until I cleaned it spotless again...)

That would be frustrating. There is something wrong with that rifle.

-z

 

[itgoesboom]

Actually Gewehr you and Mustang hit the nail on the head.

The M4 is a great weapon for certain situations. IMHO, the role the M4 serves is a great submachine gun. (Kinda like Gewehr said). And in that role, I think the M4 shines.

Small light, good rate of fire, good penetration, and good lethality at closer range.

But the long range performance sucks. Has anyone looked at the range at which the rounds stop tumbling on contact with a body out of a 14.5" or 16" barrel?

Since 5.56 reliably tumbles and fragments at velocities of 2700+ fps. The M193 drops below that at 105 yards out of a 16" barrel, and 90 yards out of a 14.5" barrel. Using the m855 the range drops further, to 90 yards out of a 16" and 85 yards for a 14.5".

Now, to be fair, the lethal range is much longer, but really, a 55gr or 62gr round that is .22 cal doesn't really compare at the longer range lethality wise to the 122-147 .30 offerings in the 7.62x39 & x51. Penetration is better in certain circumstances, but lethality is less.

But once again, this isn't all that important, if the M4 was kept to a role that is compatibly with its strength.

That leaves only 2 other real issues that have been mentioned - the direct gas impingment craps-where-it-eats system and the hanging of all sorts of "tactical" doodads.

The hanging of technical doodads really isn't the fault of the rifle, but really the operator instead. And many of those items are usefull, the m203, the surefire light, the acog, etc etc. I think the problem is when ALL the implements are added to the rifles at the same time. Thats when a lightweight carbine starts to weigh more than a FAL.

As for the direct gas impingment, I really don't have a huge beef with this. I prefer the roller delayed blowback, but that is just personal prefrence. And quite honestly, I only shoot at the range, I don't throw my rifles in mud, snow, much or anything else. I clean my rifle afterwards. So the DGI doesn't affect me, and I have *never* had an AR rifle jam on me. (ofcourse, I have not shot very many rounds through an AR, nor do I own one....yet.)


I would love to hear the opinions of those that actually have to use the carbine where it counts, on the front line, and hear what they think of it.

I.G.B.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

As much as I like the gun and fawn over my own, it's not exactly a logistics sweetheart, and those guns still in the inventory date from when?

I can tag that fairly closely as being about 38 years.

I entered the Army in 1966 and trained with an M14. I went to Vietnam in 1968 and was issued an M16 upon arrival. Didn't see an M14 the entire time I was in theater.

 

[444]

"Thats when a lightweight carbine starts to weigh more than a FAL. "
"It could be that it the whole mall ninja, every tactical accessory possible mounted on what is supposed to be a lightwieght carbine...."

Quick question for you. Who decided that it was "supposed" to be a lightweight carbine ?
The M4 is a military weapon. It is issued with a rail system, optic, white light, suppressor, IR illuminator etc.
That seems like a contradiction. But, the contradiction MIGHT only be between statements made by the errornet experts and those made by the US military.

Add all those accessories and it might weigh as much as a FAL. Only the FAL won't have an optic, white light, suppressor, IR illuminator etc. The FAL is 40+ year old technology. As a basic rifle, it is great. I have two of them. But it doesn't serve the needs of today's soldier.

 

[itgoesboom]

444,

A couple things.

First, I think you might be misunderstanding what I am saying. Nobody is picking on soldiers for using optics and lights and whatnot on a M4. But how many times have you seen someone with a tricked out M4, atleast one, sometimes two lights, an ACOG or Reddot, plus a laser and a forward handgrip. And you pretty much always see this either A. on the internet, or B. at the range with some fat guy that can barely manage to roll to the line to fire a shot, and thinks that he is the most tactical ninja in the Country. Those are the people that are giving the M4 a bad name.

Those are the people that make people groan at the thought of nice handy carbine that now handles like a 9lbs Battle rifle, without the long effective range.

Second, here is a definition for you, direct from dictionary.com

car·bine ?? ?P???Pronunciation Key??(kärbn, -bn)
n.
A lightweight rifle with a short barrel.

Third, a stated purpose for the M4 carbine is:

The M4 carbine will replace selected pistols, submachine guns, and M16 rifles.....It provides increased flexibility for those soldiers assigned to crew-served weapons and soldiers who carry or operate large mission-essential equipment. Its compact size also allows users the full use of both hands to accomplish their primary missions.

Sounds like it is supposed to be compact and lightweight to me.

Fourth, as I stated above

I would love to hear the opinions of those that actually have to use the carbine where it counts, on the front line, and hear what they think of it.

That is because it is more important that the soldiers are happy with it than us on the internet.

Fifth, in response to

The FAL is 40+ year old technology.

NewsFlash:
The M16 and AR series weapons are also 40+ year old technology.

Now, none of this is meant to disrespect you in anyway, thats not the intention. The started of this thread asked why people hate the M4 carbine. I gave reasons why many people hate the M4 carbine. Also note that I said in my first response

Despite those issues, I think the M4 and the M4geries are pretty cool, and I would love to have one.

I.G.B.

 

[444]

Yes, the basic design of the M16 is 40 years old. I suppose you could also say that the basic design of your car is close to 100 years old.
However we are discussing the M4 in this thread. It is not 40+ year old technology. It has a number of modifications from that 40 year old technology and in the actual configuration issued, it is significantly different than 40 year old technology. Part of this discussion also is centering around the accessories used with the M4 which also are not 40 year old technology.

Of course we can get into the fine details: lightweight compared to what ? Lightweight in the issued configuration or in the configuration the keyboard commandos advocate ? Lightweight compared to another rifle equally equipped or lightweight compared to a totally different rifle or carbine ?

As was mentioned, outfitted to do what it can do, it is lightweight.

"Those are the people that are giving the M4 a bad name. "
Let me ask you another series of questions: Let's say you have a couple thousand dollars sitting around for the purpose of buying a new gun. Do you buy what makes you happy, or do you buy what you think strangers at the range would like you to have ? Do you base your buying decision on what the internet rangers prefer, or what you prefer ? And if you decide to buy an AR15 with every possible gadget known to man on it and it makes you a happy person, who does this harm ? What is the downside to it ? Why is this worthy of people's snide comments and holier than thou posts on the internet ? Why can't that person just buy what he enjoys and enjoy it without all the venom ?
I don't mean to be harsh, but personally I find all these gadgets to be great fun. They are one of my primary interests in guns these days. I really don't care if people I don't even know on the internet approve of them or not but it does make me wonder why they would care at all what pulls my chain.

 

[itgoesboom]

444,

I am starting to wonder if you have a problem with me, more than my argument.

As stated before, I was giving a response to a poster who questioned why the hate. I never once said that I hated the M4, I only stated why many people do. I was trying to give the poster an explanation of the why.

People often look down on the M4 because of the vision of Mall Ninja Posers and Internet Commandos load it down with every contraption known to man.

Kinda like how the antis like to condemn the AK-47 due to the acts of a few. All of a sudden it is considered the weapon of choice for gangbangers and mass murderers. That reputation takes over the reputation of that weapon as a ultra reliable firearmm.

Kinda like how many people look down on HK firearms, because they view the owners of said firearms as "snobs"

Kinda how many people who enjoy shooting rifles and pistols look down on the "Golf with Shotguns" trap people because of the actions of a few of them acting like snobs.

Do I need to go on, or have you finally figured out what I am saying?

I.G.B.