New Generation of Assault Rifles....Yeah Right

[JR47]

Please cite.
Based on what I can find the M4 dry weighs 5.9 pounds, the M14 weighs 11.5 pounds.
When and or where did I ever say that the M16/ M4 was the do all end all? And I know full well what happened with the M16. Guess it is some vast conspiracy that we don't bring back the M14 or Garand as the primary rifle. And yes the M14 is being fielded in SS and other limited rolls. And yes it is a damn fine rifle.

The M4 weighs 5.9 pounds dry, according to FM 23-8, the M14 rifle, with a full magazine, and cleaning kit, weighs 11.75 pounds. What is the weight of a comparably outfitted M4?

The total weight of an M4, with sling and one mag is 7.5 pounds

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics
/m4/m4-carbine.shtml

Adding to that the rails and covers at 18 0z. The issue optic, an Aimpoint M68 at 9.9 oz, plus mount. A Surefire M951 Light, at 9.9 oz. A GG&G front grip 1169 at 2.4 oz. The Kill Flash from lens cover at 1 oz. The Aimpoint 3x magnifier 11324 at 7.1 oz, and you have a loaded weight of 10.92 pounds. This doesn't include BUIS, the control modules for the Surefire, any rail covers, night vision accessories, lasers, or spare batteries carried in the various compartments. It also doesn't figure in the additional weight of magazine pouches on the weapon, or dual connected magazines. That easily puts the weight at 12#.

your interpretation of the modern infantry is much different than how it really is. Our armor is much heavier than the good ol flack jacket and all of the other equipment that I carried was either on my IBA or in my ruck... I never had a truck to leave my stuff. Durring my time in i also carried the m16, m4, m240b and the m14. in the question of weight my m14 by its self outweighed the m4 with all the extras on it.

Perhaps you were in a different place? I do know that the urban patrols are using HMMV, and other vehicles to convey the troops, and provide a base of supply. The mounted patrols shown in Afghanistan also use mobility, and not foot pounding in the majority of Afghanistan. The fact that your particular situation didn't is interesting, but hardly representative of the entire operation.

I do know the weight of the M14 rifle, as issued, loaded with cleaning kit and full magazine. I also know the weight of an M4 loaded with a single magazine, and sling. They are taken, as you'll note, from the appropriate publications. I'll trust them above a remembered weight.

 

[Justin]

Adding to that the rails and covers at 18 0z. The issue optic, an Aimpoint M68 at 9.9 oz, plus mount. A Surefire M951 Light, at 9.9 oz. A GG&G front grip 1169 at 2.4 oz. The Kill Flash from lens cover at 1 oz. The Aimpoint 3x magnifier 11324 at 7.1 oz, and you have a loaded weight of 10.92 pounds. This doesn't include BUIS, the control modules for the Surefire, any rail covers, night vision accessories, lasers, or spare batteries carried in the various compartments. It also doesn't figure in the additional weight of magazine pouches on the weapon, or dual connected magazines. That easily puts the weight at 12#.

Last time I checked, a heavy wood stock does not impart the ability to illuminate the dark, magnify your sight picture or shoot more quickly in close quarters.

So even assuming that a soldier was required to have all of that gear bolted to his M4 at all times, thereby making the weight of the M4 equivalent to an M14, there is still the point that all of that added weight brings with it certain very clear operational advantages.

 

[Shopping A Round]

We already know that the M4 and M14 are for different purposes.

The M4 for closer engagements in an urban setting or from a vehicle.

The M14 for longer distance that require a heavier everything.

It is an interesting debate and I am glad I have this big ole' armchair to watch it from.

 

[Jaws]

SOCOM just dropped the SCAR light because they said it wasnt better than the M4.

SOCOM found the M4 to be "unable to satisfy their needs" back before the SCAR program started. The FN rifle that took part in the SCAR compertition fulfilled and exceded all SOCOM requirements back in 2004. What makes you think that, after six years of improvements and the most rigurous testing ever, made the SCAR worse then M4?

If you stil think that AR 15 is the best ever combat rifle you have to get out more. There were plenty better designs for a long time.

 

[C-grunt]

SOCOM found the M4 to be "unable to satisfy their needs" back before the SCAR program started. The FN rifle that took part in the SCAR compertition fulfilled and exceded all SOCOM requirements back in 2004. What makes you think that, after six years of improvements and the most rigurous testing ever, made the SCAR worse then M4?

If you stil think that AR 15 is the best ever combat rifle you have to get out more. There were plenty better designs for a long time.

http://kitup.military.com/2010/06/socom-cancels-mk-16-scar.html#ixzz0rtef9uMB

I never said "it was worse" than the M4. I just stated that SOCOM dropped the Mk-16 because they were not any better than the M4. They do apparently like the Mk-17 a lot though.

My old team/squad leader just got back from Afghan as a Special Forces soldier. I asked him about the SCAR, a few months ago while still in country, and he told me he hasnt even seen one in country there. He also stated that he and all his guys had nothing but praise for the M4.

 

[C-grunt]

Perhaps you were in a different place? I do know that the urban patrols are using HMMV, and other vehicles to convey the troops, and provide a base of supply. The mounted patrols shown in Afghanistan also use mobility, and not foot pounding in the majority of Afghanistan. The fact that your particular situation didn't is interesting, but hardly representative of the entire operation.

.

But there still is a huge force that operates out in the farm lands and other rural areas. These areas have a lot more foot patrols than say Baghdad. So therefor saying mounted patrols are the SOP isnt exactly accurate either. Depends on the area, the unit and the enemy.

In 2005 we hardly ever used the humvees as our bad guys used mostly IEDs that would demolish the trucks. So we used the Brads to take us to where we would start our foot patrols.

 

[Girodin]

We've all witnessed the recent introduction of the new generation of assault rifles, Sig 556...

Forgive me if this point has been covered (I didn't read all the posts), but I wouldn't call the sig 556 a new gen rifle. It is a variant of the sig 55X family that has been around for decades.

 

[Robert]

James2133 was not deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. He was in the Horn of Africa in 2003-2004. And though not a member of Special Operations, he did do a great number of patrols and did take fire while training the local military. To my knowledge most of their patrols were done on foot. Ride the truck to the jumping off point and walk from there.

 

[killchain]

I find it somewhat amusing to listen to the group talk about weight carried, while watching the news daily, and seeing soldiers carrying little beyond their armor, radio, helmet, sunglasses, and an M16/M4 laden down with enough equipment to qualify as a Strategic Reserve. Their other equipment appears to have been stored in their vehicle.

I did that. I'm one of those 70% of returning veterans who have musculoskeletal problems due to the weight.

Our fighting forces DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT need more weight. AT ALL.

My vest and FLC weighed, wait for it, 76lbs!

 

[JR47]

SOCOM just dropped the SCAR light because they said it wasnt better than the M4.

I'm looking at an announcement from FNH that states that they received notification from USSOCOM Program Executive Office-SOF Warrior (PEO-SW) that the SCAR Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) was approved and signed on 4/14/2010. This decision authorizes the production and deployment of the Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) MK16 and MK 17 as well as the Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM).

Somebody needs to tell SOCOM that they "dropped" the rifle in favor of the M4, as they apparently never got THAT memo.

Last time I checked, a heavy wood stock does not impart the ability to illuminate the dark, magnify your sight picture or shoot more quickly in close quarters.

My ONLY point was that the existing M4, no matter WHY it has grown heavier, has grown heavier than the old "heavy" M14 rifle. To paraphrase you, sir. Last time I looked weight was weight.

I DO NOT feel that the military needs to revert to the days of wood and steel. Please don't try to show me in that light. If, however, the M14 is "too heavy" then the fully-laden M4 is the same. Period. They do different jobs, so the quaint comparison of CQB and Longer-range firing of the DMR are as apples to oranges as you can get.

My son-in-law just returned from Iraq, with the Marines. He is the person who related to me the use of vehicles as a base of operations while patrolling. It makes sense in the CQB areas, as the only actual speedy alternative to engage hit-and-run groups.

FYI, I was tasked with carrying the old PRC radios of the Vietnam era, along with ammo for our M60, claymores, my own gear, and an M14. That's an additional 26.4 lbs. Plus attendant gear, for the radio.

A point, there are also 20" and 18" barrels available for the M14 rifle, and various stocks, including the synthetic that was slated for Vietnam usage. All of these are currently available, reducing the length, and some weight, from the platform. It's not an M16/M4, and never will be. However, the Navy MK14 rifle is still in use in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess it's not too heavy after all.

In the end, the 5.56 is about tapped out in the existing platform. OAL maximum has been reached for the magazines. To get a better performance out of the rifle, changing uppers to a slightly heavier caliber actually makes sense. That IS the purpose of modularity, right? It would also reduce the cost of change-over by upwards of 50%.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Just wondering, after it's been fitted, how long does it take to swap a 6.8 barrel for the issue one, or back again (assuming both have been proberly headspaced) with a wrench? I'm guessing a just a couple minutes at the longest. Do we really NEED a quick change barrel designed gun? I think marketing is wonderful thing.