New H&K M4 at SHOT!!!

[Chindo18Z]

Another advantage is that the Rave uses 7.62MMX39. The question I have is that if 5.56MM Nato was so smokin, why is SOCOM going to a rifle in 7.63X39?

George: There is only ONE reason for USSOCOM units generating a Statement of Requirements for 7.62 x 39mm weapons. It is the same reason that the Government uses (primarily) Microsoft Windows...Dominant Market Share.

Every past, current, or potential US SOF battlefield in the world is hip deep in AK-47/AKM variants in that caliber.

During the Cold War years, an AKM was my primary issue weapon. We carried, zeroed, qualified, jumped it, and trained with it...'cause there ain't no 5.56 resupply EVER coming when you are 600-1000km deep into a WWIII landscape. (BTW: Happy Birthday Mr Reagan...and thank you for deficit spending the Soviets into the dirt and out of the arms race).

Most of the guys don't actually like the AK design (reliability yes...accuracy, ballistics, terminal effects, ergonomics no). However, it's nice for the visitors to be able to use the home team's bullets and magazines.

The Robinson (in 7.62 x 39) is looked upon fondly by many in the ranks. Getting someone to cut a check for it is a different question...time will tell.

 

[Feanaro]

This is hilarious! When you're making a prototype weapon for a major military, why not make a new version of their old weapon?

God forbid anyone try to go into business to, gasp, make money. Or even, Lord help us, improve on an old design.

 

[elkhunter]

Did anybody else notice this?

The goal of the program to offer an M4-style carbine that will fire 20,000 rounds without cleaning, lubrication, stoppages, or parts replacement has been realized in the development of the HKM4 Enhanced Carbine.

ummm.......

It's a damn fine idea, but 20,000 rounds?!?!?!

WITHOUT CLEANING?!?!?

You never know, it just might be possible, but I will never believe till somebody proves it.

Oh, and by the way I will be first in line to offer my services of shooting off those 20,000 rounds. Or even some of them as long as the ammo is provided for me. hehehe.

 

[modifiedbrowning]

Long live the AR-18!

 

[Dorian]

Wonder who'd buy it?

I'm actually quite suprised to see peoples reactions. Both here and on ar15.com.

HK took one of the most popular, but most unreliable weapons, and made it reliable. So of course.. shame on them! *** were they thinking? The freaking newbs!

I don't understand why everyone is so standoffish regarding this.

And it's heavier? God forbid 2 pounds of RELIABILITY!

Sorry for the blatant sarcasim... Well.. not really

 

[Jeff White]

Dorian said;

I don't understand why everyone is so standoffish regarding this.

And it's heavier? God forbid 2 pounds of RELIABILITY!

Spoken like a man who's never been an Infantryman....2 is nothing when you only carry your rifle from the trunk of your car to the firing line. Two pounds is the weight of the world when you add it to the 70-130 pounds you're already carrying day in and day out.....

And how much reliablity do you need? Nobody is going to get into such a heavy duty firefight that they are going to need to be able to fire 20K rounds before they clean their weapon. And good NCOs won't allow their soldiers to neglect their weapons ....this is a solution lokking for a problem.

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

I would gladly trade 2 pounds for reliability. It is too bad we can't ask the rest of Private Lynch's outfit if they would.

 

[George Hill]

I was an Infantryman. I'd happily take an extra 2 pounds of reliability, but I'd rather that be in the form on the M-14.


If the military is having a problem with over burdening the troops over two pounds of weapon - then the Military needs to be dropping these people for more pushups.
The whole military has become very wussyfied. When I was in, bitching about your gun being heavy was just plain NOT DONE. Bitching about anything other than the Officers and the Food was also just plain NOT DONE. Any such complaning might get one labled as a Wussy and that was not acceptable.
Heavy Pack? Rain? And your on the M-60? Bring it on! That's all you got!? HOOWWAAAAHH!

Today's Army?
:banghead:

 

[Adam]

Spoken like a man who's never been an Infantryman....2 is nothing when you only carry your rifle from the trunk of your car to the firing line. Two pounds is the weight of the world when you add it to the 70-130 pounds you're already carrying day in and day out.....

I was in Polish infantry. And infantryman have only one friend - his rifle. My issue weapon was AK. I don't like this rifle for many reasons, but I love it for one and very important - reliabilty. If someone can give me a more reliable rifle than M16 with the same accuracy and ergonomics I will take it every day instead of AK. AK is much more heavier than M16, so 2 pounds more is not a problem for me. I think the most important thing for combat rifle is reliabilty, than reliabilty and after all reliabilty. Just my 0.02.

 

[Jeff White]

George Hill said;

I was an Infantryman. I'd happily take an extra 2 pounds of reliability, but I'd rather that be in the form on the M-14.

How much field time do you have with an M14? Enough to make a real comparison for reliability?

If the military is having a problem with over burdening the troops over two pounds of weapon - then the Military needs to be dropping these people for more pushups.
The whole military has become very wussyfied. When I was in, bitching about your gun being heavy was just plain NOT DONE. Bitching about anything other than the Officers and the Food was also just plain NOT DONE. Any such complaning might get one labled as a Wussy and that was not acceptable.
Heavy Pack? Rain? And your on the M-60? Bring it on! That's all you got!? HOOWWAAAAHH!

Today's Army?

Hey George, I'll be happy to loan you my copy of A soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation by SLA Marshall. More pushups is a pretty flip answer to the very real problem of managing the soldier's load. Two pounds is a lot when you figure in all the other kewl toys we give our grunts to carry. No one ever complained about the load they had to carry in any unit I was in, but its a leaders responsibilty to make sure the soldier arrives in the assault postion in condition to fight. I will bet you a case of your favorite soft drink that this HK upper is not adopted because the tradeoff in weight for a miniscule increase in reliability is not worth it. Any takers?

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

I take that bet. Some military units will adopt it, surely. I'll take Diet Coke

 

[George Hill]

Only about 4 weeks with one in the field.

Flip or not, it's the truth. The Army is not nearly as tough, salty, or gritty as it used to be and I don't see that as a good thing.
I don't need that book about field loads... I spent 8 years getting very familiar with them personally.
Yes, I know a grunt has a lot to pack around. But 2 pounds isn't a thing if it means solving the rifle's main source of unreliability. Most grunts I know would agree. I dont think the HKM4's adoption will have anythign to do with Field Loads. It's about politics and if HK can grease the right palms or not. It's about the choice of a handful of idiots and if they get the right handful. Pretty much the same why it's always been. The effect on the individual soldier has little to do with it.

This whole thing about a weapon's weight... Gimme a stinking break. Such a conern is not registered when they issue out the MGs and SAWs. When I was given a hog to carry, no one helped carry my ruck. I woulnt expect them to. Another guy did help by packing 2 more belts of ammo but that was it. How much wieght does the M203 give you? No one's gear was altered when we went from LAWs to AT-4s either... My point is that If the weapon is more effective, the military has no problem giving you some extra weight to carry. And an M4 that is less prone to jamming would indeed be more effective.

 

[Feanaro]

I have a math problem for you. You are carrying 78 pounds of various stuff on your back, chest, sides and so on(Just an example number). And you have an eight pound rifle. You are carrying 86 pounds. They take two pounds off the rifle. You are STILL carrying eighty pounds, aren't you?

 

[roo_ster]

I'll take them 2 pounds...and a case of Dr. Pepper

I recall a particular fellow who tricked out his M4 with so much SOPMOD (M203, being the main culprit) doohickeys, his M4 weight 'bout as much as a SAW.

Lets face it, the M4 may look cool, but its reliability is weak in an environment where you can't keep it insanely clean. If they increased its reliability SIGNIFICANTLY, 2 lbs would be a fair price.

 

[Jeff White]

George Hill said;

This whole thing about a weapon's weight... Gimme a stinking break. Such a conern is not registered when they issue out the MGs and SAWs. When I was given a hog to carry, no one helped carry my ruck. I woulnt expect them to.

And how much more of the platoon's load did your PSG give you to carry? Probably not much.....

How much wieght does the M203 give you? No one's gear was altered when we went from LAWs to AT-4s either... My point is that If the weapon is more effective, the military has no problem giving you some extra weight to carry. And an M4 that is less prone to jamming would indeed be more effective.

The M203 replaced the M79 and a 1911A1 pistol. For about the same weight as the pistol and ammunition, you have two more rifles in the squad which means your grenadiers aren't sitting out the firefight in the dense foilage where they can't use their grenade launchers. The 84mm warhead of the AT4 gives you the capability to penetrate the heavier armor that the threat was using that we had lost with the 66mm warhead of the LAW....Both of these examples are actual increases in capability. The HK upper adds two pounds to the soldiers load, but gives a miniscule increase in capability. Do you really think that the army will stop cleaning rifles? I know you're in the direct impingment gas systems are the tool of the devil camp but this is an expensive solution to a non existant problem. M4s are not failing on the battlefield. Sodiers and Marines aren't dying because their M4s are jamming.

I dont think the HKM4's adoption will have anythign to do with Field Loads. It's about politics and if HK can grease the right palms or not. It's about the choice of a handful of idiots and if they get the right handful. Pretty much the same why it's always been. The effect on the individual soldier has little to do with it.

Greasing palms may have everything to do with how we buy equipment for the military, but it's not going to have any bearing on getting the Army to decide that it needs a rifle that's two pounds heavier. The Army is finally recognizing that there needs to be something done about the load we ask our soldiers to carry. One of the ideas GEN Schoomaker is looking at as part of his campiagn to make the Army back into what it used to be is a load czar who will review every proposed new item of equipment and decide if the increase in capability it gives us is worth the additional weight we make our soldiers carry. I doubt that the miniscule increase in reliability that HK says this new upper gives us, will make the cut.

Feanaro said;

I have a math problem for you. You are carrying 78 pounds of various stuff on your back, chest, sides and so on(Just an example number). And you have an eight pound rifle. You are carrying 86 pounds. They take two pounds off the rifle. You are STILL carrying eighty pounds, aren't you?

I don't mean anything personal, but planning like that kills soldiers. A good leader looks at every pound he makes his men carry. Optimal fighting load shouldn't be more then 1/3 body weight. For most soldiers this means around 45 pounds of individual weapons, ammunition, water, protective gear and other mission essential equipment. You are cutting into the effectiveness of your soldiers with every pound more then that you add. I think it's rather cavalier to say it's not worth two pounds because the load is still over 80 pounds.

To the hobbyists here, the miniscule increase in reliability seems like a good trade off. You can look in your safe and say I've got the most reliable, perfect AR in the world. The soldier's needs are different. That two pounds is another magazine of ammo, another stripped MRE, another two hand grenades, another battery or two for his MBITR radio that he can't carry.

Jeff

 

[Jeff White]

jfruser said;

Lets face it, the M4 may look cool, but its reliability is weak in an environment where you can't keep it insanely clean. If they increased its reliability SIGNIFICANTLY, 2 lbs would be a fair price.

And how is it that you know this? Personal experience? Care to relate it?

Jeff

 

[Feanaro]

I don't mean anything personal, but planning like that kills soldiers. A good leader looks at every pound he makes his men carry... I think it's rather cavalier to say it's not worth two pounds because the load is still over 80 pounds.

I do not mean to say that you can simply put pound after pound of equipment on troops without regard for what you are doing or that simply because the load is already heavy, a little more won't matter. It does indeed matter. But what weight have we really saved for the soldier if we shave off two pounds? I am, again, not saying that it wouldn't help. But if we would shave of ten or twenty pounds, that would be a saving. That is what I am getting at. A single saving of two pounds isn't going to make out soldiers incredibly more effective. If we could cut off a pound here, two pounds there, a little more over here and take off ten pounds, that would be a help.

 

[Greg Bell]

Does anybody really believe all the complaints about the M-4's reliability (as reported in Military-week and Defense Weekly, etc) are really all exaggerations? There seems to be a real problem, and I would rather try to cut weight elsewhere if at all possible. My God, if there is one thing that has to work it is your rifle.

 

[Jeff White]

Greg Bell asked;

Does anybody really believe all the complaints about the M-4's reliability (as reported in Military-week and Defense Weekly, etc) are really all exaggerations? There seems to be a real problem, and I would rather try to cut weight elsewhere if at all possible. My God, if there is one thing that has to work it is your rifle.

Yes, they are all exaggerations. They don't match up with my own personal experience or that of most other career soldiers and Marines I know. Military Week and Defense Week are not official DOD publications. Articles like that are controversial and sell magazines. They also may be motivated by advertisers just like a lot of mainstream gunrags are.

The internet has also allowed the Army to rapidly disseminate After Action Reviews and other important information throughout the force. I have seen no official AARs or other reports from operations in Afghanistan, the Phillipines or Iraq that identify and point out any reliability problems with any of our current small arms except the M9 pistol and the M203 grenade launcher. Problems with the M9 seem to be limited to the magazines and problems with the M203 are related to the strength of the barrel latch and it's durability when firing a high number of 40mm illumination rounds. If there were serious reliability problems with the M4, they would have been identified in these official reports. The Army Center For Lessons Learned gets these reports posted as soon as they are available. The Infantry School at Ft. Benning also gets them posted quicky. You need an AKO account, (must be active duty, reserve or guard or retired) to access the reports on the CALL website, but the Infantry School posts some where everyone can read them on theirs:
http://www-benning.army.mil/infantry/index.asp

The only place I hear of unsatisfactory perfomance of the M4/M16 is on internet boards, in the commercial military press and and in the mainstream gun rags. There are plenty of members here who have a lot of experience with this weapon. Personally, I have used the M16 in every climate from the arctic to the desert. It doesn't require a sterile battlefield, in fact you'd be surprised how much dirt and filth it does take to make it stop. The magazines are a weak point, but the new HK mag seems to have fixed that. It's not that big a deal to the soldier or Marine who just DXs a bad magazine anyway.

Two pounds is a lot of weight to add to the system. We're not going to give up the AIMSS accessories, because those things we hang all over our M4s and M16A4s are the very things that allow us to own the night and engage the enemy with accurate fire in the dark, almost as if it was daylight.

The M4/M16 will always be hated by a segment of the shooting community. In their eyes it's not the right caliber, it's got a direct impingment gas system, it's made out of plastic and aluminum and everyone knows real guns are wood and steel etc. etc. But the soldiers and Marines who take it in harms way don't hate it. The complaints from the end users aren't there. echosixmike, Blackhawk6, OEF-Vet, Chindo18Z all have current verifiable experience and if you do a search on their posts on this subject you'll find the same answers I'm giving.

I think HKs new upper is just a pretty neat toy. If they sold them at a reasonable price, I'd buy one to play with. Probably be pretty happy with it too. But I don't think that the Army and Marines need it or want it.

Jeff

 

[Greg Bell]

What about the guys in Iraq like Private Lynch's unit. Apparantly they had quite a few problems with their M-16s. What happend?

 

[George Hill]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2349045.php

While months of testing lie ahead, Smith and his colleagues were pleased to find that one prototype has fired 15,000 rounds without a jam and without being cleaned.

While the XM8 was not exposed to battlefield conditions, it’s still a feat the current service rifle hasn’t come close to rivaling, said Rich Audette, deputy project manager for PM Soldier Weapons. “I was around for the M16A2 and M4 carbine [development], and I have never seen anything coming out of the box firing like this,†he said.

I'll take an XM-8. In 6.8MM.

This two pound issue is moot... the weapon remains an AR pattern rifle. No thank you.

 

[Jeff White]

Greg,
There are several threads here on that. The ill fated 407th Maintenance Company suffered from a leadership failure, not an equipment failure. No weapon, not the AK, not the M14, not any small arm you can name would have functioned for any time in that sandstorm after being totally exposed to the sand like their weapons were. All of their small arms failed, from the M2 .50 caliber machine gun down to their M16s. Why, because they didn't take even basic steps to keep them free of the talcum powwder like sand before the fight.

PVT Lynch's unit was a maintenance company that supported the Patriot missile system. The soldiers who were assigned to it were mechanics and electricians etc. by trade. They never expected they would ever use their weapons. They worked their tails off keeping the Patriots working (which was their primary mission) and neglected to care for their own weapons. Units like that didn't normally train to defend themselves. It was the kind of training that no one thought was important because they would normally operate so far in the rear that the chances of them having to defend themselves were pretty slim. If you read the AAR, and the other accounts you'll find many of the soldiers actually first loaded their weapons when they made contact. Which was probably SOP to keep accidents down. If you don't keep your weapons covered when not in use in that environment they will fill up with the fine sand and jam. This happened to all the 407th's small arms. not just the M16s with their too tight for combat (as some like to say) tolerances. Look up some things on operations in North Africa in WWII and you'll find plenty of similar complaints about the mighty (you can dive into the mud filled foxhole, plug the action with mud, pop up and shoot) M1. Look up Iwo Jima and see how our small arms did in the fine volcanic sand there.

The 407th Maintenance Company neglected their weapons and then they were unable to fight when they had to. It wouldn't have mattered what weapons they had. Nothing would have worked in the conditions they were subjected to. The Marines, whose column the 407th passed through and who rescued elements of the 407th after the contact, had no problems with their weapons, of course they expected to have to use them and took care to keep them ready for use.

The new Army Chief of Staff, GEN Peter Schoomaker has put a new emphisis on small arms training throughout the Army. Every soldier is a rifleman is his motto. It's unfortunate that the 407th had to go through what it did to wake people in the combat service support community up.....

Jeff

 

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Can't we ever have a discussion about the AR without it degrading into a shouting match?


pssssssst QuarterBore? Are you new here or what? This ALWAYS happens

 

[Greg Bell]

QuarterBore,

Wow, I thought this was actually a pretty civil discussion. Maybe I haven't been reading between the lines.

 

[Jeff White]

It seems pretty civl to me too....Nothing to read between the lines in my posts...

Jeff