It's a fact. Piston guns are louder and harder to suppress. However they are more reliable with a suppressor and that's why the 416 was selected. Call it BS if you want, but it's a fact, piston actions are louder and won't suppress as quiet as a gas impingement action with the same suppressor.
Do you have any idea what an A3 is and who uses it? An A3 (to the military) is identical to the M16A2 except it has a full auto, not burst trigger group. Purchased by the Navy and used on ships. I doubt if there are 5000 M16A3s in existence.
So a louder can is better than the blow back from an AR system? Many folks just march on with the can and suck it up the blow back.
I will admit my experience with cans is limited. Most of my experience with cans was/is with pistols and some what out of date. I have only used about 5 or 6 different rifles with cans and none got into action.
When is the last time you used one?
In a full blown combat firefight, 1969. (not counting some non infantry small unit sized dustups)
Been in some 2 or 3 guy firefights since then, but they didn't really amount to much and the rifle wasn't really tested. Usually finished with one or two magazines.
When was the first time Your used one in Combat in a major firefight. At least against trained disciplined squad of guys on the other side, and they were well equipped and led? It does make a difference.
Would you like me to dig into my military history library and start posting M2 .30 caliber ball and M80 7.62 caliber ball failures to put the enemy down? I can document as many accounts of everything from the .75 caliber Brown Bess musket to M80 7.62 ball failing to put the enemy down as you can come up with verifiable incidents of 5.56mm failures.
When you can give a rational explanation as to how it is when an American Soldier takes multiple hits from the enemy's weapons and stays in the fight it's a Silver Star or MOH, but when an enemy soldier fails to drop immediately dead as if he was struck by a lightning bolt from heaven, something is wrong with our ammunition.
Well when I got hit, I didn’t get a Silver Star or MOH. In fact the only guys I knew that got a Navy cross, Silver Star, or MOH were all dead. Except for one officer flying a helicopter. He wasn’t hit by small arms fire. But in the Corps of my era, not many enlisted live to see more than a Bronze Star. Sure there were some, I just didn’t know them.
Maybe in your outfit getting wounded a lot got you medals. (besides the purple heart) Not in any outfit I was in or attached to.
One buddy of mine had 15, yes fifteen purple hearts. He only wore 12. He thought three of them were cheap shots. I guess you could call those other three of John Kerry quality wounds. My nick name for him was sieve. He used to volunteer for killer and snatch teams. NUTS! He had a Bronze Star. Some great stories though. I only had a couple of Purple Hearts, felt like a piker and non hacker next to him.
Now to the real issue. The military is still not satisfied with the ability of the M16/M4 to reliably down the enemy. I think the short barrel of the M4 exacerbates the bullet problem too. Less velocity means less energy and energy is the ability to do work. More is better. Apparently with the short barrel there just isn’t enough energy. Even before the wide spread issue of the M4, the 62gr bullet has been called into suspicion.
So far we have been having a reasonable discussion about something we disagree on. Please stop with the hyperbole. We all have stories of X magnum and the bad guy still walking. I have witnessed several cases of folks not going right down with hits from the 50cal BMG or Russian 12.7mm.
If you don’t understand the underlying issue, I don’t think you are being honest with me or this forum. Apparently the Army and Marine Corps disagree with you. They are looking for a better bullet too.
Since the situation with the 62 grain penetrator the stopping issue has risen it’s head several times. It was NOT a major issue with those of us that didn’t like the rifle or round when it was shooting the 55gr bullet. Inside of 100-150 yards it put the enemy down reliably. Since the adaptation of the 62 gr round, there have been multiple complaints in every fight of consequence the US military has been in.
This problem started AFTER the 62gr bullet was used in combat. Not before.
I had read/heard an unsubstantiated rumor that some Marine units prior to the invasion in 2003 were stocking up on all the old 55gr ammo they could find. Again that was an unconfirmed report. I was not able to get follow up on that. So take it for what it may be.
Current USGI magazines work just fine. I've fired 10s of thousands of rounds through them under every possible condition. Magazines are expendable items. When the feed lips get bent or they start giving you problems, if you DX it for a new one, you won't have any problems.
That is interesting. We never had enough magazines. It wasn’t the feed lips that required me to carry a pair of slip joint pliers. I often had to bend the magazine back to square so it could fit inside the magazine well. Now this was in combat, not at the range. I can honestly say, outside of combat I have never had a problem with the magazines. Only in combat.
Those magazines in combat had the crap beat out of them. They got banged on, sat on, some times hit by fire, slammed into weapons, thrown to another trooper short of ammo etc. But some would regularly be out of square. Used to regularly go through all 33 of my magazines to make them square. Some of them always needed tweaking. And in a fire fight it was exciting to discover that your new mag ain’t going in that nice rectangular mag well.
In my day, getting to the Armory could be as long as 77 days away. Makes trading in mags not an off hand or simple situation. We often would scrounge at the KIA/WIA barrels near any med unit we could get close to.
Again the Army and Marine Corps apparently thinks there is a problem too. They are talking about replacing the type presently issued.
The bolt is not weak. It's a mechanical part just like any other mechanical part. Bolts that are shot peened and magnetically particle inspected as called for in the milspec will last for their normal service life.
Actually it is. Here is a Quote from another fellow on this thread
Bartholomew states:
Interesting that Colt is proposing a new magazine and new barrel as improvements after these tests. One advantage of a new longer-life barrel is you could also use a new barrel extension that would allow you to redesign the bolt as well. Radius the lugs at the base and redesign the extractor and you could probably improve reliability substantially. Of course then the problem is you have two different lines of non-compatible parts that look very similar and can be easily mismatched.
I don't really see where giving the M4 a hammer-forged, longer-lasting barrel is going to be a big help when the bolt is still failing at about the same point the current barrel lasts. I guess a new bolt is cheaper than a new barrel; but other than that.
I don’t think Colt is proposing this new magazine, and bolt solution because there is no ’t problems with both. I am aware of problems with both the magazine as stated above and the Bolt too. I believe the bolt issue is exacerbated by the heat dumped in the action related to the Gas impingement system.
Frankly since Vietnam I didn't know there could possibley be a problem with the barrels too. News to me.
Did you know about that problem?
There is nothing wrong with the extractor. Like any other part of a machine it wears. Use the proper milspec springs and inserts and it works fine.
It was one of the earliest problems discovered on the rifle. It’s is an additional problem with the Bolt. We just will not go to the point were the Cam slot in the Bolt carrier cracks on some bolts.
Do you know of a heat less rifle? Every rifle produces heat and that heat causes parts to wear. Name one rifle that fires by way of combustion of a propellant that doesn't get hot, and I'll cede you the point. Otherwise you're just grasping at straws.
More hyperbole! Nope I don’t know any rifle that doesn’t produce heat. The key is to keep the heat away from the critical parts of the rifle. I know that MOST rifles succeed at doing this. The M16/M4/AR15/AR10 family does not. Doesn’t make as much difference in semi auto weapons. In full auto, it matters a lot. Because of the weak bolt and bolt carrier design, it means more than it would in most rifles, that protect their bolt and operating system. I believe that at times in the extremes that the metal loses/changes it's temper. And under stress while very hot either finds or creates stress the present design cannot handle.
So much for straws. RIGHT!
Probably one reason these problems have risen AGAIN, and some new ones are because the M4 is the full auto version with a short gas tube seeing a lot of heavy action for the first time. Again the Full Auto capability normally brings out the worst in most designs related to the very much increased heat and stress. In the AR/M16/M4 design that heat build up is on both sides of the bolt.
They have been. Again, when is your last experience with one? I was issued my first one in Dec of 74, turned in my last one in Nov 03 and carried one in my squad car since then. When did you say you served?
This seems real important to you. Okay.
I swerved in the Corps active duty from June 1966 to October 1977. Then USMCR for about 4 years. Some time off, with a real job. Then I was with the County Sheriff back home in Florida in the 90’s, and did a year and a half with Florida DOC. Didn’t care for the prison and had to leave for medical reasons anyhow. I was on the shooting team at the Prison though. Does that count in your world? Or am I just another fat old Bastard hanging out at the VA, to you now?
Just for the record. I don’t believe competition, hunting, recreational shooting has much of anything to do with deploying a weapon in combat.
You can't run the number of malfunctions v. the number of rounds fired and come up with any meaningful data. Information on what type of malfunctions occurred and when they occurred in the test was conveniently missing from the Army Times HK infomercial.
Yes I can. It is by no means definitive, or as you have stated a complete data set. But it is what it is. Because you don’t like the outcome doesn’t change it. We all need more data and information about all things all the time.
Don’t let your anger or dislike of HK alter your thinking. They may have done nothing wrong and I doubt that they are any more crooked than Colt. FN I simply have no opinion about. What it may be is that many folks ARE having problems with the M16/M4 system. I do know some are, and some numbers run as high as 19%.
Those are facts that we do know at this time. Accept them. You don’t have to like them. If you really want to save your beloved M4, get more facts and data, that support your position. Right now with what we do have, and what some of us DO KNOW, it appears shaky. In the end you may be right, but the present data, and much experience doesn't support that.
By the way you don’t have to try to convince me that HK is not the answer. I like some of the other existing rifles out there much better. But I think a whole new system and shoot off would be that best answer. I would rather see a platform and cartridge change. The NATO 5.56 with proper bullet is OKAY, but not great. If we are going to change rifles, let’s get a more effective cartridge. Which one, I don’t know would be better, the 6.8 or the 6.5 or some new cartridge not restricted to the limiting size of the existing Magwell. Not back to 7.62 either no matter how much I like it. It defeats the purpose and definition of the assault rifle, with a round that is to powerful. The only round I would consider in the 308 casing (the casing, which I think is to big for a modern assault rifle) would be the 243 winchester.
I believe there is a better round. None of them will be perfect. But designed to be effective in the short rifle, and to the range needed. I would offer 300 yards with reliable effectiveness, and accuracy. More would be nice, but these are only suggestions. Much smarter guys like you are sure to have all the answers.
Your experiences in the 1960s have nothing to do with todays weapons, or even the first M16A1 I was issued in 1974.
Jeff
You are wrong, my experience does have a lot to do with today’s weapons. Many of the failures that are being reported, and now empirically proved today, were failures we identified in the 60’s. That has been the reason I have stayed on this so much. If the issues with the rifle were substantially new or different, I would agree with you. They are not.
I have referred people to Col Culvers stories during this thread. Read them closely. He went places after the war, that allowed him to learn more about the rifles than most of us snuffy’s would ever find out. The Col and I didn’t know each other, but served in sister outfits next to each other. I went over as a Cpl,. The Col, then a Lt didn’t look me up.
AS to your M16A1, only you can tell that story. How did it handle in combat?
I have a dream. I dream that before I die, the US military infantry components will have a reliable, rifle shooting a reasonable cartridge that isn't an issue. Maybe the impossible dream, but it is mine. We don't have either right now.
Jeff Good luck to you, and stay safe out there. I am sure as a LEO you will not stress your rifle to the point that it will fail you and it will serve you well.
Go figure.
Fred
