The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Hazcat on October 11, 2009, 07:52:17 AM
-
Oct 11, 8:28 AM (ET)
By RICHARD LARDNER
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the chaos of an early morning assault on a remote U.S. outpost in eastern Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M4 carbine quit firing as militant forces surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle in the small village of Wanat ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military historian found that weapons failed repeatedly at a "critical moment" during the firefight on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles need too much maintenance and jam at the worst possible times.
A week ago, eight U.S. troops were killed at a base near Kamdesh, a town near Wanat. There's no immediate evidence of weapons failures at Kamdesh, but the circumstances were eerily similar to the Wanat battle: insurgents stormed an isolated stronghold manned by American forces stretched thin by the demands of war.
Army Col. Wayne Shanks, a military spokesman in Afghanistan, said a review of the battle at Kamdesh is under way. "It is too early to make any assumptions regarding what did or didn't work correctly," he said.
Complaints about the weapons the troops carry, especially the M4, aren't new. Army officials say that when properly cleaned and maintained, the M4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.
The M4 is a shorter, lighter version of the M16, which made its debut during the Vietnam war. Roughly 500,000 M4s are in service, making it the rifle troops on the front lines trust with their lives.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a leading critic of the M4, said Thursday the Army needs to move quickly to acquire a combat rifle suited for the extreme conditions U.S. troops are fighting in.
U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.
"The M4 has served us well but it's not as good as it needs to be," Coburn said.
Battlefield surveys show that nearly 90 percent of soldiers are satisfied with their M4s, according to Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of the Army office that buys soldier gear. Still, the rifle is continually being improved to make it even more reliable and lethal.
Fuller said he's received no official reports of flawed weapons performance at Wanat. "Until it showed up in the news, I was surprised to hear about all this," he said.
The study by Douglas Cubbison of the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., hasn't been publicly released. Copies of the study have been leaked to news organizations and are circulating on the Internet.
Cubbison's study is based on an earlier Army investigation and interviews with soldiers who survived the attack at Wanat. He describes a well-coordinated attack by a highly skilled enemy that unleashed a withering barrage with AK-47 automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades.
The soldiers said their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders. But still the weapons had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on full automatic, which allows hundreds of bullets to be fired a minute.
The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.
Cpl. Jonathan Ayers and Spc. Chris McKaig were firing their M4s from a position the soldiers called the "Crow's Nest." The pair would pop up together from cover, fire half a dozen rounds and then drop back down.
On one of these trips up, Ayers was killed instantly by an enemy round. McKaig soon had problems with his M4, which carries a 30-round magazine.
"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."
The soldiers also had trouble with their M249 machine guns, a larger weapon than the M4 that can shoot up to 750 rounds per minute.
Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed the weapon.
Bogar was killed during the firefight, but no one saw how he died, according to the report.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091011/D9B8SUPO0.html
-
I saw this as well, I noted that failures happened after long periods of full auto fire.
FTA:
The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot.
"My weapon was overheating," McKaig said, according to Cubbison's report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot,
Cpl. Jason Bogar fired approximately 600 rounds from his M-249 before the weapon overheated and jammed
It sounds like the problem is a lack of fire discipline among the troops, not a problem with the weapons.
-
Tom,
ASSUMING McKaig is correct about the number of mags and the time frame it works out to 12 rounds per minute ( i figured it using 30 round mags).
Also, do you think an AK could fire 12 30 round mags without jamming due to heat?
-
Tom,
ASSUMING McKaig is correct about the number of mags and the time frame it works out to 12 rounds per minute ( i figured it using 30 round mags).
Also, do you think an AK could fire 12 30 round mags without jamming due to heat?
He said 12 mags in about 30 minutes = 12 rounds per minute
Cyclic rate for an M 16 is about 15 RPM
It sounds like they were slapping in a mag, holding the trigger down till it went click then repeating, an AK MIGHT stand up to that due to the loose tolerances. Look at it this way, start your car, leave it in Park, put your foot to the floor, how long will the engine last ?
This is why machine gunners USED to be taught to use SHORT bursts . In the "Spray and Pray thread you yourself pointed out what an ineffective waste of bullets this was.
-
He said 12 mags in about 30 minutes = 12 rounds per minute
Cyclic rate for an M 16 is about 15 RPM
It sounds like they were slapping in a mag, holding the trigger down till it went click then repeating, an AK MIGHT stand up to that due to the loose tolerances. Look at it this way, start your car, leave it in Park, put your foot to the floor, how long will the engine last ?
This is why machine gunners USED to be taught to use SHORT bursts . In the "Spray and Pray thread you yourself pointed out what an ineffective waste of bullets this was.
WHAT? The cyclic rate of fire for the m4 (and m16) is around 600 rounds per minute.
-
Same tired argument comes up every time there is a major fight. Been going on since Viet Nam.
The AR is probably the most studied and modified individual weapon ever fielded by any army. 90% of the troops say they have no complaints about the AR's.
But like everything else the AR has it's detractors, and they get press when they complain.
Of course the AK never jams (Their owners seem to die in greater numbers in every fight however).
-
I will not second guess men in the heat of battle. Perhaps they did not use proper fire control but they were receiving very intense fire from an enemy which numbered over 100.
All weapons will eventually fail. They are after all only machines.
Even the M-1 Garand has it limits:
He fought gallantly on the Villa Verde Trail, Luzon, Philippine Islands. With 2 companions he occupied a position on a ridge outside the perimeter defense established by the 1st Platoon on a high hill. At about 3 a.m., 2 companies of Japanese attacked with rifle and machinegun fire, grenades, TNT charges, and land mines, severely wounding Pfc. Atkins and killing his 2 companions. Despite the intense hostile fire and pain from his deep wound, he held his ground and returned heavy fire. After the attack was repulsed, he remained in his precarious position to repel any subsequent assaults instead of returning to the American lines for medical treatment. An enemy machinegun, set up within 20 yards of his foxhole, vainly attempted to drive him off or silence his gun. The Japanese repeatedly made fierce attacks, but for 4 hours, Pfc. Atkins determinedly remained in his fox hole, bearing the brunt of each assault and maintaining steady and accurate fire until each charge was repulsed. At 7 a.m., 13 enemy dead lay in front of his position; he had fired 400 rounds, all he and his 2 dead companions possessed, and had used 3 rifles until each had jammed too badly for further operation. He withdrew during a lull to secure a rifle and more ammunition, and was persuaded to remain for medical treatment. While waiting, he saw a Japanese within the perimeter and, seizing a nearby rifle, killed him. A few minutes later, while lying on a litter, he discovered an enemy group moving up behind the platoon's lines. Despite his severe wound, he sat up, delivered heavy rifle fire against the group and forced them to withdraw. Pfc. Atkins' superb bravery and his fearless determination to hold his post against the main force of repeated enemy attacks, even though painfully wounded, were major factors in enabling his comrades to maintain their lines against a numerically superior enemy force.
God bless all the brave young men who serve and protect us.
-
All weapons will eventually fail. They are after all only machines.
God bless all the brave young men who serve and protect us.
+1
12 mags in a half hour is a lot. Maybe a gas piston system could have helped, couldn't even charge it because of the heat. After 12 mags on a piston system it'd be hot but perhaps still manageable? May not solve all the problems of the AR, but after you listen to most it seems like the best fix.
-
I was taught that Cyclic rate for the M 16 A1 was 650 RPM
Wikipedia has it listed as 750 - 900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle
The number of attackers is irrelevant, Despite it's full auto capability, an M16/M4 is NOT a "machine gun". While it is capable of full auto bursts it is not designed for the sustained fire role, attempting to use it in that manner only wastes ammo and ruins weapons.
The WWI machine guns that WERE designed for sustained fire were slower (550 - 600 RPM ) were water cooled, and still needed a replacement barrel on hand.
That one individual fired 360 rounds in 30 minutes, how many hits did he get ?
Fast misses don't win fights.
-
Why I don't claim to be a expert when it comes to the M4, but, if the gun is so hot you can't touch it... chances are its not going to work, no matter what it is. Lets not forget this was not a guy at the range, that could not touch it, but a guy in combat.
-
I see this as a training failure being blamed on equipment.
-
I see it as poor equipment that has been attempting to be fixed by training for the last 40 years.
-
M60 E4?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zq16pZn5E
1 trigger pull. 8 belts. No stopping..
Maybe it would have helped.
-
M60 E4?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zq16pZn5E
1 trigger pull. 8 belts. No stopping..
Maybe it would have helped.
The gun the M 60 replaced was even better, the .30 Browning 1919
.I see it as poor equipment that has been attempting to be fixed by training for the last 40 years.
While I'm not real impressed with .223/5.56 for Deer sized game, I don't really have any gripes about the AR it's self.
-
If you can't get it done with an M16/M4 and an M9, I doubt any other rifle/pistol combo you could come up with would make a difference.
This sounds like a rag piece by an admitted M4 detractor. There are too many other variables that are unknown. It could have been a break down of training, poor weapon maintenance, poor defensive perimeter strategy, not enough troops to get the job done in the first place, etc. etc..
Sometimes good guys get killed in combat. Unfortunately, that is the nature a war. You can't go blaming every death on equipment.
-
Has anyone taken the time to see how badly worn those M4's were. They shoot the shit out of them in practice and in battle, they have to be checked fo wear like any machine. The argument over M4's being used a machineguns is correct. They are not meant to to be fired in such a manner. I know the AK wont fail if used that way but once they're hot they wont hit shit passed 50yards. I had an old Mak90 and i shot the hell out of it one day at the range and noticed it started to hit everything but the target.
-
It sems to me the question is how to fix it. If we can put a man on the moon we should be able to do this. Start with say a seven pound max, three round burst, AK reliabilty, 2.5 MOA at three hundered yards with 7.62x51 or 39 ummph. Shouldn't we be able to do this and for a lot cheaper than the new Buck Rodgers jet?
FQ13
-
Most soldiers should be issued M16s instead of M4s. They don't seem to have this problem. If they had M4A1s with full auto instead of 3-round burst that would make it worse.
-
I'm just wondering...
every one always talks about aks realiabilty, but has anyone ever actually tested them? ( you know like the dust test that was done with ARs not long ago, (failure rates were less then 1 per thousand rounds)
I mean a true apples to apples test...
-
I see it as poor equipment that has been attempting to be fixed by training for the last 40 years.
+8,7440,000!
(Total number of US troops in Vietnam)
THE MCNAMARA CURSE! It's easy to blame the troops when they can't defend themselves as a whole, it only takes one rep. from the weapon manufacture to point the finger and suddenly it's all the troops fault. I have yet to see an AK that wouldn't fire until you lit the hand guard on fire! And then it'd keep firing! See Youtube for all the video's you care to ever watch of it. What about the M14? I've never heard a troop with a single complaint other than "it's heavy"... OK :-\, we can fix that! Even cut back on it being to long if you dont like that.
IF troops are using full auto fire it's because they've learned that 5.56 is NOT a man stopper! And they need 5 or 6 rounds in a guy to stop his assult on them. Put yourself in close quarters (inner city) combat against (4) AK toteing rag heads, with a gun that you've seen wont put down a guy unless he's got several rounds in him. Are you using full auto? Duh.
I hate to do it, but will agree the M4 is part of the problem. The 5.56 was sold to the military based on the fact that the bullets would "tumble" and do equal damage or more than bigger "stable" calibers. Problem is all the "bullet tumbleing" crap I've ever seen in the military was based on ballistics from a 20" barrel, at very specific ranges. The bullet has to be going just the right speed for their stupid little hypothetical situation to work! ::) "Golly Mr. Rag Head could you please back off about 150 feet more so I have a fair chance?" ::)
Don't blame the troops. As "free" citizens the troops are OUR customers!!! The customer is ALWAYS RIGHT! A dead customer is not a good customer. If they said they needed Red Rider BB guns to do the job right. WHAT ARGUEMENT DO YOU HAVE?!?!?!!!!!! YOUR NOT THERE! YOUR LIFE ISN'T ON THE LINE!!!
Having fired several MILITARY AR's (we're not talking about your $2,000 specially tuned Rock River here!), I have YET to fire one that didnt jam on me! Blame me ::), I did everything I was trained, just like the rest of your customers, I was just lucky enough to not die as a result of this POS of a weapon!
-
you mean this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
yeah, thats tactical... look at how controlable it is... oh wait, he could hit a damn thing.
-
you mean this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAohtjG14c
yeah, thats tactical... look at how controlable it is... oh wait, he could hit a damn thing.
Not to bright are you... DID IT JAM? THAT is my point about the AK. I'm sure you've waisted money on an AR, and will defend them to your dieing day because of it. ::)
YOU'VE been in combat with an AR? You have no right to run your mouth defending them if not.
-
will it shoot again?
its very easy for a machinery to keep functioning when they are hot, not so much after they cool down.
does not matter if its a gun or a motor. as long as they are hot they are fine, its when they cool down that things tend to brake.
-
Hey BM.....
You want to ask TAB if he has ever been in combat with an AR?
Have YOU ever been in comabat with an AK? No? Then STFU.
Sorry, You go Rambo!
I'm also willing to bet a Boyscout with an Ar would be better than you with an AK.
Wait, I know mechanics are highly trained and skilled combat troops. Pogue.
-
I have never been in a high volume firefight so take this for what its worth.
I have had a few mad minutes where you dump 2-4 magazines as fast as possible. A properly lubed M-4 will be hot but will function.
I did take a training course where you WERE NOT allowed to clean you rifle, only add lubricant. Rate of fire was sustained, 600 rounds in 7 hours. I had no problems the first day but day 2 the chamber would gum up so bad the round would not eject. It got bad enough that in some cases I need to take out a leatherman tool and pry out the spent case.
This continued untlil I had enough of stoppage practice that I stuck a gloved finger in the chamber and wiped out the gunk in the chamber. The rifle ran fine for the rest of the day. The ammo was M855. Total rounds count was 1600+
I would believe the problem is fouling the chamber and not the heat. Every M4 or M16 had the same issue.
I have seen several of AK that would not fire more than one or two rounds with out stopping. Typically this was because they were without any lubrication and not cleaned. An AK is a very robust platform but it does still need some care and feeding.
-
As a matter of fact BM, I most certainly WOULD NOT be using full auto because in the situation you describe every round MUST be on target, there is not enough time or space to waste on hosing the neighbor hood and changing mags. I MIGHT use 3 round burst.
Hey BM.....
You want to ask TAB if he has ever been in combat with an AR?
Have YOU ever been in comabat with an AK? No? Then STFU.
Sorry, You go Rambo!
I'm also willing to bet a Boyscout with an Ar would be better than you with an AK.
Wait, I know mechanics are highly trained and skilled combat troops. Pogue.
Hey Junkie, Where did you come up with "Pogue" I thought on Marines used that one. I thought everyone else called them "REMF's".
-
Hey BM.....
You want to ask TAB if he has ever been in combat with an AR?
Have YOU ever been in comabat with an AK? No? Then STFU.
I could ask you the same qs.
-
I could ask you the same qs.
I have never been in combat nor have I ever claimed to.
Hey Junkie, Where did you come up with "Pogue" I thought on Marines used that one. I thought everyone else called them "REMF's".
My brother was 10th Mountain. They used it all the time.
-
Then take your own advice.
I know from both my training as a engineer and personal exp, that machinery will keep functioning if hot, but will fail after it cools down.
-
Then take your own advice.
I know from both my training as a engineer and personal exp, that machinery will keep functioning if hot, but will fail after it cools down.
Ugh, TAB, In the first post I was Talking to BM, not you. Now have your surgeon wife remove the stick from your ass.
(unless you like it there, of course)
-
I carried an AR for three months in the sand hole, trained with different ones 6 times (each FTF several times), and THANK GOD IN HEAVEN, NEVER had to use the turd to save my life!!! Carried an AK in combat? Oh, if you only knew how bad I would have liked to (in place of McNamara's curse).
My point is what POSSIBLE right does any of you have to blame our troops when YOU aren't there?!? If ANY troop says he needs a different tool to save YOUR life and freedom what kind of half wit is going to tell him. "Nope, your just to dumb to baby the piece of $H#@ we gave you." ::)
So worried about bruising your own pride because you over paid for a poser POS that you'd have our troops loosing their lives to keep you from embarasment... ::)
Between political payoff's and attitudes like this, little wonder Afganistan will be our third loss in a row, and UK newspapers talk about how the US continually makes fools of themselves in the world theater.
Not to worry, the military still has plenty of men to give their lives for you. On your marry way.
-
Another BM knows it all post, He finds it ridiculously easy to overlook the fact that "knower of all things, the great and infallible " BadgersMilk wasn't there either. ::)
You carried an M16 for 3 whole months WOWWIE ! :o Try 3 years. And you even TRAINED with it 6 times, GOLLY GOSH ! :o
Try training others, every month for another 3 years.
You ask " what POSSIBLE right does any of you have to blame our troops when YOU aren't there?!? '
How about experience with both Marine Corps Marksmanship training, and Army "weapons familiarization" training.
-
Really just to slow to get it huh?
It has nothing to do with me ::). It has to do with ANYONE telling the guys doing the fighting that they can't have the right tools to do it with...
Soooo, when your wrong, best thing to do is try to spin things and change the subject? That's what's going on? I refuse to believe anyone is just this hammer headed. :-\
So fine... "Clearly the AR is the finest machine God has ever graced the earth with! We are lucky to die at the hands of it's malfunctions and short comings! Thank goodness so many of us have wasted spent thousands of dollars buying these wonderfull, wonderfull, pieces of... Art!" :)
Brain washing complete: HEIL THE AR!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Hitler_1928_crop.jpg/505px-Hitler_1928_crop.jpg)
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTb_3TrdNKBisBBhmjzbkF/SIG=12ias8a1o/EXP=1255472979/**http%3A//img101.imageshack.us/img101/7695/hellokittym1602hr6.jpg)
I'm now off to write: "I will follow the herd, no matter how mindless and misled they may be." 1,000 times.
-
Another factless tirade from the BM.
Ho Hum.
Are you SURE your not a liberal ? ::)
-
A two hour fight by a platoon-sized element?
Where was the air and arty support and where was the reaction force?
Who left those guys out there to swing in the breeze?
That's the question that needs answering, not "why aren't we issuing impossible fantasy guns".
-
From John Farnam DTI Quips:
11 Oct 09
The problem that won't go away!
Despite the Pentagon's, and the Administration's, best efforts to quash it, news leaked from Afghanistan yesterday about issue-M4s failing their users. These unhappy first-hand reports see the light of day every so often, only to be promptly denied, dismissed, and quickly buried by a gaggle of star-wearers and politicians alike. From wherever they started their career, star-wearers of today teethed on the M16 and its succeeding variants (like the current M4). Most have never known another rifle, nor another cartridge.
The autochthonous inadequacy of the 5.56X45 (223) round, in its current role at a main-battle cartridge, has been well known, and generally acknowledged, for over forty years. Every conceivable attempt has been made to "upgrade" this cartridge. None have been successful enough to justify retaining it. Yes, it is still with us.
The maintenance-sensitive Stoner System is light, but that attribute is one of the few to recommend it. Gas-piston systems, as embodied in the SIG/556, XCR, and others, albeit heavier, have demonstrated themselves to be significantly superior in terms of both reliability and durability.
Unfortunately, adopting a new rifle, chambered for the same, tired 223 round, only solves half the problem. We must have a new cartridge, with range and penetration worthy of a main-battle weapon, combined with a new, gas-piston rifle.
The worn-out argument of "re-training" on a new rifle doesn't stand up. During the M16's tenure, we've gone through several generations of vehicles, anti-tank weapons, pistols, field-rations, and a host of other personal gear. And yet, acquiring the next generation of main-battle rifles has somehow become an interminable, impenetrable barrier!
For the cost of a single F22, we could re-arm, and re-train, the entire Corps of Infantry!
Maybe this time?
/John
-
Git'em Tom! Clearly a non-conformist!!! :o
Anybody notice we've lost every military conflict since the AR was introduced? I know, I know, ::) Just saying! ;D
Pretty sweet track record for down the road "best and worst weapons ever" type reviews. ;D ;D ;D
-
I talked to my son who returned from Iraq about 6 weeks ago. He carried a Colt m-4 so I asked him why he thought the M-249 and the M-4s failed. He believed that probably the men in the platoon had not been doing their weapons upkeep adequately.
The fine dust impregnates everything. If the weapon is not correctly cleaned, daily, the system will gum up and fail. He said the no M-4 should fail after 12 magazines fired in a 30 minute time period. That is only 12 rounds per minute.
A second reason he believe the weapons may have failed was damaged magazines. Many of the magazines he used were in very poor shape.
-
FWIW has anyone reviewed the ARES Shrike?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiVoEL5Z4Go&NR=1
The Ares Defense Shrike 5.56 is an air cooled, dual-feed weapon that fires the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. The Shrike 5.56 can be supplied as a complete weapon.
The music is the new S*** , will it make a difference???
-
Linky to the report on the fight:
http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/battle-of-wanat-historical-analysis-rough-draft-release/ (http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/battle-of-wanat-historical-analysis-rough-draft-release/)
-
FWIW has anyone reviewed the ARES Shrike?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiVoEL5Z4Go&NR=1
The Ares Defense Shrike 5.56 is an air cooled, dual-feed weapon that fires the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. The Shrike 5.56 can be supplied as a complete weapon.
The music is the new S*** , will it make a difference???
I wonder if they are trying to advertise to the Marines for their IAR program, while they have already given contracts to FNH, Colt and HK for trial prototypes I guess its never really too late to leave an impression.
On a side note, I swear I think I've heard that song more in the past few months than I have since (looks through CD collection)......2003. ::)
-
I talked to my son who returned from Iraq about 6 weeks ago. He carried a Colt m-4 so I asked him why he thought the M-249 and the M-4s failed. He believed that probably the men in the platoon had not been doing their weapons upkeep adequately.
The fine dust impregnates everything. If the weapon is not correctly cleaned, daily, the system will gum up and fail. He said the no M-4 should fail after 12 magazines fired in a 30 minute time period. That is only 12 rounds per minute.
A second reason he believe the weapons may have failed was damaged magazines. Many of the magazines he used were in very poor shape.
This poster has a good suggestion.
I don't see war time conditions but I do have customers that go through cases of ammo as fast as they can. When I see problems it's magazines, magazines and magazines.
-
I guess this is my bottom line feeling on the issue. Its time to design a new rifle from the ground up. Screw improving existing platforms and adapting this and that. Screw searching for the perfect caliber for the same platform. Put a bunch of smart guys in a room. Grunts, gunsmiths, science guys. Give them three parameters.
1 realiabilty under extreme conditions with minimumal maintainence and maximum simplicity (Glock being the model here)
2 adequate knokdown power and still relatively light weight
3 +/- 3 moa at 300 yards.
Then give them a blank sheet of paper and as much money as they need, and a mandate to come up with something new. Thats the way we did it in WWII. The Pentegon foots the bill, directly or indirectly, says here's what we need, impress us. There is no reason to use an almost fifty year old rifle as our MBR. Come up with a new concept. We have done this before, and its a lot cheaper and more useful than the new air superiorty fighter jet (Which we will fly against who? When?).
FQ13
-
I guess this is my bottom line feeling on the issue. Its time to design a new rifle from the ground up. Screw improving existing platforms and adapting this and that. Screw searching for the perfect caliber for the same platform. Put a bunch of smart guys in a room. Grunts, gunsmiths, science guys. Give them three parameters.
1 realiabilty under extreme conditions with minimumal maintainence and maximum simplicity (Glock being the model here)
2 adequate knokdown power and still relatively light weight
3 +/- 3 moa at 300 yards.
Then give them a blank sheet of paper and as much money as they need, and a mandate to come up with something new. Thats the way we did it in WWII. The Pentegon foots the bill, directly or indirectly, says here's what we need, impress us. There is no reason to use an almost fifty year old rifle as our MBR. Come up with a new concept. We have done this before, and its a lot cheaper and more useful than the new air superiorty fighter jet (Which we will fly against who? When?).
FQ13
Due to my extensive military resume I was only going to read this thread and not comment. For the same reason I will not state my full thoughts on this event. However, in response to Mr. FQ's idea of how to develop something new I refer you to Mr. Bane's opening comments on Shooting Gallery last night: The finest and best weapons were not developed by committee. They were developed by single individuals. He referred to many fine guns of history, and then they began the report from Barrett.
How many here remember the pictures that used to circulate, I mean back in the 60"s and 70's prior to internet of a cow, a car or a anything designed by a committee and how screwed up it was? How many of you have experienced the saying "death by committee?"
Let our free enterprise system work, and we will have fine weapons like the 1911, the Garand and the Barrett! Turn it into a government run committee and you will see a public circle jerk and a weapon that make AR haters scream for the return of the AR.
-
Talk like that will surely lead to the apointment of a "Defense Czar" of some sort in bama's efforts to destroy all free thinking and enterprise. :(