Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   US Army discovering that it's M-4 rifles are no match for the Taliban's more primitive, but longer range, weapons; a discovery previously made by the Soviets in the 1980's and the British in the 1830's   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 467
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

26349 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 May 2010 at 1:08 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



467 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-05-21 03:30:05 PM  
doglover: I've always wondered how we could kill thousands of enemies over most of a decade and only lose 1000 of our own guys and somehow WE are at a disadvantage.

Simple...you spend trillions of dollars on doing it. When you have a whole platoon pinned down by a guy with a rifle you don't try and shoot back you call in Apache gunships to deal with it.
 
2010-05-21 03:30:06 PM  
Here's an obscure one:
www.gun-world.net
www.flv.dk

The Barrett 50-cal M82A2, 1987.
Note there are two different configs here: the upper shows an over-the-shoulder with the mag and shoulder pad integrated, for use while moving. Or, I guess, a sitting position. The lower is more conventional, and while less front-heavy than an M82A1, it'd still generally require bipod support from a fixed object.

Not sure why this didn't catch on. Well, the Barrett 50-cal is not a high rate of fire weapon, it relies on accurately placed rounds. So walking around like it's an assault rifle will discard its long-range accuracy, so you've just got an absurdly low-rate-of-fire carbine with absurdly high penetration. Which doesn't fit the bill.

But it's still AWESOME, in the way that Schwarzenegger carrying around a minigun is awesome.

The bipod config, now that's interesting. I couldn't go much through the subtle pros and cons of the bullpup, but I gotta note it's probably mostly the same weight, just shorter. And it won't accommodate left-handed shooters, they'd get blinded by a blast of hot gas and brass in the face. The hot brass might land on your arm. Actually, this means the spotter can't be on the right either. Not unless it was taken out of semi-auto and the bolt were manually operated so it wouldn't open the breech immediately after firing. That's probably what killed it.
 
2010-05-21 03:30:07 PM  
Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 are more than sufficient for executing women and children at point-blank range. The 7.62 has the additional benefit of being able to pass right through their frail bodies. This obviates the need to manually extract bullet fragments from their corpses as part of the subsequent cover-up.
 
2010-05-21 03:31:30 PM  
Merkin For The Weekend: Merkin Muffley: I always wonder what would have happened in the middle east if England hadn't continually screwed itself, such as posting Elphinstone to Kabul, and the awful handling of the events prior to the Indian Mutiny.

I approve of your handle.


--

Ditto.
 
2010-05-21 03:31:35 PM  
Arkanaut: I don't think the British had M-4's in the 1830's.

Pretty sure they had these:
home.vicnet.net.au


/ four rounds per minute if you are really good at reloading...
 
2010-05-21 03:32:54 PM  
FTA:The heavier bullets enable Taliban militants to shoot at U.S. and NATO soldiers from positions well beyond the effective range of the coalition's rifles.

Hrmph, the SA-80 has an effective range of 650m with the SUSAT, and it fires 5.56mm NATO, so don't lump us in with the rest of the coalition.
 
2010-05-21 03:32:55 PM  
dittybopper: Errrm, if they are that accurate, why is this diagnostic target funny?

[Link][i45.tinypic.com image 640x404]


Can't see tinypic.com (imgur.com is about the only hosting service I get at work) but every Mini-14 I've shot has been pretty good out to 300+ yards. It's not going to shoot match-quality, but when you're getting a weapon less than half the cost of an AR-15 and asking for a 'first gun', I think you could do much worse.
 
2010-05-21 03:33:20 PM  
geniusiknowit: Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 are more than sufficient for executing women and children at point-blank range. The 7.62 has the additional benefit of being able to pass right through their frail bodies. This obviates the need to manually extract bullet fragments from their corpses as part of the subsequent cover-up.

I find your lack of effort disturbing.
0/10
 
2010-05-21 03:33:20 PM  
HK makes a 7.62 NATO that it designates as the HK91. You can buy preban full auto selectors for them and they've had a good rep for a number of years or rather decades now. Why not go that route for half the platoon and half with M16. I have a Ruger Mini-14 in the 5.56 and it performs very well with the longer, legal barrel.
 
2010-05-21 03:33:29 PM  
no talent ass clown: The M4 is fine. Anyone who say's otherwise is probably getting a reach-around from weapons manufacturers trying to score a big gov't contract.

7.62 and 6.8 are great for sniper rifles but the embiggened recoil hurts follow up shots.

The only change the M4 needs (IMO) would be to use a gas-piston system instead of DGI and get better magazine followers.

The "killing power" of the 5.56 is more than adequate - the problem lies in the bullet itself. The Army (and I assume everyone else) is using bullets designed to penetrate body armor. As a result, they over penetrate like a sonovabiatch and create a very small wound channel. 77 gr BTHP (Mk 262) for the win.


Hmmm, you say that M4 is just fine. The Army says that it is NOT just fine for Afghanistan. I think I will trust the military on this one.
 
2010-05-21 03:34:33 PM  
madgonad: dittybopper: It's not the length of the gun that's the problem, it's the caliber.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Moving to the shorter barrel drops the projectile velocity by between 500-800fps on the .223 round. That drop in speed effectively shortens the range of the rifle versus an 18/20" version by nearly half. Not only does the range suffer, but accuracy in general drops. The bullet spread on my M4 firing LC ammo at 100 meters is about 4-5" from a bench. My 20" AR15 can put them in a group under 2" from the same distance and using the same ammo.

Reissuing M16A4s will double their range.


HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Dude, I've owned a bunch of different military style guns in my day, been in the US Army, and I've even written my own ballistics software (used it to pick what caliber longrifle I wanted when I was buying the pieces parts). I'm pretty sure I have at least an inkling of the issues.

Even going back to the M-16Awhatever isn't going to help much. We are talking about engagement ranges that can get up to 500 yards or more*. I'm sorry, but even the newest 5.56mm bullets just don't retain velocity as good as something just a bit bigger.

A somewhat larger diameter VLD bullet would do nicely.

*Not that the Taliban can hit anything that far away.
 
2010-05-21 03:34:53 PM  
knightofargh: dittybopper: Errrm, if they are that accurate, why is this diagnostic target funny?

snerk

I'll have to check out that M-94. What is it chambered in usually?

You are a wealth of knowledge regarding old school firearms.


The chambering depends on the maker. the classic lever action caliber is 30-30, which is a perfectly good round. also 38 sp, .357, .44mag, .45., up to the old 45-70 (speaking of old school, I have the original single shot rifle that fired this cartridge, the U.S. army rifle of 1872). If you want light recoil, 38 special is good, 45-70 is a beast.
 
2010-05-21 03:36:14 PM  
zato_ichi: Cool, gun thread.

I was wondering if any of you farkers could recommend a good entry level semi-auto or bolt action rifle for a left-handed shooter? It would be mainly for target practice, possibly deer hunting. I haven't shot a gun since Boy Scouts, but I got a friend who's trying to pull me in with him.


Black powder, baby! If you need more than one shot to take down your game then you are doing it wrong!

:-D
 
2010-05-21 03:38:57 PM  
Harold_of_the_Rocks: The EM-2



From left to right: 6mm SAW, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7mm Bench Rest, .280/30 British, 7mm-08, 7mm Second Optimum (Liviano), .276 Pedersen, .308x1.75", 7.62x51 NATO.


That....looks one hell of a lot like an L85.

Ah, the L85A2....I love that gun.
 
2010-05-21 03:39:15 PM  
The_Sponge: OregonVet: LOL. Why don't you put on a uniform and walk across a state university campus near you today and find out if that still happens.


I fail to see how that would prove or disprove whether or not some Vietnam veterams were spit on when they came back home.


Shrug. I got emailed death threats and "I hope you get killed over there!" by the fans of a certain conservative milblogger/Fox News correspondent.

I didn't assume all neo-cons were assholes. Well, to that degree.
 
2010-05-21 03:39:43 PM  
i999.photobucket.com
AR-10. PROBLEM SOLVED
 
2010-05-21 03:40:00 PM  
geniusiknowit: Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 are more than sufficient for executing women and children at point-blank range. The 7.62 has the additional benefit of being able to pass right through their frail bodies. This obviates the need to manually extract bullet fragments from their corpses as part of the subsequent cover-up.

Quite correct. Liberals prefer to use a pistol to the back of the head. Ref. Katyn. Isn;'t always the way that the stupid slavs messed up a perfectly good Political Ideal? That's Ok. We'll do it better, this time. Right, Barak?
 
2010-05-21 03:42:19 PM  
DJ_Swammi: buffalosoldier: XM-8

The project was put on hold in 2005, and was formally canceled in 2005. So says Wiki.


NNOOOO!O!!!
 
2010-05-21 03:43:02 PM  
knightofargh: dittybopper: Errrm, if they are that accurate, why is this diagnostic target funny?

snerk

I'll have to check out that M-94. What is it chambered in usually?

You are a wealth of knowledge regarding old school firearms.


The most common caliber was .30-30 Winchester, also known as .30 WCF. They were also made in .38 Special/.357 Magnum and in .44 Special/.44 Magnum. I believe those were the most common calibers.

Mossberg appears to make a lever action, the Model 464, that looks like it *MIGHT* be a top eject, but I just learned of it a minute ago, so I can't comment one way or the other. Pretty gun, though.
 
2010-05-21 03:43:46 PM  
Sgt Otter: Shrug. I got emailed death threats and "I hope you get killed over there!" by the fans of a certain conservative milblogger/Fox News correspondent.


WTF?! Whose fans?
 
2010-05-21 03:43:52 PM  
Mock26: no talent ass clown: The M4 is fine. Anyone who say's otherwise is probably getting a reach-around from weapons manufacturers trying to score a big gov't contract.

7.62 and 6.8 are great for sniper rifles but the embiggened recoil hurts follow up shots.

The only change the M4 needs (IMO) would be to use a gas-piston system instead of DGI and get better magazine followers.

The "killing power" of the 5.56 is more than adequate - the problem lies in the bullet itself. The Army (and I assume everyone else) is using bullets designed to penetrate body armor. As a result, they over penetrate like a sonovabiatch and create a very small wound channel. 77 gr BTHP (Mk 262) for the win.

Hmmm, you say that M4 is just fine. The Army says that it is NOT just fine for Afghanistan. I think I will trust the military on this one.


Again, the problem isn't the rifle - it's the shiatty bullet that was designed to punch through Rooskie body armor. The M4 is a great rifle. The only major improvement it needed is to replace the direct gas impingement system with a piston system and use barrels with something like a 1:7 twist so it can handle both the shiatty green tip AND heavier BTHP bullets.

The biggest (function) problem I've seen with M4's isn't from the rifle itself, but the shiatty magazine followers in the issue magazines. Just a guess, but I'd say that switching to an anti-tilt follower would eliminate 70% of malfunctions. Oh, and lay off the CLP.

Just my 2 cents.
 
2010-05-21 03:44:00 PM  
Mock26: no talent ass clown: The M4 is fine. Anyone who say's otherwise is probably getting a reach-around from weapons manufacturers trying to score a big gov't contract.

7.62 and 6.8 are great for sniper rifles but the embiggened recoil hurts follow up shots.

The only change the M4 needs (IMO) would be to use a gas-piston system instead of DGI and get better magazine followers.

The "killing power" of the 5.56 is more than adequate - the problem lies in the bullet itself. The Army (and I assume everyone else) is using bullets designed to penetrate body armor. As a result, they over penetrate like a sonovabiatch and create a very small wound channel. 77 gr BTHP (Mk 262) for the win.

Hmmm, you say that M4 is just fine. The Army says that it is NOT just fine for Afghanistan. I think I will trust the military on this one.


Having read most of the thread, I think that what notalent is saying is that the "for Afghanistan' is the important part. The M4 is just fine for normal use, but not for fighting random hidden insurgents way up in the mountains without support.

/At least that's the impression I got from TFA and this thread.
 
2010-05-21 03:44:06 PM  
The Taliban are using aim-bots. Cheaters...
 
2010-05-21 03:44:41 PM  
D.Slinger: vossiewulf: This just in- carbines and full assault rifles are different things and aren't equally capable in all environments.

Assault is a behavior, not a rifle. Please don't feed the media.


You are right. Assault is a behavior, not a rifle. They are two completely different words.

However, when you combine the two words the result is Assault Rifle, which IS an actual classification of certain types of weapons.

What the media has done is to incorrectly label some firearms as being assault rifles, when they clearly are not. By definition an assault rifle as the following characteristics (which are based on the WWII German Sturmgewehr 44):

1. Detachable magazine.
2. Personal weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder (must have a buttstock).
3. Mid-power cartridge that is more powerful than a pistol but less powerful than a battle rifle.
4. More than one fire mode (also known as selective fire).

Please do not further the ignorance with incorrect statements.
 
2010-05-21 03:47:14 PM  
Animatronik: knightofargh: dittybopper: Errrm, if they are that accurate, why is this diagnostic target funny?

snerk

I'll have to check out that M-94. What is it chambered in usually?

You are a wealth of knowledge regarding old school firearms.

The chambering depends on the maker. the classic lever action caliber is 30-30, which is a perfectly good round. also 38 sp, .357, .44mag, .45., up to the old 45-70 (speaking of old school, I have the original single shot rifle that fired this cartridge, the U.S. army rifle of 1872). If you want light recoil, 38 special is good, 45-70 is a beast.


Marlin makes an excellent and handy little .45-70 lever action called the 'Guide Gun'. It's a thumper, but it will knock down pretty much anything in North America.

Only drawback in this case: It's a right-hand eject so it'll likely put hot brass right up the nose of a lefty.


One other consideration: An AR-style rifle with a brass deflector.

ARs really are the Swiss Army knife of guns these days.
 
2010-05-21 03:47:54 PM  
The_Sponge: Sgt Otter: Shrug. I got emailed death threats and "I hope you get killed over there!" by the fans of a certain conservative milblogger/Fox News correspondent.


WTF?! Whose fans?


Said certain correspondent has built a name for himself on a grossly exaggerated Army career, despite never been deployed to a combat zone, or being on a Special Forces ODA team, despite his chyron listing him as "FORMER ARMY SPECIAL FORCES." I'm sure some of you can put two and two together.

He got embedded with our unit when I was in Iraq. One of his fanboys submitted one of his dispatches to Fark regarding our unit, which was so ridiculously inaccurate, it was a joke.

I posted to clarify that we couldn't stand this guy, and the command section frequently sent him on snipe hunts and dog & pony shows to keep him out of our hair, and he basically just regurgitated whatever the officers thought he wanted to hear. Real slobbery-knob shiat.

After jumping through a million hoops to prove I was the real deal, one of his butthurt Fark fanboys apparently posted the old email address I had in my profile to a few sites.

Cue death threat spam.
 
2010-05-21 03:48:53 PM  
Forbidden Doughnut: Arkanaut: I don't think the British had M-4's in the 1830's.

Pretty sure they had these:



/ four rounds per minute if you are really good at reloading...


My father built a Baker rifle. It's a .62 caliber thumper. I've got dibs on it when he passes.

/Hoping he'll pass it on before then.
 
2010-05-21 03:49:09 PM  
JonasCord: The_Sponge: skillett: ///Vietnam vet


Off the subject:

Regarding a recent thread on the politics tab, were you ever spit on when you came back to the U.S.? Do you know anyone who did? Some people were making the ridiculous assumption that it NEVER happened.

/And thank you for your service.
//Fellow gun nut.

Here is something to consider: In 1971-75, all flights back from SE Asia were timed to arrive at Travis AFB, outside of San Francisco, at between 04:30 to 05:30 (that's before dawn). This way, returning troops could go thru customs and baggage inspection for the FOURTH time, and be bused over to SFO, and be out of the airport by 07:00, long before the Liberal war protesters could get a morning doobie and get out of bed. All the airlines had special flights scheduled, going all over the US, to clear out the airport.
It's a historical factlet that doesn't get much play, these days.

JonasCord: geniusiknowit: Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 are more than sufficient for executing women and children at point-blank range. The 7.62 has the additional benefit of being able to pass right through their frail bodies. This obviates the need to manually extract bullet fragments from their corpses as part of the subsequent cover-up.

Quite correct. Liberals prefer to use a pistol to the back of the head. Ref. Katyn. Isn;'t always the way that the stupid slavs messed up a perfectly good Political Ideal? That's Ok. We'll do it better, this time. Right, Barak?


Before this went green, the TFers, liberal and conservative, were having a perfectly nice gun thread. Why did you have to go screw it up with inane political name calling?
 
2010-05-21 03:50:36 PM  
Merkin For The Weekend: FlashHarry: Merkin For The Weekend: IMO, the gun that soldiers in Afghanistan need is the FAL-

"Fusil Automatique Léger???" that sounds... FRENCH.

/yes, i know it's belgian

Yeah, as albo mentioned, the 'not-invented-here' thing is an issue these days, to some extent. However, we still use Beretta pistols, H&K sub guns, and the M249 SAW is an FN design. If we are smart enough to use an FN SAW, why not an FN rifle?


FN makes the 240 also
 
2010-05-21 03:51:45 PM  
urger: I've always wondered why our armed forces are so bullpup resistant. It seems to me that a bullpup M16 would result in a carbine length weapon like the M4 but with the range of the venerable M16.

heypete:With a few exceptions, bullpups are not ambidextrous.

Yes, one can often manually switch ejector port sides with a few minutes and simple hand tools, but what happens in the middle of combat when a one's rifle fails/is damaged and one picks up a rifle belonging to an injured soldier who happens to be other-handed? That sucks a lot.

The first time I, a lefty, was handed a right-handed Walther G22, I didn't even think about this issue, and took a charging handle to the jaw. Even though it was merely a .22, it hurt like hell. I imagine it would be rather unpleasant being struck with centerfire brass/moving parts.

Yes, forward- and downward-ejecting bullpups exist, but I don't count on the government considering that.


Well, it's not easy to do a totally reliable reconfigurable ambidex receiver. There's also a major difficulty in these "quantum leaps" of design- you might uncover a major problem in the field that you didn't see during testing, but find no way to "roll back" that design feature. It may also depend on ONE guy's patent. This could be a major issue if another nation owns the patent rights, or simply that years later someone else gets a court to rule that they own the patent, not the person you bought the patent from. If you built the weapon around this unique feature, then you're screwed.

www.rkba.org

The FN P90 is a downward-ejecting. But to do that, the receiver bears no resemblance to any conventional weapons at all. The mag is on top, rounds facing 90 deg off, and the rounds at rotated via helical elevator into the chamber.

It does shoot pistol-sized ammo. But due to its pointy bullet design, it'll still penetrate Level IIIA kevlar at 200M. They do say that despite the much smaller caliber, it tumbles on entry inside a torso and should create a surprisingly large wound. But that's a matter of debate. It probably wouldn't do that on a thinner limb shot and leave quite small wounds for a military setting.

There's a lot of brilliance there. It can be handled one-handed ok, and the lighter, smaller ammo means you can carry a lot more rounds.

But the French FN company owns a buttload of patents on everything about it. US military will NEVER adopt a weapon hinging on French patents and production. And we can't simply come up with a similar design using the same ideas- the patents probably hit the only "good" way to do this dead-on. Any look-alike method which reproduced the concept but avoided the patents would probably not work nearly as well.
 
2010-05-21 03:54:06 PM  
no talent ass clown: Mock26: no talent ass clown: The M4 is fine. Anyone who say's otherwise is probably getting a reach-around from weapons manufacturers trying to score a big gov't contract.

7.62 and 6.8 are great for sniper rifles but the embiggened recoil hurts follow up shots.

The only change the M4 needs (IMO) would be to use a gas-piston system instead of DGI and get better magazine followers.

The "killing power" of the 5.56 is more than adequate - the problem lies in the bullet itself. The Army (and I assume everyone else) is using bullets designed to penetrate body armor. As a result, they over penetrate like a sonovabiatch and create a very small wound channel. 77 gr BTHP (Mk 262) for the win.

Hmmm, you say that M4 is just fine. The Army says that it is NOT just fine for Afghanistan. I think I will trust the military on this one.

Again, the problem isn't the rifle - it's the shiatty bullet that was designed to punch through Rooskie body armor. The M4 is a great rifle. The only major improvement it needed is to replace the direct gas impingement system with a piston system and use barrels with something like a 1:7 twist so it can handle both the shiatty green tip AND heavier BTHP bullets.

The biggest (function) problem I've seen with M4's isn't from the rifle itself, but the shiatty magazine followers in the issue magazines. Just a guess, but I'd say that switching to an anti-tilt follower would eliminate 70% of malfunctions. Oh, and lay off the CLP.

Just my 2 cents.


That is all well and good, but your suggested changes will not make it an effective weapon out to ranges of 600-800 yards/meters. And the article is NOT suggesting that the M4 is a bad weapon, only that it lacks the effective range needed for the unique style of fighting that is common in Afghanistan.
 
2010-05-21 03:55:53 PM  
meyerkev: Mock26: no talent ass clown: The M4 is fine. Anyone who say's otherwise is probably getting a reach-around from weapons manufacturers trying to score a big gov't contract.

7.62 and 6.8 are great for sniper rifles but the embiggened recoil hurts follow up shots.

The only change the M4 needs (IMO) would be to use a gas-piston system instead of DGI and get better magazine followers.

The "killing power" of the 5.56 is more than adequate - the problem lies in the bullet itself. The Army (and I assume everyone else) is using bullets designed to penetrate body armor. As a result, they over penetrate like a sonovabiatch and create a very small wound channel. 77 gr BTHP (Mk 262) for the win.

Hmmm, you say that M4 is just fine. The Army says that it is NOT just fine for Afghanistan. I think I will trust the military on this one.

Having read most of the thread, I think that what notalent is saying is that the "for Afghanistan' is the important part. The M4 is just fine for normal use, but not for fighting random hidden insurgents way up in the mountains without support.

/At least that's the impression I got from TFA and this thread.


And that is exactly the impression I got from the article, not that the M4 is faulty or bad, only that it is not suited for the style of warfare common in Afghanistan. Heck, the title of the article even says that:

"US Rifles Not Suited to Warfare in Afghan Hills"
 
2010-05-21 03:57:17 PM  
The Stealth Hippopotamus: GUN PORN!!!

less clothing, please. i'm offended, etc.
 
2010-05-21 03:57:37 PM  
Oznog: But the French FN company owns a buttload of patents on everything about it. US military will NEVER adopt a weapon hinging on French patents and production. And we can't simply come up with a similar design using the same ideas- the patents probably hit the only "good" way to do this dead-on. Any look-alike method which reproduced the concept but avoided the patents would probably not work nearly as well.

You make a good point about "not invented here syndrome", but FN (or Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal) is a Belgian company.
 
2010-05-21 03:57:45 PM  
meyerkev:
Having read most of the thread, I think that what notalent is saying is that the "for Afghanistan' is the important part. The M4 is just fine for normal use, but not for fighting random hidden insurgents way up in the mountains without support.

/At least that's the impression I got from TFA and this thread.


Well, yeah, but Afghanistan is hardly unique from a geographical standpoint: There are plenty of other areas where that kind of thing could well be a problem in the future. Pretty much anywhere you have long sight lines from elevated terrain and minimal vegetation is a problem for a gun like the M-4.

It seems to be perfectly fine in a jungle or urban situation though.

As a stop-gap measure, issuing M-16's back to the troops in Afghanistan would probably be a good idea, but looking forward, I really do think we need a somewhat larger service round.
 
2010-05-21 03:57:54 PM  
Oznog: But the French FN company owns a buttload of patents on everything about it. US military will NEVER adopt a weapon hinging on French patents and production. And we can't simply come up with a similar design using the same ideas- the patents probably hit the only "good" way to do this dead-on. Any look-alike method which reproduced the concept but avoided the patents would probably not work nearly as well.

FN? France?

not every country that speaks french happens to be france, FYI
 
2010-05-21 04:01:28 PM  
madgonad: dittybopper: It's not the length of the gun that's the problem, it's the caliber.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Moving to the shorter barrel drops the projectile velocity by between 500-800fps on the .223 round. That drop in speed effectively shortens the range of the rifle versus an 18/20" version by nearly half. Not only does the range suffer, but accuracy in general drops. The bullet spread on my M4 firing LC ammo at 100 meters is about 4-5" from a bench. My 20" AR15 can put them in a group under 2" from the same distance and using the same ammo.

Reissuing M16A4s will double their range.


1) 4-5" groups @ 100 meters is just plain poor shooting.
2) You might want to check your numbers on barrel length/velocity. 500-800 fps seems a bit *ahem* excessive.


dittybopper:Dude, I've owned a bunch of different military style guns in my day, been in the US Army, and I've even written my own ballistics software (used it to pick what caliber longrifle I wanted when I was buying the pieces parts). I'm pretty sure I have at least an inkling of the issues.

Thats not what ballistics software does. It sounds like you taught yourself how to buy stuff online.
 
2010-05-21 04:02:20 PM  
Some gun porn for you guys:
i999.photobucket.com
Chambered in 5.56, this is an awesome weapon!
 
2010-05-21 04:02:32 PM  
Sgt Otter: Said certain correspondent has built a name for himself on a grossly exaggerated Army career, despite never been deployed to a combat zone, or being on a Special Forces ODA team, despite his chyron listing him as "FORMER ARMY SPECIAL FORCES." I'm sure some of you can put two and two together.


Er....um...I'm still drawing a blank. EIP if you don't want to post the name here.
 
2010-05-21 04:03:25 PM  
heypete: urger: I've always wondered why our armed forces are so bullpup resistant. It seems to me that a bullpup M16 would result in a carbine length weapon like the M4 but with the range of the venerable M16.

With a few exceptions, bullpups are not ambidextrous.

Yes, one can often manually switch ejector port sides with a few minutes and simple hand tools, but what happens in the middle of combat when a one's rifle fails/is damaged and one picks up a rifle belonging to an injured soldier who happens to be other-handed? That sucks a lot.

The first time I, a lefty, was handed a right-handed Walther G22, I didn't even think about this issue, and took a charging handle to the jaw. Even though it was merely a .22, it hurt like hell. I imagine it would be rather unpleasant being struck with centerfire brass/moving parts.

Yes, forward- and downward-ejecting bullpups exist, but I don't count on the government considering that.

Also, the balance is a bit weird on bullpups.



We can just train the lefties to shoot right-handed.

As for the balance being weird, is it truly weird or is it just that most people are not used to it?
 
2010-05-21 04:04:22 PM  
w00ty: less clothing, please. i'm offended, etc.

So far I'm the only one who has posted a pic of a chick....
 
2010-05-21 04:06:01 PM  
JonasCord: geniusiknowit: Both the 5.56 and the 7.62 are more than sufficient for executing women and children at point-blank range. The 7.62 has the additional benefit of being able to pass right through their frail bodies. This obviates the need to manually extract bullet fragments from their corpses as part of the subsequent cover-up.

Quite correct. Liberals prefer to use a pistol to the back of the head. Ref. Katyn. Isn;'t always the way that the stupid slavs messed up a perfectly good Political Ideal? That's Ok. We'll do it better, this time. Right, Barak?


Hey, I like the Brak show! Space Ghost is overrated.
 
2010-05-21 04:06:31 PM  
tlchwi02: Oznog: But the French FN company owns a buttload of patents on everything about it. US military will NEVER adopt a weapon hinging on French patents and production. And we can't simply come up with a similar design using the same ideas- the patents probably hit the only "good" way to do this dead-on. Any look-alike method which reproduced the concept but avoided the patents would probably not work nearly as well.

FN? France?

not every country that speaks french happens to be france, FYI


Whoops, sorry. Belgian. Still not a company the US would bet its staple firearm on.
 
2010-05-21 04:07:33 PM  
fromskytonothing 2010-05-21 02:38:53 PM

Gdalescrboz: Thats why they have something called snipers if we engage over 1k feet, which we arent because the insurgents arent capable of accurate fire at 1000 ft. Keep doing that thing you call "journalism" ABC.


The hell they aren't. We saw insurgent snipers armed with 7.62 X 54R Dragunovs in the Anbar and Ninevah provinces at least twice a month. It got to the point where unless we were being directly engaged, we kept our heads below the HMMV turret. Keep doing that thing you call "talking out your ass".


Sniper are not engaging our troops at long ranges, they are engaging them in urban environments. Now, there MAY have been snipers engaging in open areas over 1k ft., but that portion of the herd has been thined.
 
2010-05-21 04:07:52 PM  
Mock26: Oh Afghanistan, will anyone ever learn not to fark with you?

In post-Soviet Afghanistan, hills fark YOU!!
 
2010-05-21 04:08:45 PM  
Harold_of_the_Rocks: Well, the Brits were on the right track in the late 1940s with the .280 British (7mm MK1Z) and the Bullpup EM-2 rifle, but then the good old USA forced the 7.62 x 51 mm as the standard NATO round. Which was too powerful for a light assault weapon, so we then forced NATO to adopt the 5.56 x 45 mm. So now we're inventing things as an improvement on the 5.56 like the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel, which are basically....the .280 British.

USA! USA! USA!


blogs.creativeloafing.com
 
2010-05-21 04:10:00 PM  
Kill baby kill!
 
2010-05-21 04:10:37 PM  
Oznog: Whoops, sorry. Belgian. Still not a company the US would bet its staple firearm on.

welllllll..... we do actually issue one of primary infantry support weapons from FN. the SAW is an FN design. also, the big Browning 50 is still made by FN. Its really more of a case of the military being highly resistant to change. the XM8 project is a good example. They wont change from the M-16/M4 because they HATE to change. And for good reason, a major change can be hard, and cost lives (retraining soldiers, finding new "bugs" in design in the field, etc.)
 
2010-05-21 04:11:59 PM  
It seems no amount of money, no matter how obscene, is enough to keep the military from their patented incompetence.
 
2010-05-21 04:12:25 PM  
Oznog: Mock26: Oh Afghanistan, will anyone ever learn not to fark with you?

In post-Soviet Afghanistan, hills fark YOU!!


What is funny is that back in the 1980's I can remember reading articles in magazines where military specialists were criticizing the Soviets for not learning the lessons that the British learned a hundred some years previously in Afghanistan. Oh the irony.
 
Displayed 50 of 467 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report