# Combat troops have been complaining about the M4 and M16 for years — now the Pentagon



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

https://www.businessinsider.com/pen...-look-at-problems-with-m4-m16-training-2018-3


----------



## Blackhawkman (Apr 9, 2014)

So what brand/type is the Defence Dept considering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BigHead (Jul 5, 2015)

My first M16 was made by GM, and was a remnant of Vietnam or something, the year was 1975. It was a piece of junk that would jam on every other magazine.
My last issue weapon was an M4 made by Colt, and NIB; and I could not get that thing to jam, and I put it through the wringer too. 
Firing auto, I had it smoking, and it would not stop. I think that a lot of problems with the current crop of guns, could be solved by buying new ones.


----------



## denner12 (Oct 14, 2017)

Must be a new super secret, super duper rifle with no track record at all to replace the M4? What current rifle out there used by foe and allies alike is any better than the current AR-15/AR-10 platform?

I really don't believe that the modern M4 has reliability issues compared to other current battle rifles. A current properly working gas impingement AR should get to 3,000 to 5,000 rounds w/o malfunction before cleaning and maintenance.

I've seen some go 10,000. Using the platform as SAWS and melting barrels(which was seen in recent conflicts) I could see as creating issues without having the ability to swap barrels, but the platform was never designed to be used as SAWS.


If we can issue a superior rifle to our troops then excellent, but where is this thing? The White house and Pentagon have so many leaks you would think somebody would know something? Maybe we can ask the Chinese or Israelis, they are pretty good at spying and knowing what we got.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Although a little on the heavy side, bring back the old BAR.


----------



## denner12 (Oct 14, 2017)

Bring Back the M-14, we need a round with a little ass on it. You'd be surprised weight is not really an issue when somebody is shooting at you.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

denner12 said:


> Bring Back the M-14, we need a round with a little ass on it. You'd be surprised weight is not really an issue when somebody is shooting at you.


When I was a kid I had a toy M-14, I loved that thing. Now I've got a Ruger Mini 14 which almost looks the same albeit smaller in .223. I'm not much of a rifle guy, if I was I wouldn't mind having the Springfield M1A or better yet an Ohio Ordnance 1918 BAR except they're both hard to conceal.


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

I don't have much of a problem with the platform, but more with the cartridge. I like that new 6.8mm they are looking at. I just think 22 is too small and I believe .308 is too big for suppressing fire use in a small infantry carbine. A light machine gun like the Mark 48 or the heavier M240, yes, but an infantry carbine, no. The lightweight Mark 48 weighs slightly over 18 lbs. The M60 is over 23 lbs. An AR10 carbine is somewhere around 8 lbs. The M14 loaded came in at over 10 lbs. and over 43 inches in length with its 22 inch barrel. Who's going to be happy toting that clunker around along with a rucksack filled with a sufficient quantity of fairly heavy ammunition in the desert? 

I'm a large guy and in my youth had few problems with recoil and rifle weight, yet when I shot the M14 in full auto, I found it very hard to keep from rising, even in a short burst. So did everyone else; I don't care how macho they might talk today. And that M14 was a fairly heavy weapons system. Put that same 7.62x51 in a lightweight ~7 lb. infantry carbine shooting full auto, and I would imagine it would be hard to control with any semblance of accuracy for all but the most hearty among us. That said, I love this round in an AR10 autoloader.


----------



## AZdave (Oct 23, 2015)

denner12 said:


> ...
> If we can issue a superior rifle to our troops then excellent, but where is this thing? The White house and Pentagon have so many leaks you would think somebody would know something? Maybe we can ask the *Chinese or Israelis,* they are pretty good at spying and knowing what we got.


Naw you have to ask the Russians, they hacked and got the secrets.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Craigh said:


> I don't have much of a problem with the platform, but more with the cartridge. I like that new 6.8mm they are looking at. I just think 22 is too small and I believe .308 is too big for suppressing fire use in a small infantry carbine. A light machine gun like the Mark 48 or the heavier M240, yes, but an infantry carbine, no. The lightweight Mark 48 weighs slightly over 18 lbs. The M60 is over 23 lbs. An AR10 carbine is somewhere around 8 lbs. The M14 loaded came in at over 10 lbs. and over 43 inches in length with its 22 inch barrel. Who's going to be happy toting that clunker around along with a rucksack filled with a sufficient quantity of fairly heavy ammunition in the desert?
> 
> I'm a large guy and in my youth had few problems with recoil and rifle weight, yet when I shot the M14 in full auto,* I found it very hard to keep from rising, even in a short burst.* So did everyone else; I don't care how macho they might talk today. And that M14 was a fairly heavy weapons system. Put that same 7.62x51 in a lightweight ~7 lb. infantry carbine shooting full auto, and I would imagine it would be hard to control with any semblance of accuracy for all but the most hearty among us. That said, I love this round in an AR10 autoloader.


There used to be a guy on TV, I believe his last name was Atwater? Anyway he was describing the M14, he said the first few rounds would be on target and anything after that and you've got an anti aircraft weapon. I used to have a Model 1919 7.62 Argentine Mauser that was fun to shoot.


----------



## denner12 (Oct 14, 2017)

Here's the venerable M-14 in action. Larry seems to be handling the rifle just fine, but i have to agree full powered 762x51 is a handful in full auto. The US won WW2 with the venerable M-1 Garand and I haven't heard too much whining from WWii vets but quite the contrary.


----------



## denner12 (Oct 14, 2017)

M14 Sage EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle) Tribute:smt1099


----------



## Craigh (Jul 29, 2016)

denner12 said:


> Here's the venerable M-14 in action. Larry seems to be handling the rifle just fine, but i have to agree full powered 762x51 is a handful in full auto. The US won WW2 with the venerable M-1 Garand and I haven't heard too much whining from WWii vets but quite the contrary.


Looked to me Larry Vickers had it severely rising after a short burst. None the less, he handled it better than I did.

The Garand is a different kettle of fish. It isn't fully automatic for starters. It was fed from an Enbloc 8 round clip. I love the Garand and shoot ours without issue. It's fun and controllable. That said, in the South Pacific heat and humidity, many felt it was just too heavy for constant use. A lot of Marines and Army guys tossed theirs down when they could lay their hands on an M1 Carbine, though the carbine doesn't come close in stopping power. It's fed by a larger 15 or 30 round box magazine as well as being smaller and lighter, weighing in at a little over 5 lbs loaded. Loaded, the Garand is over double that and less than half as many rounds.

My dad was in the SeaBees in the South Pacific and was issued the M1 Carbine. He bought one after he came home and kept it until his death. He took quite a few whitetail with it. Though I don't particularly care for them, I understand the popularity in that environment.


----------



## pblanc (Mar 3, 2015)

"For decades, troops have been complaining about the limitations of the M16 rifle and M4 carbine, both of which are hindered by the same flawed operating system that makes the weapons jam easily."

Hmm, odd that a weapon platform that has now been in service with virtually all branches of the US Military for over 50 years, as well as myriad law enforcement agencies, would have a flawed operating system that jammed easily.

Most of us are aware of the rocky roll out of the M16 rifle in the 1960s. This was much less due to the operating system design than the Army's atrocious implementation of the weapon. Mistakes included providing servicemen with ammunition loaded with the wrong powder (which threw off timing and resulted in extraction issues), lack of chrome lining of the barrel chamber and bore (to save a couple bucks per rifle), poor quality control of chamber chroming once implemented, and the utterly nonsensical notion that the rifle was "self-cleaning" (so servicemen needed not be issued with cleaning kits).

That was then and this is now. Setting aside the issue of the effectiveness of the 5.56x45 NATO round, the AR 15 weapon system has turned out to be an accurate and reliable design. And what is more, troops are by and large very happy with it.

PEO Soldier conducted a survey of more than 2600 soldiers returning from Iraq or Afghanistan regarding their experience and level of satisfaction with four different small arms systems: M9 pistol, M4 carbine, M16 A2 or A4 rifle, and M249 light machine gun. All soldiers surveyed had actually used one or more of these weapons in combat.

http://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0015259.A2.pdf

Overall rate of satisfaction with the M4 was quite high at 89% and was the highest for the four weapons systems. The next highest rate of satisfaction was with the M16 at 75%, and the biggest difference in the satisfaction level between the M4 and the M16 resulted from the greater size and weight of the M16 relative to the M4. The lowest levels of overall satisfaction for the M4 were related to cleaning equipment (75%) and ammunition (79%). Lowest levels of satisfaction for the M16 were related to handling at 60% (primarily due to size and weight), and cleaning equipment (68%). The level of satisfaction with the M16 ammunition was the same as that of the M4 - 79%, which makes sense of course since the ammunition is the same.

As for reliability, over 50% of those surveyed had never experienced a single stoppage with the M4 or M16 during their entire time in theater, including training. For both the M4 and M16, 19% of those surveyed had experienced one or more stoppages while engaging the enemy. Of those stoppages, 82% of those occurring with the M4, and 80% of those occurring with the M16 had only a small impact so only 3-4% of those surveyed had experienced a stoppage in combat that had a significant impact during their entire deployment.


----------

