Posted: 1/15/2010 1:41:33 PM EDT
|
I searched on about 10 different possible topic titles and found nothing. At the risk of a major dupe here's a link to an M4 failure article with vids
M4 Failures |
Should everyine in .mil lug one around?
|
Quoted:
I've never liked the 'skinny under the handguard' barrel, but I have to admit it's adequate for the semi-automatic gun. For military use, I like the HBAR but would prefer to see it fluted. Anyway, these were very interesting videos and to me showed the toughness of the carbine. This test really doesn't address reliability, which seems to be the larger issue with the Stoner D.I. system. For this, I think the 'testing' now in progress in several of the world's nastiest shit-holes should be conclusive; either the platform is adequately reliable or it isn't. If it isn't, they should make improvements/revisions as needed and get them to the field while they look for the next generation of small arms. All this has basically nothing to do with our semi-automatic civilian guns where the D.I. system and 'pencil' barrel are more than adequate, providing all the benefits of the AR design. No real need for it, as pointed out the gun can go longer than ammo is carried for it, no one does back to back dumps of mags like that. Also the standard M4 at 3rd burst will go much long than a old style M4A1 with a non-SOCOM barrel. The three round burst doubles the amount of time required to get off a magazine, so it would increase the time and number of rounds to failure. |
|
Nothing we did not know almost 15 years ago: |
|
Quoted: +1 to bothQuoted: Awesome videos to watch, though unrealistic as they may be. +1 ....never designed with the intent to do what the video is illustrating. It might make an interesting tool in showing soldiers the limitations of the M4A1 in the suppressive fire roll, Put that many magazines through an AK and its handguard will go up in flames too. |
|
Quoted:
Ridiculous. I didn't know the M4 was also suppose to be a SAW? They want everything. They want a carbine to be a an all out machine gun. The whole idea behind the M4 carbine was smaller size, less weight. HBAR it and you defeat the purpose. It's bad enough all the crap that gets put on rifles these days - make it an HBAR and now they'll have themselves 12-13lb "carbines" .....lol. If I am going to carry anything that heavy, it will be an AK or move up to a .308. The whole idea behind the entire AR-15 concept, from gas system, to action, to mags to ammo...the whole 9 yards...all based on weight savings. That has been long forgotten. Remember, ounces become pounds and pounds become pain. It adds five ounces. “We have to get all of the services to buy in, but it adds five ounces in weight and doubles your sustained rate of fire.” |
|
Quoted:
Anyone else thing the rate of fire progressively decreases in the second video. It's kind of hard to tell for sure after watching 4+ minutes of sustained automatic fire. Hell I'd say that about the first video too. If you have to fire 19 mags on full auto as fast as you fucking can, you're a in a world of hurt. Standard M4's can't even fire that fast since they can't fire full auto, only 3-round bursts. |
| I've never liked the 'skinny under the handguard' barrel, but I have to admit it's adequate for the semi-automatic gun. For military use, I like the HBAR but would prefer to see it fluted. Anyway, these were very interesting videos and to me showed the toughness of the carbine. This test really doesn't address reliability, which seems to be the larger issue with the Stoner D.I. system. For this, I think the 'testing' now in progress in several of the world's nastiest shit-holes should be conclusive; either the platform is adequately reliable or it isn't. If it isn't, they should make improvements/revisions as needed and get them to the field while they look for the next generation of small arms. All this has basically nothing to do with our semi-automatic civilian guns where the D.I. system and 'pencil' barrel are more than adequate, providing all the benefits of the AR design. |
|
Quoted:
Why was the guy loading the magazines like a total spaz? Push the button, drop the mag, load a fresh one. 3 steps. Four, if you include the charging handle. But he was jumping around and loading the magazines like he had ants in his pants.  Could have been because the charging handle, or the whole rifle, was too hot to touch. I was surprised he wasn't wearing gloves in the first video. |
|
Quoted:
A hand held infantry weapon was never designed to be used like a heavy (or light for that matter) machine gun. This comment to the article I found a bit strange, chiefly his reference to the Alamo (I'm a Texan of course  )
"Soldiers, Uniformed, American, or otherwise, have been placed in sustained, continuous fire battles in many, many campaigns. The last battle at the Alamo, Dien Bien Phu, Battle of Tamai (single fire weapons), the Vosges campaign by the 36th Division had multiple hours long firefights" How much sustained fire could you get from muzzle loading muskets and rifles? Actually the Mexicans were over the walls in the first 30 minutes and the battle was over after an hour and half. Just nitpicking I know Seriously. That's pretty funny stuff. |
|
Ridiculous.
I didn't know the M4 was also suppose to be a SAW? They want everything. They want a carbine to be a an all out machine gun. The whole idea behind the M4 carbine was smaller size, less weight. HBAR it and you defeat the purpose. It's bad enough all the crap that gets put on rifles these days - make it an HBAR and now they'll have themselves 12-13lb "carbines" .....lol. If I am going to carry anything that heavy, it will be an AK or move up to a .308. The whole idea behind the entire AR-15 concept, from gas system, to action, to mags to ammo...the whole 9 yards...all based on weight savings. That has been long forgotten. Remember, ounces become pounds and pounds become pain. |
|
DUPE!!!
Guess you didn't search every possibility BAM J/K just giving you a hard time 
|
|
The government never ceases to amaze me. I wonder what prompted this. Did any of our men get into sustained fire fights requiring full auto fire of 300-500 rounds in a few minutes? Or was it more of an issue of fatigue strength with the lighter barrels?
Regardless, I place my bets that more rounds could have been shot through both barrels had the handguards been a Larue or Knight's URX or if the upper was monolithic with a barrel nut acting as a way to transfer heat away from the barrel more efficiently. M4 handguards shield heat from the user's hands. They do not help the barrel cool if I'm not mistakened. And by the way, I bet 20 bucks that most AR-15.com members could reload and shoot faster than the guy in that video 
Edited to add: I'm a dumbass. I should have read the whole article. They are referring to this battle: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03battle.html?_r=1. I hate to be an armchair civilian, but I think had someone like Pat Rogers or Chris Costa trained these troops for a week on how to shoot their M4s, I don't think barrel overheating would have been an issue. Of course, maybe if I saw 200 Taliban coming at me from over a hilltop, I'd freak out and fire full auto mag dumps as well. |
|
Quoted:
I hate to be an armchair civilian, but I think had someone like Pat Rogers or Chris Costa trained these troops for a week on how to shoot their M4s, I don't think barrel overheating would have been an issue. Of course, maybe if I saw 200 Taliban coming at me from over a hilltop, I'd freak out and fire full auto mag dumps as well. They are good trainers, but the type of training they do is not all that applicable to that type of circumstance. Most civilian shoot revolves around close shooting, it a little less than applicable in platoon on company sized fire fight where your belt feed weapons and supporting arms are your biggest killers. |
|
A hand held infantry weapon was never designed to be used like a heavy (or light for that matter) machine gun. This comment to the article I found a bit strange, chiefly his reference to the Alamo (I'm a Texan of course)
"Soldiers, Uniformed, American, or otherwise, have been placed in sustained, continuous fire battles in many, many campaigns. The last battle at the Alamo, Dien Bien Phu, Battle of Tamai (single fire weapons), the Vosges campaign by the 36th Division had multiple hours long firefights" How much sustained fire could you get from muzzle loading muskets and rifles? Actually the Mexicans were over the walls in the first 30 minutes and the battle was over after an hour and half. Just nitpicking I know |
|
Quoted:
Awesome videos to watch, though unrealistic as they may be. +1 ....never designed with the intent to do what the video is illustrating. It might make an interesting tool in showing soldiers the limitations of the M4A1 in the suppressive fire roll, Put that many magazines through an AK and its handguard will go up in flames too. |
|
Quoted:
...I should have read the whole article. They are referring to this battle: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/world/asia/03battle.html?_r=1. I hate to be an armchair civilian, but I think had someone like Pat Rogers or Chris Costa trained these troops for a week on how to shoot their M4s, I don't think barrel overheating would have been an issue. Of course, maybe if I saw 200 Taliban coming at me from over a hilltop, I'd freak out and fire full auto mag dumps as well. Where was the artillery? Where was the CAS? Where were the heavy weapons? M-2's and Mk19's? The M-4 is an assault rifle, intended to be a lightweight weapon, not a machine gun designed for suppressing fire. Loading up soldiers with weight to counter increasingly unrealistic scenarios isn't a good idea, no matter how well intentioned. This goes for weapons, armor, and anything else. Of course, I'm just an armchair commando too, so all that and $2.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. |