But, but, fleet yaw!



 

Madcap, do you have enough experience around M4s to have a feeling about the difference in terminal effect? We're you or your fellow Marines dissatisfied with the M16?

RON, I have a hard time with those numbers. From my own experience I'd expect to see MRBF numbers for the M4 similar to what they had for the M16.

Nope. M4's came in to the unit right as I was getting out. All I have is the constant complaint of M4's not immediately stopping bad guys, and no complaints of the M-16A2 stopping bad guys.




But, to add to the books,


I've seen more than a few dropped by M-16A2, and many of those were cases of fleet yaw.


It's fucking NASTY.    Knowing what I have seen, vs the reports and studies, I'd gladly take more barrel length and higher velocity.





Though, on the flip side, I'd take a shorter barrel that uses ammo maintaining that velocity (I.E. the idea behind M855A1).  Or, a bullet designed to yaw (what the M855 seems to be intended to do if you read between the lines) within a lower velocity envelope.  But the what if game could go on forever.





Given what is available, and what has a track record of working, I'd take an A4 "as is" any day of the week. Specifically for the longer barrel that pushes out the fleet yaw range a a bit. Then there's the AoA and all that shit...
To answer the other question, no one I know was dissatisfied with the M-16A2, and after seeing the effects, nothing about performance was ever brought up other than "ugh" or "gross" and a lot of Corpsmen standing around shrugging their shoulders because there was no point in trying to work on anything.
CAVEAT-  That opinion is in answer to you and the others that understand fleet yaw and such, obviously it is an effect that can't be counted on. The mag holds 30 rounds for a reason.
 

IMHO the problem isn't just the weight, the balance is also an issue.  The A2/A4 barrel profile adds all the weight at the very end of the barrel.  Why retain that weight?  It's not like you can fire more rounds, the hottest part is under the hand-guards and is identical on the A1/2/4 profile barrels.

I too like the A1 hand guards...
I just wish they cooperated with rail systems for sticking on a flashlight.

But the big question is, in a world where we allow the individual rifleman to customize what crap he does or doesn't hang off his rifle, what kind of sights or optic he uses, if he wants a laser, what sling he uses, etc, why don't we allow them to decide what kind of butt stock makes them more effective, or what kind of hand guards they prefer?

I happen to find that the A2 stock fits me quite comfortably, even with winter clothing on.  In fact, it's almost too short for me when shooting scoped rifles.  But then again, I'm tall, and I come from the same tribe that made the G3/HK91, and I find that rifle's controls comfortable...And we all know the jokes people crack about those rifles and the control placement.

But the stock, pistol grip, and hand-guards aren't exactly parts that take a rocket scientist to change.  If taller riflemen who won't be mounting/dismounting vehicles want a fixed stock, let them have it.  If somebody spends his day riding around in an MRAP and might need to spring out at a moments notice, let them have a tele-stock.  I assume the Army and USMC have people that they pay to perform maintenance tasks on weapons, people who would have tools to change stocks, replace grips, etc.

Just curious, do you think moving to a slightly longer barrel, like the 16" length would make the M4 more suitable for use as an M-16 replacement?

Also, don't take my opinions to mean that I'm 100% against Stocks like the A5.





I'm not at all, stagnation is death in firearms and training.



I'm just saying at least to this point, it hasn't shown to be a big enough issue to get immediate action faster than the typical military pace.





Maybe in the next decade....

Kinetic Energy on point target and all that......

round achieves full potential out of a 20 inch barrel... lots of our scouts dropped the M4's for M4 lowers with A4 uppers.

CAT - C will teach you how to hit targets at 600 with a Carbine. But the round doing anything is questionable

Has a lot to do with bullet construction, transitional stability when going from air to liquid, and even the angle of attack when the target is hit and so on as well.
 

That's not really a scientific test to determine the reliability of the rifle with and without a collapsible stock. The M4 has a carbine length gas system and the M16A4 a rifle length gas system. I'm no armorer, but from what I've read, the AR-15 platform tends to be a little more reliable with a longer gas system (mid length or rifle length as opposed to carbine length). That probably has a bigger effect than the length of the buffer tube. My old M4gery style rifle had no gas system related malfunctions in 8000ish rounds though. I had a few rounds nose into the case over the years and a couple of bad mags when I first got it (Orlite and USA brand). Other than that it ran like a sewing machine.
 

I haven't had a malfunction in an M4ish weapon that wasn't caused by ammo or mags in probably 7500 rounds.

Here is a Tavor, shouldered. Note the location of the rear end of the rail.



Here are a bunch of guys with AUGs.





LOP, on a bullpup, has nothing to do with the shooter's ability to utilize the sights. By design, the grip and trigger are pretty damn far forward of the shoulder, but everything that makes the gun go bang, is BEHIND that point, whereas with a standard setup, it is ON or FORWARD of that point. That is why bullpups are praised as being compact, as seen below:

Different series of tests, the one with the bad guns occurred with the Limited User Tested conducted by 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines.  

This was a side by side Modular Weapons System comparison done by 2nd Battalion,25th Marines.

So far the Marine Corps has been developing a PIP for the M16A4, with a collapsible stock.  It has been doing that for around 6 years and it has done numerous reliability tests.  The number one reason cited so far for not fielding the collapsible stock is it reduces the reliability of the gun (granted I have not seen that a new reliability test has been done with the "A5" stock" which used a different extension and buffer

I was under the impression that the barrel and gas systems had more to do with reliability than did the buffer tube components?

With the exception of a single 16" barrel Middy carbine with an M4 stock and H-buffer, all of my ARs are 20".  The 20" rifles feel smooth and soft.  When I tested my carbine lower with a borrowed 20" upper, it felt rather similar to the full 20" rifle.  But the combination of 16" middy upper and M4 stock seem noticeably less smooth to shoot.  I would expect the swap to an M4 type stock not to have too much of an impact, particularly if they used an H or H2 buffer.

But if they need to reduce the length, why not go with CS style stocks?  Those are basically just A2 stocks made to A1 length, so they're shorter, but use the existing rifle buffer setup.  I prefer the A2 stock, but I'm tall and I also don't wear armor.

(ETA: Yhea, I know, my observations are so unscientific that several dead scientists are tumbling over and over in their graves...)