Army seeks gun industry help on M4 carbine...your thoughts?

Those are pretty cool, but I've never put my hands on one. It appears that the charging handle is switchable from left to right. True? Does the ejection direction change as well? Also, I've seen pics of some with no rear buffer tube, which I assume means a shorter bolt/carrier.

yes the ejection can be changed to either side and the arak doesn't require a buffer tube as the upper is all self contained.

Soviets were actually GIVING away AKs to anyone who expressed Communist leanings...

I guess those stories of our guys chucking their M-16s in Vietnam and picking up the VC's rifles are a load of rubbish then? Or is the AK better for CQB than the lengthier M-16 and it was a matter of convenience and operability as opposed to the magnitude of fire?

Oh I'm sure some guys may have chucked their M16s....but that is likely grossly exaggerated event. And like many stories surrounding weapons, sometimes rumor and hyperbole takes on a life of it's own and becomes accepted as "fact" (like M1 carbine rounds unable to penetrate Chinese winter jackets or that a .50BMG round doesn't have to hit you to cause damage.....both of which are loads of BS BTW). The AK is a good weapon, but there are plenty better out there.

Big reason NOT to pick up battlefield discards except in emergency situations is each weapon has a distinct sound when shot and when you cannot see your enemy due to heavy vegetation, you are likely going to shoot in the direction where you heard the "bad guy's" gun. So if you WANT to invite fratricide, go ahead and pick up that AK and shoot it in the middle of a firefight.

Bottom line is that once the problems were identified and fixes put into place (bringing the weapon up to A1 specs), it worked just fine. But as they say "you only get one chance to make a first impression." First impression wasn't that great due to serious fielding foibles (and I'm not sure how many of them were true attempts by Ordnance dept at sabotaging the fielding like they attempted to sabotage the testing), and the M16 has been trying to overcome that reputation since then.

Fair enough, sir. I learned a lot from this exchange!

I can see that as an option...but I think we'd still need long (or at least medium) guns as well. That might be a great option, say, for a "breaching team" in each platoon or something along those lines.

Would this do, SGT Richard H.?

1LT William Clardy No sir. Not a laser.

But it's made by the same company as the BlasTech E-11, SGT Richard H....

That's hilarious! I googled the blast tech E-11 and found a description on wookiepedia. I had no idea such a site existed LOL

I can see your point on that...except that the M4 does it's job. The ACU is camouflage that doesn't...well...camouflage. I can't argue that there's better stuff out there, though.

ACU did it's job too. But there was better. We wore it for so long and still do until we get our new uniforms. And the Army fought the change too. SGT Richard H.

Yes Sir, but not as much as replacing it...and it could be staged as a rebuild program, since the ones currently in use are serviceable.

SGT Richard H., very true. The reason why it's hung on so long as nothing out there was so superior that it was worth the cost to replace the M16.

Something like a 6.5 Creedmoor or 6.5 Lapua wouldn't be a bad choice. I'm not much of a fan of short case/heavy bullet 7.62 due to the crummy ballistics & short range.

The Army has a hard on for 5.56x45mm and 9x19mm both of which are cheap and lower performance rounds. True they get the job done but there are better options out there. Part of the reason we use them is cost, part is weight, and part is magazine size. 7.62x51mm and .45 ACP have better POI but they are also significantly heavier to carry and the magazines have half to 2/3rds the capacity. At least the military finally adopted the M855A1 round that has similar ballistics and POI to the larger and heavier 7.62x51mm round while still allowing for 30 rd mags and 210 rds to be relatively easily carried.

Also, a big part of why we use them is that they meet NATO specs.

Also I'd like to add, as a final chapter in the whole barrel length debate, which version of the LaRue OBR do most of the winners of the USASOC International Sniper Competition own? Give you a hint, it isn't their full length 20 inch barrel version.

PFC (Join to see) the issue with terminal ballistics out of a 10.3" barrel isn't that you can't hit something out to 500m with it. Yes you can with practice. The issue is what damage the bullet is going to do to the target at that range when it hits. 5.56mm is a VERY velocity dependent round when it comes to terminal ballistics. Out of a 10" barrel, a standard 5.56mm round leaves the barrel at ~2600fps. That is over 400fps slower than out of a 20". And when the fragmentation threshold of 5.56mm is typically around 2500fps, you don't have a whole lot of range before that bullet loses a lot of what makes it effective (ie. fragmentation). It may have the legs to get to 500m, and with good shooting skills may be able to hit your target, but it's not going to do much damage when it gets there. THAT is why guns like the Mk18 is considered a CQB weapon.

Again, the round still has lethal velocity at 500 meters when fired from a 10.3 inch barrel. That lethality can be increased when the appropriate ammunition is used but the standard green tip will still get the job done. One of the biggest complaints against the M16 was over-penetration. The MK18, to use the naval nomenclature, is just as good at killing as an M16 at 500 meters.

A lot of what was understood as being "facts" when it comes to ballistics and terminal ballistics has been proven false or the factor that X has on Y has been over exaggerated (like barrel length) and easily compensated for with adequate training.

As for the initial loss in velocity, I still don't care. These numbers have little relevance when it comes to terminal velocity and the fact remains there isn't much of a difference at 300 meters or 500 meters. That's one of the main reasons why the SPR (MK12) was deemed obsolete and phased out of the Army's inventory. For all the glory of having a 600m 5.56mm rifle, it just wasn't enough of a game changer and you might as well have a 7.62mm rifle to cover that range. The same can be said of the M16 vs the M4, for what the M16 offers and what it lacks when compared to the M4, it is just an inferior choice for a main battle rifle.

Lastly, lets be realistic. 500 meters is well beyond the range where the average US Soldier can hit a target. Even the Marines, who incorporate 500 meter targets into training, only do so under range conditions.

LT don't focus on the upper. Truth be told it takes some finagling to ensure reliability with 10.3-10.5 barrels. The recommended length for a SBR (short barrel rifle) for the M16/M4/AR15 FOW is 12.5". You could issue a Soldier a M16 with 20" upper and include an upper (14.5, 12.5, 11, 10.5") for SBR configurations.