How does it feel to know the M16 line of rifles is going into the garbage can?
The Marines, the most prolific user of the rifle, are already switching to the M4. They claim the M4, loaded with special ammunition, outperforms the A4 up to ranges of 600m.
>Join the 14.5" masterrace
The 20" M16s of yesteryear will forever hold a place in our hearts.
If the target isn't armored, yeah of course.
Whoever it is is going to be out of the fight, even if it's a more minor wound where he's basically just got a tumbling 22 cal bullet going into and/or through him.
I'm still genuinely baffled at why US infantry soldiers in Afghanistan AREN'T fielded M14s after 14+years of long-range combat with talibs.
Seriously every trooper in A-stan should have a rifle that he can reliably engage targets with.
Someone should look into how they determined this. Considering the amount of bad and biased testing that went on during the AR-15's trial run to get into service in the early 60s, I would not be surprised if this were the case.
Also, is it Colt that makes this M4 variant? Or is it some third party M4-esque copy?
MIC at its worst
Congress is going to make them decide which round they'll end up adopting. They'll probably end up with the M855A1 in spite of whatever performance/reliability concerns just because the Army has more sway and they've already sunk so much money into it
I don't know about that. The article you provided was from March, these other twos are pretty recent.
I think they are only adopting the M4 contingent on using that new ammunition.
We used the barrier rounds in all of our weapons on my last deployment in 2013
The Marine Corps is actually paying little to nothing for the M4s.
Just for shits and giggles, let's say a new rifle costs the USMC $1,500. To outfit, I don't know, 100,000 Marines with said rifle that is only $150,000,000. Compare that to an F-22, which had a cost per unit of $322 million.
>small arms are cheap
I'm not phased because I got to use a C7A1 at basic, and was actually told that I was in the last platoon EVER to use them before they go to the smelter to be recycled into cans or whatever. Recruits will get to use A2s from then on. (I think even the Army platoons were using them, we only use A1s because the navy likes ironsights since scopes aren't exactly a boon if you're on a tiny fishing vessel trying to shoot someone 3 feet away)
I know it's not EXACTLY an M16 but hey, M4s are basically the same as M16s but shorter and with a different trigger group, aren't they?
afaik it's "effective" up to 400m and intended for 100m, and the reason it's used is because of STANAG. To just up and switch to battle rifles would be a massive upheaval of an international standard that's literally too big and to old to fail, because the alternatives are better but not so mindblowing that a switch is necessary right this minute. Also, not every engagement is over an entire desert., so ridiculous long rifles as standard wouldn't be good for people who happen to be in cities, on ships, etc.
Also, it'd fuck with drill manuals, just to add insult to clerical work and mismanagement
I think it's more likely that the M16s are old and instead of continuing to service them and order parts, they're just gonna adopt the ACTUAL standard rifle and cease being special snowflakes
The articles posted earlier in the thread claim they already have the 17,000 M4's to issue to the infantry, so it won't cost anything.
That's an interesting number though, does that account for the RCO?
No, it only accounts for the actual weapon itself. other pieces of serialized gear had their own costs listed as well, as far as i remember, both the RCO and PEQ-16 were below $2000.
I assume that the Unit Replacement Cost entailed every single penny it would cost to get a brand new system shipped to that unit, to include paperwork, man hours, and shipping considerations. So $1100 is probably much higher than what the Marine Corps pays per rifle.
They've already been phasing out the M16 with the M4 for like the past 5 years. The only rifles they have left are probably totally banged to shit.
If at all, they'll probably be sold to the CMP where they will be altered for civilian use, and a large quantity may also go to law enforcement, because everyone knows modern LEOs are complete fucking gear queers
>The only rifles they have left are probably totally banged to shit.
Naw man. Servicing and refurbishing them if they get issued is a pain in the ass and the unit replacement cost is low. It's much cheaper to trash weapons that see use and buy new ones.
The stock of reserve M-16's is huge, and it's new, never issued weapons.
can someone please tell me what the biggest differences between the m16a4 and modern AR15 variants are?
Does the M16 even have changeable furniture?
One thing I understand is that A1 and A2 were made before the consideration of the pitcanny rail or so I believe, which seems pretty awesome to think about.
I would like to add on to your post by saying, would you really want a upper that has quite literally been beat to shit over the past 30 years by a bunch of boots? The barrels are probably sewer pipes and there will be enough wobble in the upper to shoot yourself in the foot while aiming ahead
Marine Corps Recruit Training Depot Parris Island was issued brand new M16A4s with Brand new ACOGs about 3 years ago. A great Many POG Units were also issued new M16s around the same time. As far as I have been told only infantry units will be phasing out m16s with m4s but it's going to take a fucking long time before the phase out is complete. It might be done by the time your grand kids go to college.
Some M14s issued in Afghanistan come straight from old cold war era supply depots. They don't EBR all of them
The whole "moderate rebels" things pisses me off so much. How can the government trust a bunch of backwater idiots with free full auto guns, but their own people have to jump through tons of hoops and pay out the ass for 30 year old registered automatics?
>It isn’t a hollow point. It is an Open-Tip Match round much like the M118LR. The jacket is drawn from the base (instead of the cheaper method of jacket drawn from the nose and an exposed lead base) to the tip of the bullet. The tiny little hole there is just a remnant from jacketing the bullet that way. It isn’t designed for expansion or calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, so it doesn’t violate the Hague conventions
Army paid 1800$ per M4 in 2014.
I wonder what the heck the plain "Carbine" is
There is also a great deal of money spent of M4 Carbine Mods for unspecified amounts.
I don't know.
"Carbine" was bought for 733$ dollars per piece in 2014
In Thailand there are swastikas all over the place. They don't mean what you think it does.
Hey, man, we aren't the ones responsible. We're more pissed than you are. Anyone who has looked at the issue for longer than ten seconds is pissed, and all we can do is sit by and watch the Jackass in Chief do shit that we didn't elect him to do. Matter of fact, depending who you talk to, most people tried to elect him to do the OPPOSITE of what he's doing.
Just remember, don't hate the American people, hate our shit fucking current leadership.
They technically have different names. The swastika has been a symbol of fortune for as long as we've existed as a species. We've been digging shit out of the ground, dated to over eight thousand years BC, with swastikas present in some form.
The Nazis just twisted it 45 degrees and called it the "hakenkreuz", or crooked cross.
They should've just put telestocks on their M16s.
Pin and weld man.
Barrel length gives you distance as it gives powder more time to burn. But a shorter barrel of the same thickness will be more accurate as it is stiffer. You can achieve the same accuracy of a short barrel by adding thickness to a longer barrel. I'm sure you can see why that would be an issue with standard ground infantry.
moments later, 250,000 M16A4 rifles pop up in the hands of "moderate rebels"
Its a Buddhist symbol. Nazis just stole it because muh "Aryan Master Race".
The world would be a better place if armed forces had switched to this gun while it had a chance.
Im sure every gun has its problems, but at least it wasnt an m16
military would have been better off had they just used the m14 through the war instead of the varmint round desu
you mean that gun that has the shit gas system and shits the bed with sand? yeah no thanks
>.280 british, 7.92×33mm Kurz, or 7.62×45mm Czech.
snowflake cartridge inferior to 308, a very slow 7.62x39, and a proprietary 7.62x39 the czechs made for the sole purpose of fucking with russia?
ew no thanks, Idk why you have such awful taste in calibers.
So do they think that infantry will only be fighting in urban areas from now on? Noone in afghanistan got into firefights over 600 meters?
Because democrats hate their own people, hasn't that been obvious for decades?
>implying the FNFAL reliability wasn't due to having initially being designed for an intermediate cartridge(,280 British, 7x49 Venezuelan ) then suddenly having to convert the design to 308 when NATO formed and it became a standard.
>durr hurr hurr soldiers shooting accurately at 600 meters.
>not hiding behind cover and taking potshots /"covering fire" in the general direction of the enemy waiting for artillery, armor or air support to arrive.
Is anyone genuinely surprised by this?
Can we discuss when the USMC is going to make "Every Marine, A Rifleman" "Every Marine, a lightmachinegunman" and make the M27 the standard?
The M27 is pretty. I want one. :(
They might not be able to sell off the lowers due to ATFaggotry, but all the other parts should be good, like upper receivers, bolts, barrels, stocks, handguards, magazines, etc.
We might not see full rifles as surplus, but I think it wouldn't be unlikely that they'd sell it all off as parts, so that would be an influx of cheap AR-15 parts.
I really like the AR-18, but the AR-15 is seriously a much better performing rifle by design.
The M4 is literally a carbine length M16, what the fuck are you talking about?
>recoils too much so full-auto and rapid fire is an unrealistic option for the majority of grunts
>action is open and exposed, known for being sensitive to sand, so lets take it to the sandbox
>cartridge with a performance most grunts just won't make use of
>beats itself to death through use
More durable by design (the AR-18 could simply not take the same kind of abuse, and actually had a few weak points here and there)
WAY better inherent accuracy.
The basic AR-18 is a perfectly adequate rifle, but it's designed to be cheap, it's a bit like the AK approach but not quite as extreme.
The nazis appropriated it, like they did with so many other symbols--for example, the Roman eagle. However, since this one was on their flag, it's the one that's most remembered and associated with them.
it wasn't the Army wanting to be ahead that made them adopt the M4 first, it was Conway being retarded that made the USMC not adopt the M4
"Marines like that M4 carbine because it looks cool. And I’ve had some Marines complain to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying ‘you know, the officers are getting these things, but we’re still having to carry this rifle.’ Well, the Marine Corps will always be a rifle Marine Corps. The carbine is an extension of the pistol, not a reduction of a rifle. And in the Afghanistan scenario where you’re shooting long distances you gotta be able to reach out and touch ‘em. And a carbine is just not designed to do that."
But you'll probably just go all "oorah debuldawg semper fi" on me
>marines, fighting harder and not smarter since their inception
>How does it feel to know the M16 line of rifles is going into the garbage can
>The M16 line of rifles is going into the garbage can
>The M16 line of rifles
This is an advanced form of stupid.
If you're ever in a fight where some guy is blowing dirt into your action with an airhose or you completely submerge your rifle in thick mud, you will probably be at a disadvantage.
these "torture tests" don't really simulate the real world conditions a soldier would actually put the M1/14 action through in places like Iwo Jima, the jungles of Vietnam or the mountains in Afghanistan.
it worked well enough for them back then and I don't plan on nearly abusing the platform as much as it was on those battlefields.
Yeah true, the test was pretty extreme and was more comparative. I just think it's interesting everyone tips on the M14 because it's unreliable but they say the M1 was fantastic. Accuracy problems aside, isn't it the same gun with a little more stuff? I am curious if it's just fuddlore or if they seriously fucked the Garand design when making the M14
I think it's more likely that he's wearing the swastika as the old Buddhist symbol than as a Nazi icon.
Or maybe he's wearing the swastika ironically? Which would make him a hipster hippy nazi marine?
If you are citing those "accuracy problems" from that looserounds blogpost I would like to let you know it was very poorly sourced and written with an agenda.
The M14 in it's bone stock form performed at 2-3 moa which is completely expected from the M80 ball they fed it.
And then the 7.62 LSAT project finishes in 2016 and then there is a mad fucking rush for telescoped 556 and 762 and every fucking M4 gets thrown in the trash.
Seriously, nobody's considering that the military is switching over to the M4 because its like 150 dollars cheaper to manufacture over the M16A4? Funny considering the M4 costs the military 400 dollars a unit.
Quit talking out of your ass.
Numerous tests past and present have proved that a AR15 and 18 using same ammo, same twist rate, same barrel length, same conditions, have produced accuracies with negligible differences out of a rifle meant to only go out to 600 meters with a round that doesn't go much farther.
Second, durable by what standard? That its stamped? So what? The AK is stamped and is more complex than the AR 18 in terms of its receiver design. And the system has gone on to make the SCAR, Sig, G36, pretty much every fucking European rifle system that uses a short stroke piston, and it has shown to put LESS stress on the lower than the AR15 allowing for polymer lowers, unlike the AR15 which's polymer lowers Glock because the immense stress put on the buffer tube.
And the same level of modularity is able to be achieved with the AR18 because guess what?
All the AR15 has going for it is the fact that you can swap barrels and/or uppers, same thing is possible with the AR18.
The brits also had the same issues with the fal, although even the turks had the same issues with the G3-sand gets into the roller locking collar and makes the action nearly impossible to force back open short of sitting the Buttstock on the ground and kicking the charging handle open with your foot in an attempt to force it open.
It's a deck, you fucking idiot, they are outside.
"We found out that the M4 actually outshoots the A4 at all ranges out to 600 meters with the new ammunition," Woodburn said, referring to the 5.56mm AB49 Special Operations Science and Technology cartridge the Corps is looking to make the standard.
Did anyone care to notice this? also is the new ammunition supposed to be more accurate with an m4 than an m16? Because that is what they are implying,
What would be the point of a less than 20" .308 battlerifle? also other countries have bullpups with barrel lengths of 20" which could be argued is just as maneuverable as an m4.
That actually makes a lot more sense in terms of military weapons testing but why wouldn't they use new rifles to test? I mean i see why they wouldn't.
A telestock on a 20" barrel seems like a fantastic idea. I am trying to build one now and I think the only considerable disadvantage would be the slightly more recoil of not having a rifle length recoil buffer.
>why not have a telescoping rifle length stock buffer?
It owns. It reduces felt recoil and increases reliability. You can basically run any upper you want on it, from a 20" rifle to a 10.3" carbine, suppressed or unsuppressed, without changing out buffers, and it will work. There's no reason to use a regular carbine receiver extension if you have the option of using the A5.
It is unreliable but it has one big boon in its favor. The same open action that allowed muck and dirt in also allows cleaning fluid (aka water) in. So if you did get it lodged in mud open a canteen and wash the mud out. It's a difference in philosophy, would you rather it be rare to jam, but take action to clear, or jam often and be easy to clear.
>fuck, my fucking M14 jammed again
>cover me while I get my canteen out and give the action a good scrubbing
>god damn do I wish I had a FAL, or an AK, or any other fucking rifle besides this piece of shit
not really it is currently a more "advanced" design with years of improvements and developments with miles of spare parts and aftermarket mods as a basic weapon the 18/180 is a better rifle
The M1 was and is an extremely reliable system, and the M14, with the White gas system and the bolt roller even more so, at least when manufactured to the proper spec. The single most common mechanical problem reported with the M14 in servicee was misaligned flash suppressors, generally resulting from overenthusiastic use of the weapon in bayonet drills, and/or Private Nimshits using the weapon plus fixed bayonet as a prybar whenever his squad leader took his eye off him.
That having been said, military reliability testing of the 1930s did not include all this retarded Youtube fuckery "herp derp let me bury the rifle in chocolate pudding" "herp derp let me bury the rifle in mud so that only the muzzle protrudes and fire it like this" shit that doesn't reflect things that happen in the real world, or at least that happen to non-morons.
I suppose you could bury a K98 in wet cement with only the muzzle sticking out, then fire it, cycle the bolt, and pretend to be surprised when foreign matter enters the action. "o noes we have proven that the Mauser 1898 action is an unreliable pice of shiet!!!!!!111oneoneeleven" It wasn't a problem in, you know, actual trench warfare.
Oh, and the open-top receiver design is an aid in clearing malfunctions caused by faulty ammo.
>mfw army did this forever ago and we still got M16's anyway in our Infantry company at 4th. I.D.
>The only elements still capable of mounting the assault were F and G Companies, and Weise planned to use both. There were fifty-four Marines left in Golf, and as Weise saddled up with them he noted that, with the exception of grenadiers and machine gunners, almost all were carrying AK-47s. Weise saw only one Ml6; it was carried by Captain Vargas. The only other functioning M16 was carried by Weise himself.
Also widely used by Native Amerians, US 45th Infantry Division used it till WW2
>The flag of the President of the Republic of Finland
That's just the cross of liberty.
>based Finnish Air Force triggering the ignorant with its insignia.
The problem isn't that the M14 is a bad system, it wasn't for the 50's and 60's. It was slightly less reliable than the garand - part of this was due to mags; the Garand is a great system but in reality it still needed at the very very least a weekly cleaning in moderate temperature field environments.
The M14 simply isn't on the same level as the garand, it's good enough if treated well, but it's not as robust.
As a bone stock battle rifle slinging 3-6 MOA is it's bread and butter, and the irons are excellent for that; but as soon as you try to accuriize it the real problems flare up, and as soon as you start adding thing like scope + mounts and bipods or even pre-bedded stocks the weight explodes.
The reason at least I try to push people away from M14's is thus:
1. They cost waaaaay waaaay too much for what they are, this is key, and it needs to be prioritized all the damn time.
I mean it's the current year - you can buy a bolt action precision rifle out of the box ready to go for less, and all it's competitors are cheaper.
If it was a sub 1k rifle/ we could get Norinco's I would change my tune lickety split
2: Every similar early cold war wooden battle rifle which predates it achieves parity to it or outperforms it at a lower cost to own - Hakim, Ljungman, and esp. the Mas 49 and FN49.
3. Every later cold war battle rifle outperforms (with the exception of perhaps the BM59) it by leaps and bounds and most are cheaper to own: FN FAL, CETME/G3, Stgw. 57, Type 64, SG542.
4. The M21, and pretty much every accurized/sniper/DM M14 variant is outmatched by the lighter SVD or G3 SG1.
5. Even ignoring some of the issues common in variants of battle rifles converted into mag fed automatic rifles/SAW's, the FN FALO outperformed the M14A1
>you will never EVER own a type 89
fucking kill me
Because they rebelling against a different government.
Politicians will espouse the virtues of an armed populace rising against tyranny, just not their own tyranny.
After all, tyranny only happens elsewhere, we don't need to be armed :^)
Yeah, most pictures are from parades, though. The dress uniform is different than the field. But I agree, the blue looks like they're trying way too hard.