"The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversies" Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Media Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleIf you want to magnetically store your 15mm vehicles, then you'd better add some steel!
Featured Profile ArticleLooking at the Soviet and U.S. token and dice sets for Battlefront's Team Yankee.
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 13 Jan 2016 10:19 p.m. PST |
"The 5.56mm M-16 has been the USA's primary battle rifle since the Vietnam war, undergoing changes into progressive versions like the M16A4 widely fielded by the US Marine Corps, "Commando" carbine versions, etc. The M4 Carbine is the latest member of the M16 family, offering a shorter weapon more suited to close-quarters battle, or to units who would find a full-length rifle too bulky. In 2006 an Army solicitation for competitive procurement of 5.56mm carbine designs was withdrawn, once sole-source incumbent Colt dropped its prices. The DoD's Inspector General weighed in with a critical report, but the Army dissented, defending its practices as a sound negotiating approach that saved the taxpayers money. As it turns out, there's a sequel. A major sequel that has only grown bigger with time. The M4/M16 family is both praised and criticized for its current performance in the field. In recent years, the M4 finished dead last in a sandstorm reliability test, against 3 competitors that include a convertible M4 variant. Worse, the 4th place M4 had over 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. Was that a blip in M4 buys, or a breaking point? The Army moved forward with an "Individual Carbine" competition, but as the results started to show the M4 again lagging – even with ammunition changed to a round specially formulated to make the M4 shine – the Army abruptly stopped the process once again, stating that the performance superiority of the competing gun was not better to a degree making it worthwhile. The Army stated after the tests that only a result that was twice as good as the existing gun's performance would signify an actionable performance difference…." Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
emckinney | 13 Jan 2016 10:47 p.m. PST |
Too many M4s with not enough range. |
Mako11 | 14 Jan 2016 12:40 a.m. PST |
Hmmmm, sounds like some in the supply chain are getting payoffs to cancel all those competitions. |
emckinney | 14 Jan 2016 6:39 a.m. PST |
Inertia, Not-Invented-Here, and a legitimate concern about logistics--trying to supply spare parts for two weapons, how long it would take to replace all of the M4s (forever), etc. |
Chuckaroobob | 14 Jan 2016 8:31 a.m. PST |
M-14's and 1911's for everybody! |
David Manley | 14 Jan 2016 10:11 a.m. PST |
Spent an interesting afternoon playing with one at the Defence Academy a whike ago. Described by one of the armourers there as "a nice weapon for the ladies". I must admit, it did seem quite handy. Not as much fun as the AK 47 though :) |
Tango01 | 14 Jan 2016 10:52 a.m. PST |
|
paulgenna | 14 Jan 2016 10:59 a.m. PST |
The M4 really needs the piston to be more effective in the sandy environment. All government contracts are tied to someone getting something out of it. My dad worked for the VA and they had to take the lowest price. When they got the construction material a large portion of it was not usable. The contractor made sure certain people got taken care of. |
Mako11 | 14 Jan 2016 1:02 p.m. PST |
I'm with Chuck on this, though would probably prefer AR-10s instead (AR-16-look-alike in 7.62mm). That whole gas-piston thing should be abandoned. If they want to stick to 5.56mm, should go with the HK-93, with a recoil driven cycling system. Nothing to clog up with dust, and/or sand with that one, and they make a folding stock model already, as an option. |
skippy0001 | 14 Jan 2016 1:32 p.m. PST |
|
goragrad | 14 Jan 2016 2:45 p.m. PST |
Well, if you want to stick with 5.56 there is the M21 A - link
I prefer something heavier like the M-77B1 in .308 - link
And of course there is always the M-70B1 in 7.62x39 - link
Short barreled version also available. |
Legion 4 | 18 Jan 2016 8:46 a.m. PST |
Well it was well known that the CAR-15 with shorter barrel, reduced range and accuracy … IIRC @ 20%. Which as we know, that is generally the effect of a shorter barrel on any weapon. I do think the Bullpup design is a very good option to shortening a weapon and not losing range, etc. … My dad worked for the VA and they had to take the lowest price. Yes, the well known "Low Bidder" effect. We saw a similar situation happen when going to the now old BDU in the '80s. The first batch faded and the black looked purple. Plus the arms and legs would shrink … and not evenly … One sleeve would be shorter than the other … |
|