"M4: The Gun US Army Loves to Go to War With" Topic

"The M4 still has its critics, including a retired major general, who have derided this descendant of the M16 as inadequate for modern ground forces. They point to the direct impingement gas operating system, which siphons off hot gases from burning gunpowder to chamber the next round, as guilty of fouling the inside of the rifle, increasing the likelihood of jams. They also deride the 5.56-millimeter round as having insufficient stopping power and believe the M4's barrel is not thick enough to avoid overheating in sustained fire.

The U.S. Army is an armed force with a truly global reach. At any given time, America's premier land power operates on several different continents simultaneously, from hot, dry deserts to humid jungles and sprawling cities. Its infantrymen carry a weapon whose lineage dates back to Vietnam but which has been constantly improved to become the weapon it is today. Rugged, simple and accurate, the M4 carbine is the standard infantry weapon of not just the Army but all of America's ground forces…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

"Simple"? I have never heard of the M-16 family of weapons described as "simple". That's usually reserved for the Kalashnikovs.

All the "fixes" armchair gunsmiths are proposing only give a marginal upgrade in ratio to the extra cost. Sure the 6.x ammo hits harder at range, but that ship sailed back in the 1950's when the US decided it wanted a full size semi automatic rifle with full auto as an emergency option only.

The M16/M4 will soldier on until they either come up with a real game breaker that warrants a switch or they get replaced by a "more of the same" variant.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Guns are not important strategically.
I'm sure the soliders would like their guns to be a the best. But firearms are way down on the list of what is important in modern war
Give then the M1 Garand and while soldiers might loose local tactical fights. Strategically it wouldn't mater.