Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Army Agrees That The M-4 Sucks
Strategy Page ^ | November 25, 2009

Posted on 11/28/2009 2:11:52 AM PST by myknowledge

The U.S. Army has finally addressed years of complaints about the M-4 and M-16 assault rifles. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, and has become very popular with the troops. The army has asked the Department of Defense for permission to spend a few hundred million dollars on upgrades for its 400,000 M-4 assault rifles. The big change is replacing the main portion of the rifle with a new component that contains a short stroke piston gas system (to reduce buildup of carbon inside the rifle) and a heavier (by five ounces) barrel (which reduces barrel failure from too much heat, which happens when several hundred rounds are fired within a few minutes.)

Much of this goes back to the decades old argument about replacing the recoil system in the M-16 assault rifles. This came to a head (again) two years ago, when the army ran more tests on its M-4 rifle, involving dust and reliability. Four weapons were tested. The M4, the XM8, SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) and the H&K 416 (an M4 with the more dust resistant components of the XM8 installed).

The testing consisted of exposing the weapons to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over two months. During that testing period, 6,000 rounds were fired from each of ten weapons of each type. The weapons with the fewest failures (usually jams) were rated highest. Thus the XM8 finished first, SCAR second, 416 third and M4 last. In response, the army said it was satisfied with the M4s performance, but was considering equipping it with a heavier barrel (to lessen overheating) and more effective magazines (27 percent of the M4s 882 jams were magazine related.) The army noted that the M4 fired over 98 percent of its rounds without problems. That missed the point that the other rifles had far fewer jams. In combat, each jam is a life threatening situation for the soldier in question. The army had been forced by Congress to conduct the tests. Congress was responding to complaints by the troops.

The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Thus the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8, the rifle designed to replace it. The M4 had nearly four times the jams of the SCAR and 416, which were basically M4 type rifles with a different gas handling system. Any stoppage is potentially fatal for the soldier holding the rifle. Thus the disagreement between the army brass, and the troops who use the weapons in combat.

In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon (from the recoil system) and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.

If the issue were put to a vote, the troops would vote for a rifle using a short-stroke system (like the XM8, SCAR or H&K 416). But the military is not a democracy, so the troops spend a lot of time cleaning their weapons, and hoping for the best. The debate involves two intertwined attitudes among senior army commanders. First, they don't want the hassle, and possible embarrassment, of switching to a new rifle. Second, they are anticipating a breakthrough in weapons technology that will make a possible a much improved infantry weapon. This is likely to happen later, rather than sooner, but the generals kept obsessing over it.

Earlier efforts to just get the troops a more reliable rifle have failed. Back in 2005, the U.S. Army's design for a new assault rifle, the XM8, was cancelled. But now the manufacturer has incorporated one of the key components of the XM8, into M4 rifles, and calls the hybrid the H&K 416. Heckler & Koch (H&K) designed the XM8, which was based on an earlier H&K rifle, the G36. SOCOM is using the 416, but no one else is (except for a few police departments).

The XM8 (like the G36 and 416) uses a short-stroke piston system. The M16s uses the gas-tube system, which results in carbon being blown back into the chamber. That leads to carbon build up, which results in jams (rounds getting stuck in the chamber, and the weapon unable to fire.). The short-stroke system also does not expose parts of the rifle to extremely hot gases (which wears out components more quickly). As a result, rifles using the short-stroke system, rather than the gas-tube, are more reliable, easier to maintain and last longer.

H&K developed the 416, for SOCOM, at the same time the XM8 was being evaluated by the army. SOCOM got the first 416s in 2004, a year before the army cancelled the XM8. The 416 looks like the M4, for the only thing that has changed is the gas system that automatically extracts the cartridge after the bullet has been fired, and loads the next round. SOCOM can buy pretty much whatever they want, the U.S. Army cannot. SOCOM listens to what its troops want, the army often doesn't.

The army is also making three other changes, as part of the M-4 component replacement. There will be improved trigger pull characteristics, a stronger (less likely to fail) rail on the top of the rifle (for fitting scopes and other accessories), ambidextrous controls (to make life easier for lefties) and a round counter (in the pistol grip) to track the number of bullets fired over the lifetime of the rifle (makes for better data on how rifles perform over time, and for scheduling the replacement of components.)


TOPICS: Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: assaultrifle; banglist; barrett; barrettm468; coltm4; fn; fnscar; hecklerkoch; hk; hk416; hkxm8; m16; m4; remington; remingtonacr; socom; usarmy

Proposed replacements for M4 / M16 assault rifle

FN SCAR

Barrett M468

Heckler & Koch XM8

FN F2000

IMI Tavor TAR-21

Remington ACR

Which rifle would you select as a replacement for the M4 / M16?

I'd go for the Remington ACR.


1 posted on 11/28/2009 2:11:53 AM PST by myknowledge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
If the issue were put to a vote, the troops would vote for a rifle using a short-stroke system (like the XM8, SCAR or H&K 416)

Forgot the AK47 in the list...... pinged to later read after work.

2 posted on 11/28/2009 2:24:45 AM PST by MrPiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
OK! So whats the hold up. Yesterday would have been soon enough than that's just me.
3 posted on 11/28/2009 2:26:02 AM PST by BellStar (Be strong ........Joshua 1:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

Just adopt the freaking FN SCAR or ACR already. I favor the SCAR, but the ACR may be more politically friendly.


4 posted on 11/28/2009 2:28:15 AM PST by Terpfen (FR is being Alinskied. Remember, you only take flak when you're over the target.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Not only that, the ACR can be modified to fire the AK-47's 7.62 x 39 M43 round.

Imagine that, firing the same ammo as your enemy while still using a U.S. made weapon.

5 posted on 11/28/2009 2:39:21 AM PST by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
The Robinson Arms XCR is not in your list and is, I think, one of the more practical choices. Besides, these are all revisions of the AR-18, the patents to which long ago elapsed. All these manufacturers are just proposing their own innovative twists to the old Stoner concept for proprietary reasons. Instead of rewarding any one of them with a $2000/rifle contract, we should just offer them the opportunity to get in on a $500/rifle contract for new AR-18s.
6 posted on 11/28/2009 2:40:47 AM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrPiper
As much as it pains me to say it I have to agree. The AK-47 has a legendary reputation for reliability and a modern variant of it should also be considered as a replacement. It is inexcusable that so many of our troops have to die because of shoddy weaponry.
7 posted on 11/28/2009 3:25:04 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Yep, the AK-47’s Garand style action just works.

I bet they just replace the M-4 upper with a short stroke piston design.

Us civilians can always buy a Ruger mini-14. Mini-14, get it? M14 made small.


8 posted on 11/28/2009 3:38:16 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
As much as it pains me to say it I have to agree. The AK-47 has a legendary reputation for reliability and a modern variant of it should also be considered as a replacement. It is inexcusable that so many of our troops have to die because of shoddy weaponry.

The AK design does not meet military accuracy requirements in its original design.

Oh, you can 'accurize' an AK, but it loses its reliability as a result.

It is time for a new weapon system, not a repeat of something (the AK) that is over 70 years old.

9 posted on 11/28/2009 3:45:32 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The AK as you have stated has poor tolerances, which on one hand makes it able to fire under almost any condition. But on the other does not add to it's accuracy.

My son who has the opportunity to work with most of the above named weapons enjoys the 416.

10 posted on 11/28/2009 4:20:37 AM PST by Recon Dad (SSgt O - 3rd Afghanistan Deployment - Day 37)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad

I do a couple of deer hunts a year for Veterans with most of them being Iraq or Afghanistan Vet’s and I’m always amazed at how many of them would have preferred having a M-14. They’re biggest complaint was the 5.56’s inability to penetrate the dirt walls.


11 posted on 11/28/2009 4:49:05 AM PST by Dusty Road
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

U.S. Army Agrees That The M-4 Sucks
Strategy Page ^ | November 25, 2009

The U.S. Army has finally addressed years of complaints about the M-4 and M-16 assault rifles. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, and has become very popular with the troops.


Huh? The Army (brass) officially disses the M-16 variant M-4, but the troops themselves want more of ‘em? Huh?


12 posted on 11/28/2009 5:19:30 AM PST by flowerplough ( Pennsylvania today - New New Jersey meets North West Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.

Here's an idea - recoup a lot of that "billion or so" by selling the old rifles via the CMP.

Tell the ATF to sod-off.

13 posted on 11/28/2009 5:20:30 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

This is totally emotional. ANYTHING FOR OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN COMBAT.


14 posted on 11/28/2009 5:29:26 AM PST by AZFolks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dusty Road
My son took four rifles with him to Afghanistan this deployment. A Barrett, M-14, M-40A1 and M-4. He will not have an issue with penetrating power for the most part.
15 posted on 11/28/2009 6:28:44 AM PST by Recon Dad (SSgt O - 3rd Afghanistan Deployment - Day 39)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

The problem with the Mini 14 is that it isnt really a accurate rifle. Plus the fact it is chambered for.223 and not 5.56, a small but important detail.


16 posted on 11/28/2009 6:58:32 AM PST by Yorlik803 (better to die on your feet than live on your knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

I propose a “skeet” test.

Taka a couple dozen Taliban, launch them into the air, and we’ll see how good these rifles are. :)

-—”I love the peasants, I love the people...PULL!!!!”
(History of the World, Part One)


17 posted on 11/28/2009 8:11:12 AM PST by ak267
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

So can the SCAR. Not a unique feature.


18 posted on 11/28/2009 10:22:26 AM PST by Terpfen (FR is being Alinskied. Remember, you only take flak when you're over the target.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge

A buddy of mine was able to shoot the SCAR recently. He’s a writer for a major shooting magazine. He said the SCAR was extremely accurate, but too heavy, and the charging handle was on the wrong side.

This is a guy who has his own HK 416 too, so he knows what he’s talking about. He said the SCAR could be tweeked to be a fantastic battle rifle.


19 posted on 11/28/2009 11:39:47 AM PST by Armedanddangerous (I think youre so full of inconsolable rage you don't care who you hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803

the Mini is very inaccurate at distances where M16s and M4s have no trouble getting the hits at all.


20 posted on 11/28/2009 11:41:25 AM PST by Armedanddangerous (I think youre so full of inconsolable rage you don't care who you hurt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon (from the recoil system) and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.

It's a sad reality of history that we just don't seem to have many wars in really nice places. I mean yes, the Japanese bombed Honolulu and the Nazis did a little street fighting in Paris but by and large wars tend to be fought in places with severely depressed real estate values. (One reason why some of us in California are rather nervous these days.)

But OK, here's a plan to get over the one gigabuck price tag for a new infantry weapon:

As I understand it, the M4 is a fine little carbine as long as you don't need to live with it in the dirt and mud for extended periods of time. Just make Class 3 licenses as simple and inexpensive to get as a C&R and sell the M4s to people through the CMP at a price comparable to that of the new wonder weapon that gets issued to the troops.

21 posted on 11/28/2009 12:06:15 PM PST by InABunkerUnderSF (California -- Ya es como Mexico)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The AK design does not meet military accuracy requirements in its original design.

It is time for a new weapon system, not a repeat of something (the AK) that is over 70 years old.

I agree, but in the types of situations in which the M4 or M16 is being used, is the extra accuracy more important than the weapon working when it needs to work? Maybe it is time for the military to reassess its weapons needs for situations like these, even if it means using an old, but clearly effective, design.

Granted, I am a laymen when it comes to military things, but it just really angers me when I see our troops dying for such a stupid reason as the weapons not working when they need them to work. It just seems like this type of situation is completely preventable.

22 posted on 11/28/2009 8:14:29 PM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Maybe it is time for the military to reassess its weapons needs for situations like these, even if it means using an old, but clearly effective, design.

First, our military is one of the few to do such studies on effectiveness of its weapons.

You don't read the numerous reports of AK users running out of ammo because the system is essentially "spray and pray".

The opposing forces that deploy the AK do not track how many of their troops are killed because they could not hit the enemy before the enemy picked them off with their superior accuracy.

Yes, the M4 has failures, but in every war, the opposing troops have taken higher losses than our troops have taken. That does not mean we should settle when something superior is available, but it does not mean we should go backwards to an inferior design that has lost to our system in every war.

23 posted on 11/28/2009 9:12:01 PM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
u.s. troops using ak-47s in iraq
24 posted on 11/29/2009 12:56:07 AM PST by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
From the original story:

"The 416 looks like the M4, for the only thing that has changed is the gas system that automatically extracts the cartridge after the bullet has been fired, and loads the next round."

Ummmmm, isn't that what any "self-loading" rifle like the M-16 or M-4 already do? Pick up a fresh round from the magazine after each shot and load it into the chamber? The gas piston thing might be an improvement, but the rifle overall function isn't really changed, is it?

25 posted on 11/29/2009 1:35:10 AM PST by Lockbar (March toward the sound of the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lockbar
The M4 / M16 has a direct impingement system, which causes gases and other foreign material like dust and dirt to enter the chamber, causing jams. The HK416 has a gas operators short stroke piston operated rotating bolt, which does not cause jams.
26 posted on 11/29/2009 2:43:29 AM PST by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: myknowledge
u.s. troops using ak-47s in iraq

First, only certain forces are allowed to deviate from the M4 and those forces usually want to blend in with the crowd.

It does not mean the AK is a better choice than the M4.

27 posted on 11/29/2009 3:49:53 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Yorlik803

Yeah, I’ve heard that accuracy complaint, but I wonder, mine appears to be accurate enough for the intentions. The chambering for 223 vs 5.56 it doesn’t seem to know about ... why should it care? Ruger marks their new SR 556 with both cartridges. So do a lot of the ARs I have looked at. I feed it mostly white box 223 ammo though, the rest are reloads.

It’s just a knock around defense gun. Plenty of police use it, it is handy light and simple. With a folding stock, very compact. When I bought mine it was cheap, now not so much so. But it’s advantage is it doesn’t look AR.


28 posted on 11/29/2009 4:31:52 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“Us civilians can always buy a Ruger mini-14. Mini-14, get it? M14 made small.”

Mini-14... The Ruger piece of junk. Sorry, as a civilian I don’t like settling for junk.


29 posted on 12/01/2009 7:04:06 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

Well my junk is deadly ...


30 posted on 12/01/2009 7:20:25 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

The reliability of the AK is well documented, but so is the fact that you can’t hit the broad side of a barn from the inside with it...


31 posted on 12/01/2009 7:35:30 AM PST by Andonius_99 (There are two sides to every issue. One is right, the other is wrong; but the middle is always evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
Well my junk is deadly ...

That's what she said...

Sorry, couldn't resist...

32 posted on 12/01/2009 7:43:47 AM PST by Andonius_99 (There are two sides to every issue. One is right, the other is wrong; but the middle is always evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Andonius_99

Simple is better ... And now the lovers of that crappy US Gun are finding direct gas tubes designs are better too. You have to wonder what took people so long to figure out the AR variants were so sucky -— LOL.


33 posted on 12/01/2009 7:50:12 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
The AK design does not meet military accuracy requirements in its original design.

The Swiss have the SIG SG 550 family of rifles, based on the AK design but using 5.56 NATO ammo.

34 posted on 12/01/2009 8:02:23 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (Public healthcare looks like it will work as well as public housing did.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“Well my junk is deadly ...”

So is a plastic knife.


35 posted on 12/01/2009 8:08:55 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

So is a plastic gun ... LOL

But my SST Mini-14 goes bang every time you pull the trigger.


36 posted on 12/01/2009 8:15:12 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“So is a plastic gun ... LOL

But my SST Mini-14 goes bang every time you pull the trigger.”

It’s not the “go bang” part, but the .223 chambering vs 5.56 and general low quality/accuracy coupled with Bill Ruger’s support of gun control. I’m glad you’re happy with your Mini. The AR is vastly superior to it in every way... for at least my purposes.


37 posted on 12/01/2009 8:18:59 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
The Swiss have the SIG SG 550 family of rifles, based on the AK design but using 5.56 NATO ammo.

The 5.56 is a whole other problem, not related to the weapon itself.

Changing the weapon will be easy, changing caliber (which is nearly equally important) is an even greater problem due to our NATO allies.

38 posted on 12/01/2009 8:43:49 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (Too many conservatives urge retreat when the war of politics doesn't go their way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center
Ahhh yes "for at least my purposes"

And isn't that why they have different manufacturers? I find no problem with the chambering for 223, most new ARs are marked for both, and as to accuracy no complaints here.

However Bill Ruger did do the gun control thing, which wasn't very pretty. Now you can get Ruger factory mags and all manner of improvements.

I still think blowing hot gas and carbon into the rifle's action was dumb from the start. Garand had a much better design.

I admit, it used to be cheap, which was one of it's more endearing qualities. Now not so much so, but I have switched to 12 ga as my main defense gun.

39 posted on 12/01/2009 8:50:53 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“And isn’t that why they have different manufacturers? I find no problem with the chambering for 223, most new ARs are marked for both, and as to accuracy no complaints here.”

ARs are marked for both because it’s safe to shoot 223 in a 5.56 rifle, but not to do the opposite. NATO standards exceed SAAMI pressure limits.

The Mini-14 is, at best, a short range rifle.

“I still think blowing hot gas and carbon into the rifle’s action was dumb from the start. Garand had a much better design.”

Direct impingement can lead to better accuracy and, unless you are shooting poorly burning ammunition, it’s not THAT much carbon. Piston systems need cleaning too. I have to periodically clean the piston on my M14 with special tools (drill bits, actually).


40 posted on 12/01/2009 8:59:45 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

Yeah, all rifles need cleaning, my M1A(M14 variant) and couple of M1 Garands, needs a bit of cleaning at the gas piston periodically, but solvents do the trick.

And how short is short range, out to 200 yards is about all most can shoot accurately anyway — especially under duress. When hunting it’s laughable what the scoped rifle crowd misses. And — Just look at the number of police gun fights where tens of rounds are fired and no one is hit.

Hence the switch to short barreled shotguns for me. In city areas, it’s all you need. And in the swamps of Florida, probably even less attention to range, and more attention to snap shooting.

If I had a choice the new Ruger SR-556 looks good. But not the price.


41 posted on 12/01/2009 9:13:56 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“Yeah, all rifles need cleaning, my M1A(M14 variant) and couple of M1 Garands, needs a bit of cleaning at the gas piston periodically, but solvents do the trick.”

You need the drill bits to clean out the M14’s gas lock and piston. Lots of carbon builds up in there.

“And how short is short range, out to 200 yards is about all most can shoot accurately anyway “

200 yards is short range. 600 yards is medium range. 1000 yards is long range. An AR is capable of good accuracy out to at least 600 yards, but that requires ammunition unsafe in something like the Mini-14. Most military 5.56 is unsafe in the Mini-14.

“And — Just look at the number of police gun fights where tens of rounds are fired and no one is hit.”

They don’t practice or train.


42 posted on 12/01/2009 9:37:10 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center
There has been a lot of discussion about branding the mini unsafe with 5.56 ammo, but little proof it really is. People say it's the rifling lede problem which raises chamber pressure, easily fixed by a gunsmith, but I have had no problems with mine. But now I mostly use white box 223 ammo and handloads.

Find something to shoot at 600 yards in city surroundings. Even the boats that go by are closer than that.

I used to practice at a 600 yard range, it wasn't simple to hit a 3 foot target at that range, much less the bullseye. And when stressed, it was even worse at 200 yards. After living in Colorado, that makes the real range problem very obvious. I contend that if most can deliver a kill shot to a target at 200 yards, they are quite good at it.

Not bragging, just fact — I was able to bullseye with powerful scopes off a rest at 200 yard range under field conditions, but not necessarily under harder hunting conditions. Off a bench, I easily could do under 1 inch groups at 100 yards with handloads tuned for the rifle. In the field, bullet drop and windage becomes big problems in the open range when hunting. Snipers are to be revered.

As I aged, the accuracy went down, who doesn't have that problem.

But I still don't like ARs, just because ....

43 posted on 12/01/2009 10:00:10 AM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“There has been a lot of discussion about branding the mini unsafe with 5.56 ammo, but little proof it really is.”

The very LOADING allowable for 5.56 is up to 20,000 psi higher than SAAMI, so yes, there is proof. Now, it may or may not damage the rifle, but it still can exceed the pressure it was designed for.

“Find something to shoot at 600 yards in city surroundings. Even the boats that go by are closer than that.”

I don’t live in a city. I hate cities.

“I used to practice at a 600 yard range, it wasn’t simple to hit a 3 foot target at that range, much less the bullseye.”

It is if you practice and have a good rifle and ammunition.

“Not bragging, just fact — I was able to bullseye with powerful scopes off a rest at 200 yard range under field conditions, but not necessarily under harder hunting conditions. Off a bench, I easily could do under 1 inch groups at 100 yards with handloads tuned for the rifle. In the field, bullet drop and windage becomes big problems in the open range when hunting. Snipers are to be revered.”

I regularly hit 600 yard targets with an AR-15 in the 10 ring using iron sights prone with a sling in high temp conditions and variable weather and on the clock. I can do that with an M14 too. Not bragging, just fact. There are countless competitors better than me at it, too.

Bullet drop and windage are why (1) the sights are adjustable and we have tables and (2) windage is helped by having a spotting scope, but flags, grass, and trees will get you there.

“But I still don’t like ARs, just because ....”

I was an M14 shooter and thought the same of mouseguns. I learned from losing to them.


44 posted on 12/01/2009 11:53:11 AM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Favor Center

You appear to be a good shot. I am afraid my old eyes cannot do it anymore.


45 posted on 12/01/2009 12:10:37 PM PST by Tarpon (To destroy the people's liberties, you poison their morals ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon

“You appear to be a good shot. I am afraid my old eyes cannot do it anymore.”

I’m just fair-to-middling.

Focusing on the front sight post is usually the biggest problem as we age. There, the M14 has a slight advantage with a longer sight radius. Ring-and-ring iron sights (”match” rifles) or shooting F-Class (optics) are the usual fixes to continue shooting at medium range targets. It can be done. It requires effort, practice, and suitable equipment, but it can be done and it is easier than you think. Truly great marksmanship skills like Gallagher’s or Tubb’s probably can’t be taught, but at least expert-level marksmanship can be. If push comes to shove, take your Mini-14 to an Appleseed event. The limitations of that platform will not be an issue (they shoot at VERY short ranges), but the fundamentals taught apply at longer ranges.

Too many are never actually taught to shoot. Most hunters, many in law enforcement, and a lamentable chunk of the military fall in that category.


46 posted on 12/01/2009 1:07:34 PM PST by Favor Center (Targets Up! Hold hard and favor center!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson