Skip to comments.Hill Aides to Test M4 Alternatives
Posted on 07/11/2008 5:24:57 AM PDT by DJ Taylor
click here to read article
More carbon in the chamber.
It’s not just a catchy old saw. It’s the truth. 1960’s direct blowback technology is just stupid when HK, LWRC, FN, etc all have piston driven operating rod systems that are far superior.
And trust me, it’s NOT well liked in the field. In the middle of a firefight, in dusty conditions like in Iraq and Afghanistan, you don’t have time to sit down and do a nice little cleaning.
For $400 a piece HK will sell upper receivers for the M4 based on the HK 416 (a damn fine weapon) that will fit all of them NOW.
I don’t know of anyone that would argue a direct blowback system is superior to a piston driven one. People only argue that it’s “good enough”. Not better.
Well why the hell are we staking our troops’ lives in the field on something that is second best and not the best?
Why would Delta switch to the HK 416 instead of the M4? And if you don’t like buying from the Germans, LWRC makes a very nice system as well.
But hey, if a Studebaker got Granpa down to the corner and back, then why bother spending money on car with new technology?
I thing this system was first used on the Swedish Llungman. It worked fine on that rifle and it, like the M16 is known for it's accuracy. That piston system invented by John Browning in the 19th century is reliable but certainly not newer.
I'll bet a hit just about any place with a 30-06 or .308 would take an adversary down. Might not kill him, but he would go down.
If a deer hunter said, "I'll bet a hit just about any place with a 30-06 or .308 would take a deer down," you'd right away see the fallacy in his argument, so why can't you apply the same logic in this discussion?
The same rules apply whether you're shooting two legged or four legged animals; shot placement is all important. There is no "magic" bullet that will take down an animal if it is not hit in a vital area. Soldiers who are also hunters know this and place their shots accordingly.
A leg shot or arm shot from a 30-06 would put the man down ,IMHO. The wound would be that traumatic.
He might not stay down or die immediately but he would be incapacitated.
At Mogadishu, soldiers reported hitting men with 2-3 solid shots and the perps appeared unaffected.
Dirty chambers haven’t been an issue since the standard powder was changed in Vietnam.
The M193 and M885 rounds fragment MORE than the comparable 7.62mm ball.
If the 5.56mm round would go through them “like an icepick”, the 7.62mm counterpart would do the same.
5.56mm fragments very well, nothing like an icepick, in deep tissue and bone. Extremity hits have never been depandable in ANY infantry rifle cartridge.
That old, unwarranted comparison would work if there was an infantry rifle option that would bridge a gap alluded to in the “Studebaker” scenario.
There isn’t such a weapon.
After 100 years, we’re still working with the same basic cartridge design.
After 50+ years, we’re still working with the assault rifle platform in varying forms.
There’s simply no weapon out there that makes enough of a revolutionary (even evolutionary) leap to warrant the change.
If a weapon system were developed that significantly increased hit probability, lethality and firepower, I’d back it in a second. There simply ISN’T. Numerous trials, especially the ACR project of the 1980s, have proven this so.
That statement, by itself, makes me wonder.
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.