Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marines might replace M-16A2 with M-4
Pacific Edition, Stars and Stripes ^ | Sunday, August 4, 2002 | Mark Oliva

Posted on 08/04/2002 11:34:22 AM PDT by demlosers

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 last
To: mamelukesabre
What's wrong with my reasoning here?

Marksmen don't fire three-round bursts.

141 posted on 08/06/2002 6:30:39 PM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
There are other weapons.

The primary criteria must be reliability. If it ain't reliable it is a crime to make a trooper carry it.

142 posted on 08/06/2002 6:31:27 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
I guess I was misled then. I didn't realize you had to do anything to the bolt carrier.

I've been told there is also an attatchment available (for around $1000) that allows you to fire linked belts through a G3 full auto just like a big time machine guns. I suppose now you are going to tell me that you need a bolt carrier mod for that too, eh?
143 posted on 08/06/2002 6:34:16 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
No. Wars must be prosecuted as political means to an end. And while rifles help win wars, "spirit" doesn't count for much at all.

How much have you actually DONE -vs- "read about"??

Stay safe; stay armed.

Artillery brings dignity to an otherwise vulgar brawl; and a good rifle helps too.

144 posted on 08/06/2002 8:06:08 PM PDT by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Noumenon
You can be accused of a lot of things, but poor taste in weapons ain't one of them my friend.



145 posted on 08/06/2002 8:14:30 PM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: andy_card; Redleg Duke
I also took a bullet for my country in Vietnam.

Reading your posts I simply cannot believe this statement is true.

Please send the scar, along with your Field Service Record to me with a SASE and I will return them after evaluation.

Stay safe; stay armed.

Artillery brings dignity to an otherwise vulgar brawl.

146 posted on 08/06/2002 8:28:00 PM PDT by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Your reasoning is flawed because the .223 M16s or M4s don't have to be on 3 round burst. They went from full auto/single round fire to a 3 round burst/single round fire option during Vietnam because the ground pounders were spraying all their ammo in one blaze of glory.

At least that's what I've been told.
147 posted on 08/06/2002 8:44:04 PM PDT by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
They did. Its called .243 Winchester. A high performance cartridge--100grain bullet with muzzle velocity of 2900fps

Armalite is producing a AR-10T model in .243 ... you might be interested.

148 posted on 08/06/2002 8:51:58 PM PDT by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: J Jay
Armalite makes a .243 AR-10. I'd like one!
149 posted on 08/06/2002 8:57:55 PM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
"The only advantage that the M-16 has is range, however battles are never fought at distances where that range matters."

If so, then why not just issue every guy a Benelli M1 Super 90 semiauto riot gun?

150 posted on 08/06/2002 9:02:13 PM PDT by
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
You weren't really misled... The change isn't a big job at all.

Click here for your belt-fed Hk conversion example.

These seem to trade hands a lot, once the novelty of the Godzilla breath-like muzzle blast wears off on the owner. ;)

151 posted on 08/06/2002 9:21:05 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
"... The AR-10's right now do have a problem with jamming but that's because of the magazines. Sending in a brand new, in the wrapper M-14 mag, then paying an embarrassing ammount of money to have it reworked and finding out it doesn't work can be trying."

That's too bad. There's a scarce amount of M-14 magazines left, and no shortage of Springfield M-1As coming off the assembly line.

Too bad that Armalite didn't -- or doesn't -- make a version that uses FN-FAL mags.

M-14 mags: $60/each, and climbing.

FN-FAL mags: $4/each, and stagnating.

Converting an M-14 mag for AR-10 service is a risky and expensive gamble.

152 posted on 08/06/2002 9:32:09 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
153 posted on 08/07/2002 5:38:28 AM PDT by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid; Shooter 2.5
Too bad that Armalite didn't -- or doesn't -- make a version that uses FN-FAL mags.

Actually Mark Westrom and Armalite did work on a FAL mag conversion, but reliability was better with M14 mags.

As an aside, the 10rd mags supplied with the AR10B (current manufacture) are reliable, the problem often comes when folks send in M14 mags of widely varying quality. The best ones - new, parkerized GI - are of course hugely expensive, so folks send in $8 stamped chinese copies and hope for the best. Still, there have been problems even with good mags, and you may have to fiddle with mag springs and followers. Long live the Crime Bill, keeping us safe from bad guys with $3000 20rd AR10's.

The AR10T flattop and SR25 systems, when properly scoped and set up, are absolutely hell for strong precision rifles. Better than MOA accuracy, great triggers, and rock solid platforms for high performance optics. Putting the package together can cost some $$ and time, but in the end you wind up with a semi auto rifle capable of repeatedly hammering targets at 500-800 yards all day long without much effort. IMO these guns are much easier to shoot well than equivalent match M1A setups, of course they are also heavier and thus not as easy to transport.

Shooter 2.5 - has your son been to the Armalite website and forum for suggestions on resolving AR10 mag problems? I would imagine so but if not there are a number of tech notes on the subject at

154 posted on 08/07/2002 6:49:27 AM PDT by xsrdx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: xsrdx; The KG9 Kid
He has been to the site on a number of occasions. He just seems like he lives with the fact that some of his mags don't work.
I guess in a lot of ways he's like me. I'll go to a IDPA match with junk magazines and if I have a jam, I just use the experience to learn to clear.
The only difference is, I'm using 8 dollar magazines and he's using 40 dollar magazines plus the price that Armalite charges to work on them.
He absolutely loves the rifle. He has an ACOG on it and it shoots superbly. He can stand up and hit this welding tank that's set up at 375 yards away about 80% of the time.
The funny thing is that the muscle memory tells us that it's an AR-15 until we shoot that first shot. It doesn't hurt but it startles me. He just bought an Armalite AR-15 and he still has to work on it. The trigger is horrible.
I have an early Armalite Golden Eagle and It came with 1/3 clicks on the rear sight. I didn't find out about that until I went to the Texas State Match. I lost over 100 points to my average because I couldn't figure out why I had to put in so many clicks. The range officer asked what I was shooting and when I told him, he just shook his head. It turns out that it was a common occurance with the early Armalites. 1/3 clicks??
155 posted on 08/07/2002 7:35:23 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Hey, Lurk. Welcome back.

Poor taste in weapons isn't one of your failings, either.

The holy trinity: M14, FN FAL, HK G3/91.

Keem 'em right side up...

156 posted on 08/08/2002 5:10:15 PM PDT by Noumenon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
Too bad that Armalite didn't -- or doesn't -- make a version that uses FN-FAL mags.

M-14 mags: $60/each, and climbing.

FN-FAL mags: $4/each, and stagnating.

Converting an M-14 mag for AR-10 service is a risky and expensive gamble.

I don't doubt it can be done, but it may not be as simple as just reworking a magazine catch. The feed lips of the M14 magazine are very short, less than half the length of the magazine, as was necessary for feeding with the M14s Garand-derived turnbolt action.

That could well mean that not only would the rifle's receiver magazine well dimensions need reworking, but also the internal bolt guideways, and either a rearrangement of the front magazine pivot pin or modification of the magazines' front pivot lug, necessating a more complicated rework and removal of the seperately fabricated and welded-on front pivot lug of the inch-pattern FAL magazines. Then there's the matter of the bolt catch, as tripped by the rising follower of an empty magazine, which works a bit differently on a FAL.

I think it's a good deal easier to just go with the FAL, which also can be transformed into a handier carbine-length shorty without altering the rifle's sights.

It's certainly possible. But it's not without some problems. Better, I think, to work up a new design altogether, as per the Robinson Arms Model 96 *Expeditionary Rifle* in .223....


157 posted on 08/10/2002 3:29:45 PM PDT by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: archy
Well, that explains that. Turn-bolt versus linear travel design. End of discussion.

I still have to find that AR-10 reference for Shooter 2.5, and will post something on it this weekend once I get this scanner working again.

If I were going to design a new 'Civilian Rifleman' rifle, I'd probably ignore magazine feed altogether:

I have this design taking shape in my mind of a semi-auto .308 rifle with a folding stock and integrated 500 meter 2x power optical/iron combo sight fed by a 10-round 'Enbloc' clip like the Garand used.

158 posted on 08/10/2002 3:40:47 PM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Furthermore, while the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO round is quite good, it too has been around for quite some time. Personally, I'd like to see someone come up with something between it and the 7.62x51mm NATO.

Sounds like half of a case for 7.62x39 ... urk!

159 posted on 08/10/2002 3:47:55 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
My basic idea was to have 3 men on each fire team with rapid-fire, solidly reliable weapons for close work (AKs), and one man with a solidly reliable long-range weapon (M-14).

1. Why not M-4's in .223 for close, and M-14's for heavy cover and distance? In Death in the A Shau Valley, Larry Chambers recalled that small trees that provided cover against M-16's and AK's, were only concealment in front of an M-14.

2. Someone posted up extraction problems with the .308/7.62x51 round. Were they worse than the M-16's?

3. What about simply carrying stocks of both M-4's and M-14's in the armory, and drawing weapons according to the mission? M-14's would make a lot more sense in Afghanistan and SW Asia generally than either M-16's or M-4's. The M-16 was designed as a jungle gun, and both it and the M-4 ought to take a back seat in other scenarios, don't you think?

4. The comment posted above about shotguns sounds appropriate. Military police used to carry fully-automatic 12-gauges, I don't know their designation but I hefted one at a gun show once (displayed by a Class III dealer), and it must have weighed 20 lbs, empty. Dragunov makes the Saiga, a semiauto shotgun with a Kalashnikov action and a detachable box magazine. There are two possibilities, besides the Benelli Super 90.

5. Economy plays a part here, too. You don't want to mass-waste potential militia weapons that ought to remain in armory, by obsoleting and ending support of the caliber. Which means dancing with the one what brung ya, as far as the rounds are concerned, unless you're willing to mass-convert and rechamber lots of existing stock (.30-06 to 7.62 NATO, e.g.). That drives the cost up and creates political problems you don't need.

I pulled a gig at a Naval Inactive Ship Facility (NAVINACSHIPFAC) in Orange, Texas, for a few months once, and what I saw aboard decommissioned ships being readied to be towed out and expended as targets would make you gag. The waste -- the blind, dumb-assed, criminal waste -- was just staggering. Everything from machine tools to old Underwood typewriters (this was 1971) to Marine hammock covers to ship's running lights, peloruses, binnacles, Sperry gyros, 40-mm mounts and barrels (the ARVN would have liked to have had those, if not our guys!), naval arty in profusion with barrels cut round and optics smashed with bull screwdrivers driven through them, 40-pound engine wrenches, tiny ball-bearing rings still in cosmoline in their wax-paper wrappers, SK cages strewn with stuff. Jesus, it'd make you weep -- and we paid for all this stuff. Dick Nixon was letting his SecNav strike 500-foot, 36-knot hulls sitting at piers while the Navy shoveled gigabucks out to Litton Industries for new-build destroyer-escorts that couldn't do over 29 knots and couldn't defend themselves.

Gives you a certain sardonic sense of what "policy" is all about.

At least we managed to salvage the CO2 extinguishers (some officer up in Little Creek whistled them up -- seems he was short of extinguishers, and we just bailed him out of a procurement pinch, we heard). I assume someone got the mint-condition boat motor we found aboard one old DE, but I'm pretty sure most of the wire rope went to waste. I heard the gas masks we sent the Naval Reserve training centers didn't last long, they dry-rotted pretty quickly once they came out of dehumidification; but the fire hose, probably stood up to city water pressures okay (it was designed to stand up to 400 psi) for training. The Gator Navy got most of the brass fire-hose nozzles we found, and damn, were there a lot of them!

But the stuff that was aboard many of those old ships went to the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. The rest wound up going to the shipbreakers. Totally squandered.

There are firearms manufacturers that would slaver at the thought of being able to replace all or most of our small-arms armory, but do we really want to do that, if it's paid for and it works? Sure, some turnover is inevitable -- but when the President came into office passing out orders to hold the line on procurement, when the budget-writers in both parties are so eager to stiff procurement, do you really think you can afford a hickey like this? Or would you rather scale back the request to something more modest......and then see about filling depleted ammo stocks? You could do that if you stuck to a triad of the M-4, the M-14 redux, and M-16's in rear-area duty and reserve.

160 posted on 08/10/2002 4:56:14 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-160 last

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
Topics · Post Article

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