Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDrive
So you guys are seriously going to argue that in a close range firefight, an M4 is a superior weapons to an AK-47?
|
The 5.56mm projectile (be it M193, M855 or Mk262) creates a far more devastating wound than 7.62x39mm 139gr FMJ, yes. Especially at close range. 5.56mm FMJ potentially also creates a significantly more devastating wound tract than FMJ 7.62x51mm NATO as well.
The 5.56mm rounds fragment violently on impact. The 7.62mm caliber rounds do not, they simply lack the velocity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDrive
How many freaking report need to come back from the battle field? I mean, its a story that had been reported over and over again.
|
The M4 has an over 90% satisfaction rating among US troops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDrive
Schit hits the fan defensive battle, close range, lot of full auto fire = AK platform is superior.
|
No offense, but full auto fire sucks dick (the M16A1 was full auto, the 3rd burst of the M-16A2+ is considered an upgrade in the Army's eyes), and an AK will overheat even faster than an AR due to the larger propellant load in each cartridge. The problem is not exhaust gas blowing into the bolt area, the problem is the actual firing of round after round after round in the chamber in a compressed time frame. This causes the chamber walls to heat to the point of cook-off. As far as i know that has nothing to do with the M-16's direct gas operation system.
That being said, the M-4A1 (SOCOM model) is full auto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDrive
AKs wiggle like a noodle when you fire them from that huge chunk of metal smashing back and forth, and are not accurate. But accuracy is not the primary issue when its 106 degrees, dusty, and there is a guy spraying you with 7.62 rounds from 40 meters away.
I find the army's dogged defense of the M4 platform disturbing.
|
Have you ever carried an M-4? If you had, you'd probably have a different opinion.
90+% of US troops love them.
In actual battle i'd probably rather have an M-16A4 because it's more powerful, but for actual every day use an M-4 is pretty close to the perfect military rifle IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFAFF
The US Army did try to replace the M16/M4 range.. ending up with the XM-8....but that was shelved for a number reasons.. possibly technical.. but politcial reasons seem to be the greatest ones so far.
Its been 5 years since that programme was shelved...
The main reason was to 'eliminate' the reliability problems associated with direct impingement gas actuation.
The M16/ M4 is a 'good' weapon.. but certainly not the 'best' there is at the moment...
|
The XM-8 was a totally unneccesary "upgrade", that's why it was shelved. In the end it just didn't offer enough(if anything) over the M-4 to warrant such a drastic change and such a large expenditure of $.