Is it time to replace the M4?

Discussion in 'Vintage Topic Archive (Sept - 2009)' started by nclpta, Apr 20, 2008.

  1. Saw this article on yahoo, and found it very interesting..

    I'm an army veteran, and we use the M16, so I don't have any experience with the shorter version, M4. If there is a better weapon for our troops, then lets get it. IMO competition is always good for the market because you know if your product is inferior, then you can be replaced...
  2. griff30

    griff30 Member

    The problem is the military makes exclusive contracts which allows the manufacture to sky rocket the cost. An M4 should be around $500 and it's a POS and has been from the beginning.
    What they need is the [​IMG]
    in stead of the $1,500 M4 which Colt make 800 a day of for the US military (thats $1,200,000 daily in taxes folks.) that JAMS more than any other firearm.
    Quoteing the article"As Colt pumps out 800 new M4s every day to meet U.S. and overseas demand, the company is remodeling its aging 270,000-square-foot facility in a hardscrabble section of Connecticut's capital city. New tooling and metal cutting machines have been installed as part of a $10 million plant improvement."
    And "At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, according to Coburn. It jams too often in sandy environments like Iraq, he adds, and requires far more maintenance than more durable carbines."

    $1,200,000 daily

  3. I'd happily pony up $1500 for a complete M4 (unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment is currently ignored) and THEN worry about affording the ammo!

  4. uncle jerky

    uncle jerky Well-Known Member

    Why doens't Colt and Bushmaster tool up to make all new,original,American made AK 47 type rifles. There are sure plenty of American made AK parts now available to civiliansl Dan Coonan Industires is an example of fine American made AK 47 receivers.Tapco makes slick American AK triggers. Also there are US made AK barrells out there as well, etc. etc etc. Is that just too simple or am I a complete naive idiot??
  5. M4 is certainly no POS. Many of the original AR problems are said to still be with it, mostly BS rumors from people who have never carried one over seas. I kept mine clean and never once had a single problem down range. My personal AR has yet to do anything except perform flawlessly also. So why would we take a brand new rifle and deploy it to a warzone? Isn't that what got the AR in trouble, deploying it before it was ready to Vietnom?
  6. even if it is more reliable than they used to be, lets face it. Out of that length barrel a 5.56 drops below the threshold for the round to perform properly after ~50 meters. We need to go to 6.8spc or one of the other mid power rounds that have b een considered.
  7. I'm not saying the 5.56 is the best cartridge out there. I'm not saying the m4 is the best rifle. But it is deployed. Soldiers have been training with it for a long time, they know the weapon inside and out. They know how to use it to the point that for most it's instinctive. I certainly believe that a cartridge of more potency would be nice for some areas of the military, but to hand out new rifles with a crash course on it's use during wartime is only asking for troubles. There's plenty of bodies hitting the floors on the buisness end of all the m-4s out there now. Once this whole conflict is over, then we need to employ a new weapon system when we have all the real fighters state side long enough to do some real testing instead of letting it be done by beuracrats.
  8. Ridge

    Ridge Member

    Mmmm H&K goodness...
  9. 47_MasoN_47

    47_MasoN_47 You know who I am Member

    Crysis FTW!

    I've only shot the Armalite M4 and I wasn't too impressed, especially with how much it cost. My friend had just bought it and we shot it about 200 times at the range. Maybe it just needs to be broke in, but it jammed every 10 rounds or so. He only had the 1 magazine that came with it, but it sometimes stovepiped and other times the cartrige wouldn't eject properly. When he was shooting next to me with my GP WASR-10 I made his rifle look pretty bad at the range, 2 30 round mags and 2 40 round mags without any jams compared to his 2-3 jams per magazine...ounch.

    Of course it's an Armalite and not a Colt. Either way, I like the AK better myself, but that's just my opinion, and everybody has one or two of those.
  10. after re-reading that article, two things come to mind:

    1. why didn't our government get a better deal? especially for a non bid contract that produce 400,000 weapons since 1994. sorry, but something seems odd. wish i could negotiate a contract with someone there...

    2. if there is a better rifle for our troops, why not consider it. that would force colt, and any other company that makes weapons to improve their product.

    i cannot offer any experience with the m4, so i cannot say it is the best choice, or is inferior to another rifle, but for the amount we are spending, all bids should be carefully reviewed. if not, they are acting like gun snobs imo....
  11. neothespian

    neothespian Member

    Yes, it's not American made...but it's the next best step to it, and DAMN if it doesn't rock my socks. And, the Israel Defence Forces can't be wrong (not like they can afford to be)

    One word: Tavor.


    For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, look it up. Damn.
  12. Uraijit

    Uraijit Guest

    They can afford anything they damn well please... They just send us the bill.
  13. tavor seems to be a very adapt rifle... it's not american made, so our troops probably will never get them... unless they are special forces or "acquire one" from a bg...
  14. Ari

    Ari Guest

  15. I've heard of it and will read up on it but it is butt ugly.
  16. pjm204

    pjm204 Member

    I haven't been over there....yet, but I will offer my opinion. I personally think we should bring back the sub-gun. Something compact that can carry a lot of ammo and fire it quickly in a controllable manner. Some round that is relatively powerful like 7.62x25. Something like an updated ppsh-41, I know the enemy is using those against us at times, wonder how they perform. Considering its an urban war, it'd seem like a pistol caliber carbine would work nicely.
  17. Silicon Wolverine

    Silicon Wolverine Well-Known Member

    pistol caliber weapons dont have the knockdown power of a rifle caliber-based weapon. PDW's were designed to take up the role of subguns but the military never embraced them, thus we get short barrel abortion AR knockoffs.

  18. pjm204

    pjm204 Member

    I have to disagree and say that there are pleanty of pistol calibers that have the knockdown power necessary to do the job. Considering that most engagements now adays are at short distances, it just doesn't seem necessary to always have a rifle caliber.
  19. 47_MasoN_47

    47_MasoN_47 You know who I am Member

    I wish I could find a Tavor somewhere I could shoot. I wanted to get a civilian version of the TAR-21 a while back but they are really expensive.

    The only problem I see with using pistol caliber weapons instead of rifle cartridges is the penetration. I don't think that Al-Qaeda uses body armor, but I know a lot of countries do. If you take something even as big as a .45 against body armor I'm sure it won't feel good but it's not going to be a death shot. Some of my friends in the Rangers have been shot with 7.62x39 bullets in the chest and the body armor has stopped it. I just don't think pistol caliber is a good choice.

    I am not nor have I ever been in the armed forces personally, but if I were to go over there, I'd rather have something that shot a 30 caliber+ round even if the recoil is a little worse.