Retired Major General: The M4 sucks
Scales blames it on the deaths of several military personnel. It’s cheap metal and plastic. Would he rather it be wooden? His accounts from Vietnam were back during the first run, which the military kind of screwed up with some of the changes they wanted. He advocates going to something modular.
December 30th, 2014 at 4:47 pm
Oh yes; “modular”. Everything is better if it’s modular. I’ll be needing to get a modular hammer I suppose, otherwise I’ll end up being left behind in the dustbin of technological history. Wait; the AR platform isn’t already modular?
Yeah; what we need is a battle weapon with so many options that it’ll get guys killed while trying to decide which caliber, barrel, load, targeting system and other accessories to deploy. And naturally the sight should be at least three feet over the bore, ’cause that looks really “modular, Dude.”
December 30th, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Well the M4 is not a perfect phaser… but all the contenders use the same ammo, about the same number of shots, have the same range, about the same weight, etc….
Like trading a 03 Springfield for a 98 Mauser. Still have a 5 shot bolt action.
We need a new paradigm (fancy talk for new concept.) We need the slugs (if it’s a slug thrower) that is faster, hits harder, has longer range, smaller, etc… and a rifle that is simpler, lighter, more accurate, easier to maintain, etc…
Maybe design it to take pressures way above what we use now (and that means bye bye brass case and hello better metals.)
How about a 7mm bullet, 100 grains, at 4000 fps from a 16 inch polygon barrel using steel cases? Maybe 75k CUP pressure. Rifle weighing 6 lbs with holo-sight and buis.
But fact is, as long as it’s a 5.56mm 30 shot rifle about 7 lbs, well the M4 is near the top of THAT field.
December 30th, 2014 at 11:43 pm
The cynic in me wonders if the retired general is now employed by a weapons company that DOESN’T make M4s. Hey, I’m a native Washingtonian. Cynic is my birthright.
December 31st, 2014 at 6:51 am
To understand why the M-16 is a bad rifle for the troops, you have to understand how the military, especially the Army, takes care of them.
Any AR owner KNOWS pretty much how to maintain their rifle, and knows what to do/fix/replace at the first sign of something amiss. IF they don’t know, they don’t shoot much and won’t have a problem anyway.
The following probably doesn’t happen to civilian guns:
Use of steel cleaning rods.
Use of steel tools, whatever is at hand to scrape carbon.
Use of whatever means necessary, whatever chemicals necessary, and whatever force necessary to get a rifle white glove clean for inspection or turn in.
Thousands of rounds of blank firing.
Firing up to and many time beyond overheat.
The company level armorer (you) not having good access to parts, nor any training on their replacement.
Trying to explain to a second or third party repair depot the problem you are having, with in many cases, no means to test fire the weapon after repair.
Your lube is CLP. Your solvent is CLP. Your protectant is CLP. Officially speaking, and that is what is available via the supply chain.
Sometimes, the rifle is cleaned, stored dry, and fired the same way. DRY. Why? Forgot the CLP. Want faster cleanup later. Lube causing carbon leaching a week later so you get dings when the CO inspects the Arms room.
Sometimes non availability of new bore and chamber brushes, patches and other cleaning materials.
Used, untested and perhaps hosed magazines.
A rifle that has the receiver covered with ANAD (Anniston Army Depot) depot rebuild stamps.
Never mind environmental issues. The M-16 is a decent weapon, just not up to the abuse that the Army requires soldiers to put it through.
In my time in the Army, I was issued 13 different M-16A1’s. Only one, ONE would I have bet my life on. I now own 3 AR-15’s. All gas impingement. All dead nuts reliable, including the Century Arms A-1 configured rifle. And I have the time, the right stuff, and the right parts to keep them that way. And nobody looking over my shoulder of second guessing my maintenance either.
December 31st, 2014 at 7:08 pm
For proponents of a larger caliber, I worked with a guy years ago who was an accountant and worked directly with Westmoreland in Vietnam doing cost evaluations of various tactics. Suppose you hit an opponent in the torso with a 30 caliber round. He’s, for all battle-field accounts, dead. Hit that same opponent in the same place with a 223 and he’s probably maimed and crippled. Do the math. Guys dead you sack him up and bury him. Guys maimed you need medics, ambulances, doctors, nurses, medication, evacuations, hospitals and possibly, lifetime care. It’s an economic thing, believe me.
January 3rd, 2015 at 4:14 pm
Weaponsman.com has a pretty hard take down of that article on his blog.