Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For the fans of the M4

Hey,

Derby

I thought the Korean and Vietnamese reference made it clear it was a joke.

Boy, I need to do something to prove to you I actually used to have a high IQ. You got me on the manhood and patriotism thingy on the leaving Afghanistan post.

Some of my posts don't show that but there's been a lot of water under the bridge, including a coma where my family was told I would be a veggie and blind.

Gary

Sorry, no offense was intended. Just trying to be helpful.

Interesting writeup on the .30 carbine. I confess I never have paid that much attention to them, even though I know they are collected like a lot of other WWII weapons. In the past all I remember reading was "good for small game only".

Probably a write up by Elmer Keith is my guess.

You�re changing the subject, you were saying that the original was better; now you�re saying polymers are getting better�what�s your point exactly?

Do you understand why the military doesn�t like to use IMR powder?

Well you don�t seem to understand the needs of a general issue military weapon; there are reasons why they needed to move away from the 55 grain bullet�mostly because future battles wouldn�t be fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

Regarding your comments on barrel twist: Barrel twist doesn�t have ANYTHING to do with the lethality of a cartridge; this is an often repeated myth, or misunderstanding. It�s more about barrel length, than twist. If you fire a 55 grain bullet out of a 1-14� twist or a 1-7� twist, when the bullet hits, the terminal performance will be exactly the same. Barrel twist is to stabilize bullets in the atmosphere, and no amount of twist can stabilize a bullet in anything thicker than our atmosphere, which is why 5.56 bullets tumble on impact the same whether it�s 1-14� or 1-7�.

With that said, barrel length does play a role. The 5.56 was developed for a 20� barrel, and velocity plays a significant role in terminal performance (specifically bullet yaw). The difference is generally 50-75 yards difference (depending on load) between the 20� and the 16� barrel. At shorter ranges, heavier bullets have consistently out performed your vaunted 55 grain bullet, because a larger bullet will act the same (penetrate for around 4�, then the bullet will yaw because it�s trying to swap ends to the heavier end. When it gets to about 90 degrees, the bullet typically breaks apart at the canneluer and becomes two missiles in flesh). The heavier bullet performs better because when the bullet breaks into two pieces, the two pieces are heavier and will penetrate deeper than the lighter bullet.

The lighter bullet has a slight advantage in terminal performance at range because it will maintain that yawing effect out to a longer range (generally 250 yards and under). Yes, there are documented cases of people being dropped at 500 yards with a 5.56, but what�s the point? Regardless of barrel length, regardless of barrel twist, regardless of velocity (speaking within the velocity range of the 5.56), there is NO military 5.56 cartridge / gun combination that will do anything but bore a .22 caliber hole in flesh at 500 yards. The lower velocity makes the bullet much more stable and the bullet just doesn�t yaw in flesh at that range. I�m sure that there are people who dropped like they were hit by the Hammer of Thor at 500 yards with the 5.56, but you can probably find identical evidence for just about every other round in existence, so your point is meaningless.

With the M16A2 program, they were looking for the absolute best general issue weapon they could develop, and in many ways, they achieved their goal. But now we�re using the M4, because it has proven to be much easier to use in the wars we fight�Lesson? The lesson we learn is that �general purpose� usually means it�s okay in some roles, and sucks in most others. What we�re learning today is; we need different weapons for different purposes. We�re finally coming to understand why the Russians carry so many different weapons, and in some ways, we�re beginning to emulate what they�re doing (DMR�s, squad autos, GPMG�s, etc.)

The specially designed ball powder used in today�s M16 is cleaner than anything available to Mr. Stoner had available to him when he designed the rifle. The M16 needed a forward assist then, and it needs it now. Just that when Stoner was working with the early models using IMR powder, it wasn�t needed much; just like today. But it is still needed, and is still used on the battlefield and just about every military range; every day.

Firearms technology hasn�t moved anything like it did from the Civil war to 1909; those years were the most significant advancement years in the history of the firearm�you can�t make such a comparison.

If you�ve been reading up on the M16 for 35 years, then you should be intimately familiar with at lest 5 different programs to replace the M16, the first of which was ongoing when we adopted the M16. Still, it has never been replaced; have you ever stopped to ask why? It�s because when they get done, the weapon they developed really wasn�t better than the M16. The three latest programs are worth studying, because they are classic examples of how the M16 is so hard to replace; The ACR program, The OICW program (XM 29) and the XM 8. Study these, especially the reasons why they were canceled.

I happen to agree that we should be able to come up with something better, but it�s a whole lot harder than you think. The M16 is a very good rifle.

In other words, we are re-learning the lessons of WWII, M-1 Garand; main battle rifle, M-1 carbine; support troops and officers, Sub-machine guns; assault, and BAR; automatic rifle for close support.

It's amazing we have to keep re-learning history. BTW: I'm not suggesting we go back to those weapons but rather study the role they played on the battle field for heavy infantry.

The M1 Garand and M14 have a 'forward assist'. The problem with the M16 is the cocking mechanism is not connected to the bolt (non-reciprocating cocking handle) so it needs a separate forward assist. With a failure to close on the M1 or M14, you could just give the cocking handle/op rod a whack.

OK, this one smells. The 5.56x45 M855 out penetrated the 5.7x28 at all ranges. The 5.7x28 has slightly more energy than the 22 WMR, and is well below the 22 hornet. It was meant to replace the 9mm. If you think the 5.7x28 is a adequate combat round, the 5.56x45 with 3 times the energy should be overpowered.

From Wikipedia regarding a forward assist:

The forward assist on a rifle is a button, found commonly on M16 and AR-15 styled rifles, usually located near the bolt closure, that when hit will push the bolt carrier forward, ensuring that the bolt is locked. In order to ensure that the extractor is clipped around the rim of the shell, the forward assist is usually struck rather than pushed. It is commonly incorporated into standard loading procedure to prepare a weapon for a life threatening situation, or to close the bolt when the weapon is excessively dirty. It can also be used to close a bolt that was gently let down, rather than released under full spring compression, to keep the noise of closing the bolt to a minimum.

One can only assume this is instead of a handgun, rather than an M4. That is about the only weapon the P90 would be an upgrade over, the ability to use body armor piercing rounds over handgun bullets.

About the lethality of the 5.56x45 - particularly the M193 and M855.

The reason this round performed so well at shorter ranges has more to do with bullet construction than anything else. All spitzer bullets will flip over 180 degrees when hitting tissue. This is because the center of mass is behind the center of aerodynamic pressure.

The difference is that while most military rounds flip 180 degrees and then pass right through the target, the M193 and M855 tend to fracture at the canneleur and fragment. This fragmentation is directly related to velocity. The older 55gn FMJ had a higher muzzle velocity, particularly from the 20 inch M16, and would reliably fragment within 150 yards - where about 80 percent of all infantry rifle fire occurs.

The current M855 is slower, and fired from the shortened barrel is slower still, reducing the fragmentation range to about half that of the old M193 fired from the M16.

The Army has know since the 1950s that virtually all infantry rifle fire occurs at less than 300 yards, and the M16 was designed for that criteria. But certain people in Ordnance, starting with Col Rene Studler, were fixated on the idea that the infantry rifle must be effective to at least 800 meters/yards - in spite of all the actual field data to the contrary. As a result, we've adopted a new round to allow for extended ranges at the expense of lethality.

Politics, and the target range mentality, have resulted in giving our troops inferior weapons and ammunition The fixation on accurate long range shooting has worked contrary to the needs of the combat soldier. This has been demonstrated time and again - most recently during the ASCR tests that sought to simulate combat condition. Not only are infantry rifles needlessly over-accurate, but none of the rifles tested against the M16 proved a significant improvement. Certainly not enough to warrant replacing the current service rifle.

Finally, the soldier/weapon combination relies a lot on the soldier. The M16 rifle is more accurate than the soldier in a combat situation is able to use. Consider the following graphs, from data collected during the ACR program.

1. Accuracy capacity of the M16 when fired from a machine rest.



2. Performance of the M16, record fire by troops qualifying.



3. Record of tropps firing the M16 under simulated combat conditions:

This also from the same guy who was trying to tell me the 55 grain 5.56 is a death dealer at 500 yards.

It�s quite apparent to me that SU35 has done some research on the subject of the M16 and infantry rifles in genera. However, SU35 may have some bad data sources (I�ve read on books also that the key to the lethality of the 5.56 was the barrel twist; and that�s patently untrue), or perhaps drawing some wrong conclusions.

But SU35 seems like he wants to dig his heels in as the expert, rather than take this as an opportunity to have some discussion and possibly learn something.

Gee Tod, that all sounds strikingly familiar to what I told SU35.

You know the old saying: Try to do everything and often you end up doing nothing.

The interesting part is, after [bleep] around with the AR platform and ending up with the M4.We're still left with a 9+lb weapon shooting a prairie dog round that is even more anemic when fired from a 14-1/2 inch barrel.Yet the FAL shooting 7.62x51 weighs in around 9+lbs also and fires a round that reliably kills people.Down side,is you can't carry as much ammo.

We can only hope the SCAR see's wide use in .308 configuration.

FWIW:

Ammo weight matters.

I can train on a flat surface all day with this 308 based AR



BUT humping 200 rounds up a large hill (Hindu Kush) is a killer.

BMT

My M4 (6920) weighs under 6 lbs. Even with a full magazine and an ACOG or similar sight system, I'm not sure your anywhere near 9lbs battle ready.

How much does an FAL weigh fully loaded and with a scope?

OooRRRRR - We just properly equip the whole unit, rather than trying to make an �Army of One.� Give the average ground pounder his A1, A2 or M4 or whatever. Then give one guy in the squad a M249 and another guy an M240B for squad support. Next, outfit at least two guys in the unit with Leupold topped M14 DMR�s; now you have something.

A whole lot...I'm a FAL fan.

I choose the AK-103 with Aimpoint; weighs about 8.5lbs with scope...but ammo is much heavier than the 5.56. Good thing I don't have to carry a whole bunch of it.

Colt is optimistic and claims 5.9lbs for an M4,everyone else is in the 6.25 lb range.Loaded 30 rounder is 1 lb.The acog is over 15 oz's,may as well call it a pound.As is you're at 8lbs or more.Throw in a rail and light which is what is being used more and more and you're in the 9lb range.Or simpler yet ad a two mag carry system which is popular and you're 9lbs with out the light yet.

Bottom line is the M4 started out as being a light weight departure from battle rifles of the past and it's steadily crept right back to being as heavy as a garand,minus the power of the 30/06.

Colt isn't being optimistic. I already said mine (Colt 6920) is under 6lbs and that's with the removable carry handle/rear sight on it, which you would be deleting if adding a red dot/holo.

Again, compare apples to apples, if you're going to throw a light, scope, rail and two mags onto it, do the same to the FAL and see what you have or compare the two as they are/were issued with one full mag. Either way they are not remotely close.