Why is the M4 so popular?

[Harbinger of Darkness]

Having worked in a gun store and having fired Armalites on several occasions I can say that I've never been very fond of them. In their operation, design, ergonomics, and abilities. I saw more in for repair at any one time with our gunsmith than any other rifle on the market. When I had the chance to test fire one it jammed after my third shot. I did have a 9mm Bushmaster carbine at one point, even it needed obscene amounts of maintenance. Getting back to airsoft versions of the guns my main problem with them is the ergonomics. I'm a fairly small guy and no matter what I can't find a comfortable position for the crane stock and god help me if I was to field a full sized M16. I find the weight balance to be far too front heavy (more so than a G36) and difficult to aim quickly. AR's seem to be made for much larger shooters than myself. For me it's difficult to say why people like them so much as all that AR's have given me is grief. But for it's flaws I can say it is a successful rifle and it'll be around for a long time to come.


Man I'm going to have to adjust quick when I join the CF.

[ThunderCactus]

Well the G36 is a plastic gun, ever try shooting a plastic gun when it's -40? Theres a pic somewhere of a G36 that exploded when shot in cold weather lol
Unfortunately warzones don't get closed when the windchill goes past -30

And was it an old M4? or an M4A1? And what kind of ammo did you use? Because it'll jam on anything but high quality ammo unfortunately...

[sigsour]

Anyone can describe what the Colt gas piston LE1020 looks like? Bloody websense at work prevents me from taking a peek. Does this gun differ aesthetically from an M4?

[mateba]

Originally Posted by sigsour

Just for the sake of discussion, because I know that everything I say is purely academic and won't make a lick of difference in the real world, but let's get back to the whole logic of not giving soldiers the best rifle out there.

Argument 1: Have to retrain armourers
Rebuttal: armourers are like car mechanics, once you know how to tear one apart you pretty much know how to tear up most other types. Furthermore the gas piston design predates WW2, and every single semi-auto rifle other than the M16/M4 series has it including many SWAT team and Special Forces weapons. I don't buy it that an armourer who takes pride in his job is not going to know how to fix a gas piston system

Argument 2: Have to retrain soldiers
Rebuttal: So? There were many more M1 Garands that were replaced, there were many M14s that were replaced. Just give soldiers a day or two to train them how to dissassemble the stuff. How difficult can it be? The time saved later on will pay for itself. Many armies around the world have gone through the same thing before - sure you could say they have a smaller army, but they also have a smaller budget.

Argument 3: It costs a lot of money?
Rebuttal: Let's be reasonable. Many armies use more than one type of rifle. There's no reason why a gas piston rifle can't be given to infantry troops in appropriate environments like Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops stationed on carriers, in South Korea, Okinawa, Europe, the Americas etc can still be fitted with regular M16s. I think this is a reasonable suggestion and I think will save money very quickly due to more effective combat, and less insurance payouts.

EXACTLY!

If nothing else, solders are good at adapting to their environment. Swapping a simple internal component would not be earth shaking for M4 operators. 5.56NATO to 6.8 REM, yes!, but not a gas piston. In fact IMO, the swap would save money. Ares Armorment, creators of the shrike, use to and still might sell a gas piston system that is "drop-in". They ran for $600USD. Total the amount of money a solder would have to spend on cleaning and parts to keep the impingement system running for a few years. There is also the amount of time that will be saved and the confidence our solders would gain.

This would also make things easier on armorers. Having more reliable rifles and carbines would result in less routine maintenance. They would be able to focus on more important tasks.

But, just like most "time saving" tech it just raises the bar and we accept more responsibilities. If these solders could use c-mags some would. Piston systems run cooler and foul less often. I don't think they are a great combination, out-bolt systems are better at handling the heat but this would still be an obvious example.

Right now FN makes US M16s (and our support weapon). Colt still make their M4s and they have developed M5. Here are some pics of that system.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=88956
I am still partial to the LWRC self-regulating short stroke system. It does not require the tweaking of gas release for use with silencers or from demands of the environment.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by sigsour

Anyone can describe what the Colt gas piston LE1020 looks like? Bloody websense at work prevents me from taking a peek. Does this gun differ aesthetically from an M4?

looks like this.

[jtjcheng]

Originally Posted by sigsour

Just for the sake of discussion, because I know that everything I say is purely academic and won't make a lick of difference in the real world, but let's get back to the whole logic of not giving soldiers the best rifle out there.

Argument 1: Have to retrain armourers
Rebuttal: armourers are like car mechanics, once you know how to tear one apart you pretty much know how to tear up most other types. Furthermore the gas piston design predates WW2, and every single semi-auto rifle other than the M16/M4 series has it including many SWAT team and Special Forces weapons. I don't buy it that an armourer who takes pride in his job is not going to know how to fix a gas piston system

Argument 2: Have to retrain soldiers
Rebuttal: So? There were many more M1 Garands that were replaced, there were many M14s that were replaced. Just give soldiers a day or two to train them how to dissassemble the stuff. How difficult can it be? The time saved later on will pay for itself. Many armies around the world have gone through the same thing before - sure you could say they have a smaller army, but they also have a smaller budget.

Argument 3: It costs a lot of money?
Rebuttal: Let's be reasonable. Many armies use more than one type of rifle. There's no reason why a gas piston rifle can't be given to infantry troops in appropriate environments like Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops stationed on carriers, in South Korea, Okinawa, Europe, the Americas etc can still be fitted with regular M16s. I think this is a reasonable suggestion and I think will save money very quickly due to more effective combat, and less insurance payouts.

Well, I agree with your arguments here. But when it comes to real life, everything is different from ideals i.e. a realistic world is TOO different from an idealistic world.

Tell you the truth, everything is about money. MONEY MONEY MONEY. If you don't have the money, then you can't buy a house, a car, foods, drinks, daily necessities, airsoft, and not even raise a family (talking about getting married? You need money to support a family!!!).

Say, if you have a $1000.00 CAD monthly salary only, and you have to live on that including the rent, what would your budget plan look like?

And say, if you have a $5000.00 CAD monthly salary instead, what would your budget plan look like now?

When you think about money, everything about the US army getting a less-desirable M4 will make sense.

Let's take a look at another example. Say, you are a leutenant leading a 40-men reinforced marine platoon in Iraq. Do you want everyone of your precious/valuable man to have an ok M4 carbine that can still shoot, or do you want only 20 of them having a much better HK416, and rest of them having only a pistol to fight, providing that an M4 is $800.00 USD and an HK416 is $1600.00 USD? (i.e. simple mathematics).

Of course, I agree with you about the weapon swapping among units stationed in different combat zones. However, since military units are constantly moving and deployed to different locations at different times, it is easier for them to have synchronized all the equipments instead of thousand different equipments. For example, you don't see the US 1st Armoured division to use M1A2 tanks in Iraq and all of sudden they can only use the old M60A3 in Europe, right?

If you think that the US (or Canadian) military needs more money, then tell the Democrats (most of them are anti-war) to quit stopping the war fundings and weapon research fundings!!!

Well, here are my few simple opinions, and they may not be right. If this is regarding airsoft, then HA, if you can get me any airsoft gun that out-perform any other airsoft gun with a reasonable price, I will take it right away.

[Solomance]

A really biased doco on the m16
http://66stage.com/documentaries.php?pl=div&url=1998153

[CARL]

The price difference between rifles is marginal, your talking about Assualt rifles that cost little amounts of money compared to where the majority of military budgets go. The Hk416 cost little more considering it comes with a full rail system that usually does not come with the standard rifle. So when you say $800 US for an M4 you can add another $300 to $400 bucks for a good rail system. Plus your getting a great rifle with some good improvements that will make a difference, although small and not a war winning impact on the overall picture. Look at it this way for arming say the amount of soldiers your looking at what? How many soldiers would need 416's rifles or parts, (120,000's) tops. I don't think any contracts will be awarded from the US military especially from a foriegn country like germany, where the majority of these rifles will probably be made. I can't see the US government going down this road due to the political shit that would come out of it regardless considering the media. I also find it amazing how many US based companies rushed to launch their own system to counter H&K making the rifle properly the first time out. If you consider how much money is spent on one fighter/F22 or whatever, how much would be spent here $200 million.

[jtjcheng]

Originally Posted by CARL

If you consider how much money is spent on one fighter/F22 or whatever, how much would be spent here $200 million.

You are absolutely right, because US money goes to F22 (i.e. USAF) and other expensive weapons. US Army doesn't have the control of the funding. If you can tell the US Congress to shift more fundings to the US Army, then the money will talk and then, you can get the M4s upgraded to HK416, or anything you want. Remember, MONEY MONEY MONEY.

Remember, you only have one pie that has to be shared among so many people.

The $800.00 USD figure was just based on an assumption from "sigsour". I guess that you are welcomed to take an action and write a proposal to the US Congress about your M4-HK416 upgrade budget plan. I'm very sure that they'll like it.

Again, my opinions may not be right.

[ThunderCactus]

Why would the American army use a foreign weapon? That would be like admitting that they don't know how to make rifles lol
They already admitted they can't make machineguns, no need to embarrass themselves further

[SHaKaL]

oh and where the browning m2 come from you think? Mongolia???

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by ThunderCactus

Well the G36 is a plastic gun, ever try shooting a plastic gun when it's -40? Theres a pic somewhere of a G36 that exploded when shot in cold weather lol

Care to source that? There are Nordic and Scandinavian countries that use the G36. Hardly seems like a good idea considering what their weather's like.

[sigsour]

I know I would be pretty scared in Iraq wondering whether my gun is going to work when it comes down to the wire.

Let's consider a special forces unit. They have a budget of say $1M. The procurer is closer to the soldier - there is less bureaucracy so the needs of the soldier can be communicated effectively to the procurer. All of a sudden the unit decides to spend $X of their budgets to get say the 416. Did their budgets change all of a sudden? No, but it was worth it to spend that amount of their budgets getting the 416 as opposed to something else. The next year they also have a $1M budget. Do they spend that money buying a whole new rifle? No - they use that budget for something else. The point is - given the fixed budget they have, it was WORTH it to the special forces to spend that budget the one time to upgrade the rifle rather than spend it on some other fancy stuff.

Now the regular army also has a budget. If they had less bureaucracy, it's conceivable they could just prioritize their guns - what could be more important? Better armoured Humvees maybe? Once they upgrade their guns however, like the above scenario - they don't have to spend that money again - and the maintenance dollars are likely to actually get reduced over time.

The needs of the infantryman is likely to be very similar to the special forces guy however, and if the special forces guy thinks its worth spending a portion of their budget on reliable rifles - then I bet that's the case with infantrymen.

Just take a look at the death toll. What's the proportion of deaths amongst special forces versus regular infantry? Regular infantry are killed chiefly in two ways: road bombs and through small arms fire. Okay so the road bombs is out of scope of this discussion, but small arms fire can be avoided the best through better rifles as the special forces have concluded also. When you're going door to door, street by street - all you have is the rifle. You ain't got no tank or mortar fire to help you.

I am of the philosophy that prevention is better than the cure. Better to get the equipment right the first time, than waste dollars later fighting fires.

[jtjcheng]

Originally Posted by sigsour

I am of the philosophy that prevention is better than the cure. Better to get the equipment right the first time, than waste dollars later fighting fires.

I totally agree with you on this point. However, I may be totally wrong that I guess that you probably haven't worked with government fundings, accounting and agency revenues, etc.

An agency doesn't get $1M every time it applies for annual funding. It depends on how MUCH the government wants to give yearly, which also depends on your agency's annual reports. It is constantly revised. Check with higher rank government officials and you will know.

I, of course, agree with you on getting better equipments for the infantry. But, when you start raising a family (maybe you have already been doing), you will know what priorities come first. A family is similar to a nation, in financial sense. You won't be able to get what you want ideally all the time, say for example, Honda Civic (cheaper, but more maintenance) v.s. BMW (more expensive, but less maintenance), or an apartment v.s. a town house v.s. a single house, or location of your residency, suburb or downtown, unless you have the budget?

[jtjcheng]

Originally Posted by sigsour

I know I would be pretty scared in Iraq wondering whether my gun is going to work when it comes down to the wire.

I will be scared too!!! Totally piss in my pants!!! You should write to the US Congress to convince them to your points. Maybe they will change the standard infantry weapon from M4 to HK416.