More interesting, I’d agree that there are “better” assault rifles out there. I own an M4 because I know how to use it, ammunition is easy to find and not that expensive, parts are available and so forth.

Considering that, just imagine if you already owned a million of them together with all the stuff that goes with them. Would you just get rid of them because there is something “better”?

Off hand, I can think of several reasons why you wouldn’t. You have huge inventories of ammunition and spare parts. You have a lot invested in training programs, appropriate ranges and experience. And, you have a lot of weapons that are still useful.

I’d be interested to hear what others can come up with. And how much “better” does the replacement have to be before you do (oh, forgive me, I can’t help myself) pull the trigger on the change?

Miller

Jcamelo, please do not write inflammatory statements on my blog. This blog is for discussion not arguments.

You don’t have to agree with me. I wasn’t trying to achieve any high ground by stating I’d used the weapon(s) in combat.

I brought it up because the testing referenced earlier in the string was done under conditions that were supposed to represent and extreme form of the conditions in southwest Asia. That simply makes my experience - under actual conditions - relevant to the debate.

The most important characteristic of any weapon I would choose is reliability. While I can’t say I have absolute confidence that the AR-15 types of rifles will fire every time when you pull the trigger in any type of conditions, I can’t say my personal experience indicates to me that they are unreliable.

I think these weapons jam most often because of a combination of bad magazines, dirty upper receivers and bolt carrier group and dirty ammunition.

We had someone walk up to a checkpoint, manned by two men, and shoot and wound of the men. Our two men got off a total of three shots before both rifles jammed. The reason was because their magazines and ammunition were filthy.

I conclude that what “they” say is right. If you take care of the weapon, it will take care of you.

On the other hand, the bad guy was dead right there.

But that is another debate, isn’t it?

Miller

BTW just cuz you served in afghanistan doesn’t mean I have to agree with you, because the M4A1 is probably one of my favourite guns, under only the G36c and MP5-Jv.

Thanks for your comment. Its good to hear the experiences of someone in the field.

I had one malfunction with the M4 when I opted to go very, very light on the oil. I had no other problems with it.

I only fired a little over four magazines out of the HK, aside from zeroing etc., and it never malfunctioned.

I can’t compare accuracy because the HK barrel was a little over 10″. They carried about the same. It is easier to take apart an M4 because you don’t need any tools. You need a screwdriver for the HK, but I can’t believe that can’t be fixed.

The M4 got a heck of lot dirtier in the upper receiver where it counted. So, while I didn’t have any problems, I am sure the HK would be more reliable.

I’d go with the HK.

What he meant to add to that was “that we currently issue”.

By way of comparison, the SA80 has an overall length of 30″ with a 20″ barrel. The M4 with a 14.5″ barrel is 33″. And I know which one is the more accurate.

Wow. I like the way too that he brings up all the minor engineering changes to the platform as if these, in any way, can make up for the primary failing of the weapon- it’s calibre. No mention either of swapping over to a piston system- a simple change which would dramatically improve performance. Another of the weapon’s major failings.

Great way to keep issuing an outmoded weapon to the troops at the tip of the spear.