Does cut defense budget mean the M4 is here to stay?


The Washington Times reports that there have been cuts a defense spending bill …

Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis.

Lance, I think correctly, pointed out to me that this attitude of cutting defense spending to the max, probably guarantees that the M4 and M16 are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Many thanks to Daniel Watters for the link.



Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • I hate to move your website to military matters but I think its the opposite. Afghanistan is an Infantryman’s war. What will be on the chopping block will be all the vehicle programs. That means that the FCS replacement probably won’t make it. The JLTV will survive by the skin of its teeth and the Marine Corps Personnel carrier is probably a dead duck too. I think alot of the aviation programs are probably in trouble too. I luv the F-35 but this is bad news unless the spreading of its production around the country helps it. And in that light the replacement of the M4 might go forward depending on where its to be built and what senator supports it.

  • SpudGun

    It’s always sad when defense spending gets cut, but if the alternative is the bridges, dams and power stations in your town falling over, then it’s a tricky decision.

    On the plus side, there’s no shortage of M4 bits and pieces being manufactured by just about everyone. I’m surpised Nerf haven’t dived into the the lucrative AR market.

  • Matt Groom

    Is this a surprise? Did anyone think that getting a Democrat in the white house would NOT result in defense spending cuts, despite the totally out of control and historically unprecedented spending in any and all other areas that this administration is doing? I know they’re fond of starting wars, but finishing them is not one of their strong suits.

    Replacing a primary weapons system is UNGODLY expensive. Most people wouldn’t even consider how much it would cost to re-train and how every single piece of equipment in all the armories will have to be replaced or upgraded. When we got M-16A4’s, all of the storage and transportation racks, which were deisgned for A2’s, had to be replaced. The only way you could fit the A4’s in those racks were to remove the rear sight and re-attach it a few notches back. Nothing could be mounted to the accessory rails either. This is just the kind of thing that ends up costing tens of millions of dollars and is completely beyond consideration when the decision to change is made, because it’s completely unforeseen.

    No matter who is in the white house after 2012, or even if the McCain had been elected, there’s absolutely no chance that the DOD would switch calibers or adopt a new primary infantry weapons system during a major conflict ever again. The notion that something will replace the AR-15 family of weapons before a fundamental change in the design and function of small arms technologies occurs seems idealistic and naive. The weapons system that will replace the 5.56 does not currently exist.

  • Lance

    It wont go much futher. Its really ony a fe Republicans who are bought out by H&K and FN IE Sen Coulbern. With Democrats in power it wont go much futher out side of a few test mabie… thats a BIG mabie.

  • jody

    at the risk of becoming the most unbearable and annoying poster here:

    the US navy just commissioned yet another nimitz class aircraft carrier this year. it cost over four billion dollars. the US navy already had 10 aircraft carriers. that’s 8 more than any other nation. the navy has almost nothing to do with the conflicts in iraq or afghanistan, yet even 10 aircraft carriers are not enough: it plans to construct an entirely new class, the ford class, starting in 2015.

    the US navy is building virginia class submarines for over 2 billion a submarine. right now, today. in fact, the navy is building two virginia class submarines every year. application to iraq or afghanistan? zero. the navy already has about 60 nuclear submarines. they work fine, and the present US submarine force is plenty big enough for the current global political situation.

    everything the US navy and airforce had in the year 2000 was perfectly acceptible. not a single new submarine or jet NEEDED to be built. yet between 2000 and 2010 the navy and airforce will have spent billions and billions of dollars building new equipment. some would say, to the point of overkill. but all would agree, they had not much application to iraq or afghanistan.

    on the other hand, there is the US army, still using the M16 and derivatives, 50 years after they were invented. even though the US military is engaged in two infantry conflicts, some claim it is too expensive to replace 5.56x45mm infantry weapons while the navy is building 4 BILLION dollars worth of submarines every year.

    the US defense budget is like 400 billion dollars a year. one thing is for sure, it is absolutely, positively NOT too expensive to replace every single 5.56x45mm weapon in the entire US military arsenal. that could be done in a few years for less than the cost of a single new submarine. only one thing, and one thing alone, prevents the US military from getting rid of the M16, like it should have decades ago: near religious attachment to the AR-15 design. as if the AR-15 were part of the US constitution, with the AR-15 blueprints literally sketched into the document by james madison himself.

    • jody, I agree with you. A couple less jets and they could replace every rifle. I am not military, but it seems to me that replacing rifles is somehow sacrilegious and should be avoided at all costs.

      But there are also training costs, a human resources nightmare with so many people needing training, and logistical costs. Not to mention risk costs (if the rifle has a flaw then peoples lives are at risk).

  • Lance

    I know some just hate the M-16 but most like 90% of troops like it. Why get rid of something the troops like and force something else on them? There no new rifel that is soooo much better than the M-16 and since firearms technology has reach a pleatu it may not for years. I dont know why people are fixed on a replacement other than they have there own personal dislikes for the rifle. Most other rifle out there are far more expensive and trinning would be on heard of since every solder and militry member and number of civilians would have to train for a new gun. the rifle alone may not be billions of dollars but trainiing feilding new aftermarket attachments and ammo would cost billions more.

    Besides there is no better 5.56mm gun out there anyway.

  • Lance

    What do you think Steve?

    • Lance, I think a caliber switch is more important – but that’s not going to happen.

  • Mike

    I am often accused of being too cynical about politicians, but I don’t think we’ll see a new rifle due to the following reasons more than any cost consideration.

    1. The news very rarely shows the public stories of our troops dying due to being out-gunned on a rifle to rifle basis.
    IED’s and vehicle accidents seem to be the most reported causes of death (regardless of whatever actual statistics may be). As such, the battle rifle isn’t a squeaky wheel to the mainstream public.

    2. Much of the new technology that higher-ups get excited about are remote or far ranged weapons (UAV’s, tomahawks, bombers, etc.).
    These types of weapons are considered to result in fewer pictures of coffins returning from the battle field and causing bad press. As evidenced by the Gulf War coverage, video of laser guided bombs goes over much better than men being carried on stretchers.

    3. Life-time politicians and career minded bureaucrats are aware of the kind of press that a mistake in battle rifle choices would be.
    Even to this day, I still hear people talk about the failure of the initial introduction of the M-14. Regardless of what the reality is or isn’t, the perception of that introduction was that we had young men slaughtered while holding jammed M-14s in their arms. I believe that few in the chain of command wish to take a chance on getting in a scandal like that.

  • Matt Groom

    @ Jody,

    How do you think all of those supplies we use to equip our troops get to Iraq and Afghanistan? By hot air balloon? Aircraft Carriers are the most powerful military tool that has ever been devised by human kind and they are literally the most visible example of America’s military might. 75% of the Earth’s surface is wet. Sure, we could simply rely on our allies to allow us to use their airbases and leap frog our stuff via air from country to country to resupply our troops, but that is a very risky and expensive proposition. Plus, without jets, how would we protect our cargo planes?

    This may sound silly, but wars aren’t won with small arms. Their won with air and naval power. Boots on the ground are important, but without close air support and naval resupply, their just so many men with rifles. And when it comes to the PREVENTION of war, nothing says “don’t fuck with me” like a Nimitz Class Aircraft carrier with a full complement of Fighter Jets, Attack Bombers, and Nuclear Cruise Missiles 3-miles outside your largest shipping port. There are Marines on those ships too, but which one do you think is going to blow up a dictator’s favorite castle first? The US Military is not invincible because we issue Kevlar helmets to our troops.

    And once more, for the kids who were sleeping in the back of the class, there is not weapon’s system which is so much superior to the AR-15 in any fashion as to justify the expense and difficulty of replacing it. The DOD does tests every couple of years or so, I’ve read many of their reports, they all say the same thing. “It’s pretty damn good, and there’s none much better.”

  • SeanN

    matt, i disagree with you on the AR point (and, to be clear, i’m a former 11B/future 11A w/ afghan experience), but i’ll leave that particular dead horse alone.

    but i would counter your argument about wars “not being won with small arms;” conventional, large-scale wars maybe i could see your point, but insurgencies (like we’re fighting now) most definitely are. a nimitz class carrier and all those other fancy toys may say “don’t f**k with me” to other nation-states, but to an insurgent they hardly mean a thing; a hard target to be avoided. our small arms are key, and though your point about logistics is well-made, our fleet of supply ships isn’t what he’s talking about, no one would complain about updating those; but a shiny-new carrier designed to fight the last war? that should be something that gets talked about.

    good points, jody. the military-industrial complex continues to run rough-shod over the actual needs of the troops on the ground; in truth, i’m hopeful that some of those budget cuts will remove some of the fat (the mobile-artillery systems, crazy-jet/ship-stuff), and start improving the things we really need: better rifles, better body armor, better vehicles.

  • Lance

    Yeah well we have the best 5.56 rifle. So why mess with it. The USMC is going to saty with the M-16A4 for over the next decade. High ranking Marines say this from a older article I read from here anyway. As for body armor. A new light weight version is comming but will be delayed for a while due to defectts the maker found out about.

    The infantry gear is up to date and fine. Its poor tactics and poor decisions from Washington which is making the war go poorly.

  • Matt Groom

    @ SeanN

    It’s true that Aircraft carriers and Jets appear to be artifacts of a style of warfare that is long past, and we likely will never see a conventional war in the style of WWII ever again, but we are still at war with nation states. The places where the Islamo-Fascists rule are not places where they are alien or unwelcomed by governing forces.

    These “insurgents” were fighting now aren’t raising the money it takes to recruit new bullet sponges and walking hand grenades with money they make doing car washes and selling lemonade on the weekends. They are equipped, trained, and transported by nation states who are hostile to Occidental morality and culture. The enemy isn’t masses of sweaty, unwashed masses of ignorant rubes, but governments who support and encourage them.

    Big ships and fast movers are still key to victory. Main Battle Tanks? Not so much.

  • Scott

    I can make a huge list of 5.56 rifles that I would take over the AR in a heartbeat.

    -Steyr AUG
    -IMBEL MD-2/97
    -Daewoo K1/K2
    -FN FNC/ Swedish AK5
    -Valmet M76F
    -IMI Galil
    -Tavor TAR-21
    -Vektor R4
    -Beretta AR-70 and 70/90
    -Howa Type 89
    -CIS SAR-80 and SR-88
    -SIG SG540/543/550/551/552

    I would even take an AK in 5.56 over an AR ( and I am very happy with my 5.56 AK especially since it can take steel-cased ammo).

    That is just my .02.

  • Scott

    Oh and I forgot I would take the AR-18, Robinson M96 and XCR as well.

  • Lance

    Somebody loves his Euro guns. They alll have the same faults in combat. A M-16 is far more accurate at long ranges than a AUG or a junky Galil. Heck the Isrealis never adopted all but a few galils. The R-4 is worse it only shoots M-193 ammo and is weaker construction than a Galil is.

    You might hat ARs but I got over 90% of GI on my side.

  • Matt Groom

    “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience.”

    I have not shot all of these rifles, certainly not in full auto for most, but I have shot most of these weapons you list in various forms and here’s why I do or do not like them:

    -Steyr AUG- Conga drum on you skull. Anyone who has ever fired one of these knows that the bolt riding on the plastic stock which is pressed against your skull makes you hear that action as it cycles. It seems louder than shooting without hearing protection.
    -IMBEL MD-2/97- All of the faults of the FAL, namely god-awful expensive to produce, COMBINED with the weaknesses and flaws of the Johnson/Stoner bolt design! Brilliant!
    -Daewoo K1/K2- Johnson/Stoner bolt on a long stroke gas system is NOT an improvement. Also, I’d screw a dog before I’d hump this ugly hog.
    -FN FNC/ Swedish AK5- Have you ever handled one of these? They make AKs look like high end manufacturing. They have welds they simply filled with welding rod and they look like shit. This is just a uglier version of the AR-18.
    -Valmet M76F- Probably the best AK variant, and correcting many of the flaws in the AK system, I actually like these, but they are heavy.
    -IMI Galil- The Israeli modification of the Valmet M76, it is a fine weapon, but the Israelis don’t think so. They’ve switched to AR-15 weapons, namely the M-4.
    -Tavor TAR-21- An attempt to recapture the home market from the American Rifle, these are neat, but they haven’t seen service anywhere that I know of, and the US Military will likely NEVER adopt a bullpup as standard issue. Why? Because you can’t drill with it, that’s why! Also, Johnson/Stoner bolt.
    -Vektor R4- Are you just saying the same thing over and over again, or what? You like AKs, we get it.
    -Beretta AR-70 and 70/90- While these are newer than the AR series, even the Italians feel they are obsolete, and are fielding a replacement, which will likely be the ARX-160.
    -Howa Type 89- Oh, please! Name me three Japanese small arms designs that aren’t worthless and I’ll buy you a house. This is a nicer looking AR-18 and nothing more. As far as I know, it has never been fired in anger, and you think it is more durable than an AR-15?
    -CIS SAR-80 and SR-88- I’m just going to go down the list at Modern Firearms and pick ever single AR-18 or AK variant I see and say it’s better than an AR-15 with no other qualification whatsoever.
    -SIG SG540/543/550/551/552- While I think these are very nice, they are also VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE. The US Military pays about $525 for every rifle they buy, and I seriously doubt that Sig could produce this rifle for less than $750 a piece.
    -AR-18- You forgot the AR-18? How? You only listed it, like three times before this! Ugly, cheap, never adopted in it’s original form, no longer in production, Johnson/Stoner bolt, condemned by it’s designers, do I need to go on?
    -Robinson Arms M96/Stoner 63- I do believe that if the USMC had stuck by their guns and adopted the Stoner 63 in Vietnam, it would have become the best weapons system in use by the US Military, mostly because of the interchangeable barrels and the super-lightweight SAW variant, but that didn’t happen. The RobArms variant is very nice, but this thing is mostly obsolete, and nobody’s played with it since Nam.
    -Robinson Arms XCR- I think this is probably the best contender for something that is actually BETTER than an AR-15, but it is expensive. The detachable barrel system, the ability to easily change calibers, the gas system, the replaceable fixed ejector, the AK style bolt, the monolithic upper, there’s a lot to like about this design, but nobody’s gonna adopt it any time soon, because Robinson Arms doesn’t have enough Generals on their payroll to get their foot in the door at the Pentagon, and that’s just the way it is.

  • Scott

    “Somebody loves his Euro guns. They alll have the same faults in combat”

    Not all of them are. South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Singapore’s firearms are on that list. Where is your proof that they have their faults in combat?? Show me some documentation of these claims.

    “A M-16 is far more accurate at long ranges than a AUG or a junky Galil.”

    Again show me your proof of this. Junky Galil?? If it so junky then why are its design elements still being copied?? I have yet to see anyone these copy anything from the AR.

    “Heck the Isrealis never adopted all but a few galils.”

    Yea because A) they did not have the industrial capacity to equip their entire military force during the period it was first introduced B) they were given tons of M16’s for free, if I had free guns then why produce my own? C) the Israelis are pack rats they will take anything they can get that shoots, hence why they were still using Sherman tanks and M3 halftracks up until the 1980’s

    “The R-4 is worse it only shoots M-193 ammo and is weaker construction than a Galil is.”

    Again show me your proof of this or else its just hot air.

    “You might hat ARs but I got over 90% of GI on my side.”

    That doesn’t prove anything. I guarantee the majority of those GI’s the AR is the only firearm they have ever used. If Fords were the only cars available or ever known to the American people they would also say that Fords are the best they have ever had. It’s all about variety. Instead of letting some military quartermaster bureaucracy chose the firearms and do the tests why not let the individual soldiers try out other firearms and see where their opinion lies when they are given more choices of firearms cause in the end it is the GI on the ground doing the fighting not some high-up military bureaucrat.

    I have fired the M16 and M4 both semi-auto and full-auto versions and wasn’t impressed. To me they are way overrated.

  • Lance

    Ok Scott Ive talked to South African vets the R-4 is only a 55gr barrel weaker Galil. The Isrealies offical shoved the Galili because it was too heavy and bulky and ony a few unets who dont carry rifles for a living where given some. Check out the books! The japs gnds a re a AR-18 copy and Jappanese troops have there guns jam in Iraq too pal.

    You seem to let your own feelings on guns make your views on military matters. The M-16 is far better than almost all the Euro and asian guns you list. And theres always room to improve them I.E. HK-416 and SR-556.

  • jdun1911

    There was a video on youtube and in their testing the Galil jammed. The Galil is also very heavy for what it is.

    Every time I heard Allieds troop use bayonet in the battle field the first thing I asked was it on a bullpup? 10 out of 10 times the replies is yes. Any countries that want to adapt a bullpup design better brush up the troops on stabbing the enemy with bayonet.

    Bullpup design have to many flaws. Ergo is terrible and by the time you finish reloading the enemy will be right in your face.

    When you have Austrian Spec-Ops using ARs instead of AUG you have to wonder why. When you have Spec-Ops using AR instead of their home grown rifle you have to wonder why.

    With the exception of the AK how many countries adopt those European and Asian firearms?

    • jdun1911, when it comes to bayo’s the Brits have got it down to a fine art and bullpups haven’t made a difference. They have done a couple boyonet charges in Iraq/Afganistan. The most recent one was when they ran out of ammo. I should have published the report from the most recent charge.

      But bayo to bayo … a non-bullpup is going to win every time.

  • Scott

    To Matt Groom:

    I listed all those firearms for a reason. Although they have many similarities to the AK and AR-18 systems it shows my point that the AR system isn’t the end-all be-all of weapons systems. If the AR system is so great and so superior then why haven’t those countries that invented those systems adopt the M16 then?? (apart from Israel). It would have saved them so much money in research and development to just a buy a few trial examples then produce it under license. Maybe it is because those countries saw the inherent flaws in the AR-15/M16 design and decided to make their own for the better and I would like to counter some of your points for my choices:

    Steyr AUG- You do have a valid point on that one.
    IMBEL MD-2/97- Every system has its flaws but the ability to easily take apart and clean a bolt (an effective one nonetheless) without the use of tools and have an adjustable gas piston system to use any type of ammo on the planet is a bad thing??
    Daewoo- It may not be an improvement but it works hence why its still in service. Looks have nothing to do with functionality and is a moot point.
    Valmet M76F- Would rather have heavy, simple, and reliable then small, more complicated, and higher maintenance.
    Galil- They only switched to the AR system because America gave them millions upon millions of them that their own industry would never have been able to churn out which also leads to the reason they are adopting the Tavor because obviously the AR no longer suits their needs. Like I said to Lance if I were given millions of free rifles and could get more at any time no matter the quality then why build my own??
    Beretta AR-70 and 70/90- You are correct on that hence why I didn’t say the ARX-160 because it is still a prototype and I do not have much information on it. However the previous two are still in service and their accuracy is on par with the AR. Ref. Small Arms Review
    Type 89- Yes I do because steel metal receivers are naturally stronger than aluminum. Aluminum is a weak metal. The Japanese were in Iraq too and carried them but I am not sure if they used them in anger. I would still trust its simplicity and piston driven system over direct impingement. And yes I can name you three Japanese designs that are worth something. 1) Arisaka rifles- yes they were actually very accurate well made rifles. They only get their bad name from the “last ditch” ones that were made later in the war when they were losing and therefore is a moot point. 2) Type 96/99 machine guns- again they were well-designed for their purpose and served the Japanese well in conflict. 3) Type 64 assault/battle rifle- Japan’s “Cold-War” battle rifle that was based on the FAL/SVT-40 system (despite the Tokarev’s faults it was ahead of its time with many of its features that are still found today in modern rifles such as adjustable gas system, detachable magazine, gas-piston, unique chamber ejection system) and the only rifle next to the CETME that could fire .308 in automatic fire.
    -Robinson M96- You are wrong on that one since it was entered for trial testing with the Thai Army during the 1990’s when they were looking for a new assault rifle. The “obsolete” design beat out the M16 on accuracy and durability. They beat it so bad that Colt had to run and cry to the Thais that their amazing rifle was being beat by a Stoner 63. They would have adopted it if were not for the collapse of the Asian market in 1997. Ref. Small Arms Review Oct. ’09, Vol. 13 No. 1.
    -AR-18- You condemn the horrible bolt by its designers and say that even they don’t like it do you not? If so then correct me. Otherwise its pretty bad when L. James Sullivan, one of the premier micro designers of the AR-15/M-16, says that he would rather have his son in Iraq carry an AK over an M16/M4. Ref. “”Defense Department Sticks With M-16s Despite Problems” PBS 9-24-2007; Small Arms Review

    @ Lance
    “Ok Scott Ive talked to South African vets the R-4 is only a 55gr barrel weaker Galil.”
    How many vets are we talking here? Are they certified gunsmiths? Have they had any experience with other firearms? What books should I be checking??

    “The japs gnds a re a AR-18 copy and Jappanese troops have there guns jam in Iraq too pal.”

    Again where are these sources? Show me to them.

    “You seem to let your own feelings on guns make your views on military matters. The M-16 is far better than almost all the Euro and asian guns you list. And theres always room to improve them I.E. HK-416 and SR-556.”

    These are not feelings but facts. I have told you already I have handled the AR-15/M-16/M-4 variants in semi-auto only and full auto thus handling both military and civilian versions of the rifle and I wasn’t impressed. I even had a magazine fall out while shooting!!!! Like I said, it is pretty bad when one of the designers to the AR would rather have his son carry an AK in Iraq over an M-16. This also goes with the numerous other books and studies as well as my own talking to other people who have handled the M-16/M4. Also as previous said if the M-16/M-4 is so better than the European and Asian guns then why did those countries come up with their own designs instead of adopting the M-16 and building it under license?? A part from South Africa all those other countries could have easily gotten contracts to build the M-16/M-4 but decided not to for obvious reasons because it isn’t the end-all be-all of firearms. Name me one firearm today that bears any resemblance or has features directly from the AR like gas impingement? The rest of the world obviously and firearms development is not looking to the AR as the “Golden Child” of the firearms world because there are more suitable designs out there. Keeping the bolt “constantly wet” or high maintenance doesn’t make it reliable. If a rifle needs that much constant attention and the fact that it needs two charging handles for it to load a cartridge that is just bad juju. H&K 416?? Do not even make me laugh with the problems they have been having with the Norwegian troops documented on this site and to have it marked up to a ridiculous price? All it is is an AR with a piston system which I will admit is a vast improvement over direct gas impingement. And Ruger??? I would never trust a firearm from a man who holds the 2nd Amendment in such contempt and from all the stories I have heard of the shoddy quality from Ruger I will never give them a dime.

    If you all like the AR/M-16/M-4 series then fine more power to you I hope it serves you well but I will not trust my life to one ever. To tell you the truth the Vz-58 is my rifle of choice overall (and yes I own one) so don’t paint me as being all for the AK or AR-18 because I look at reliability and function not design loyalty.

  • jdun1911

    What meant was that you do everything slower in a bullpup design and hence the use of bayonet.

    I read the report on the British Lt. using the bayonet. That was very gutsy.

  • Lance

    Check the new Scott and or read some general books. I dont know why you love jap crap sop much. NO ONE OUT SICE OF JAPPAN USES THERE WEAPONS!

  • Scott

    Oh and I forgot the FNC. The quality may be shoddy but again it works. The Alaska State Highway Patrol thought highly of it when it was conducting tests in ’86 to have a new patrol rifle. It was one of three (along with the Galil and Valmet) that was able to keep up with the intense testing done by the Alaska State Patrol. They were up against the M14, M16, M4, FAL, G3, and HK33 (the M16 and M4 were out the first round, the others soon followed suit). Therefore it gains a lot of respect to me if it can handle the Alaskan wilderness.

  • Lance

    The FNC is a pieace of crap. It has a bad piston system and his heave and ouckward butstock. FN left out mosts of the FALs key features and got a sucky clone when it went to 5.56mm.

  • Matt Groom

    @ Scott:

    I never claimed that there was a be all and end all weapons system out there. YOU made that claim. I simply mean the AR is FINE and there’s nothing out there that could be considered such a dramatic improvement as to warrant the billions of dollars it costs to change weapons systems.

    “If the AR system is so great and so superior then why haven’t those countries that invented those systems adopt the M16 then??”
    First, most of those countries didn’t invent anything. They simply adopted existing technologies. Second, and this is a big one, during the cold war, when most of these things were designed and built, there was a lot of pressure on both Warsaw pact countries and NATO countries to adopt whatever the big guys were using as far as things like caliber is concerned. Consequently, they tended to adopt weapons systems that were A) similar to the ones they were already using and B) similar to the weapons their likely allies would use in the event of WWIII. The reason a lot of countries do not adopt the AR-15 is the same reason we didn’t adopt the .280 British; NOT INVENTED HERE.

    I don’t know where this anti-Semitic nonsense about the Israelis not having an industrial base come from. What the hell are you people thinking? Have you ever heard of a little company called IMI? Ever heard of the Desert Eagle? What desert do you think they’re talking about? The Gobi? The Israelis have been building their own tanks and jets since the 1970’s, and they’ve been building their own small arms since before the War of Independence in 1948, so you can take your whole “They don’t know how to make stuff” crap and shove it.

    Have you ever gotten anything for free? Who do you think paid for it? Have you ever gotten a free car, or free house, or free and clear on anything of significance? Right, because there’s no such thing as free. You buy 4, you get the FIFTH one free. See? We give bribes to the bad boys of the world so that they don’t do things we don’t want them to do, and we give money to our friends so they don’t cry foul. They spend that money on whatever they want, and if they want to buy rifles with it, that’s on them. It does not make the rifles ‘free’. The AKM was given away for free, all you had to give the Reds was your soul. Everybody who’s ever issued an AR-15 paid cash for it.

    The Israelis adopted the AR because the Galil sucked. They adopted the Galil because the FAL sucked. These people have seen more wars in their short history than most countries see in 500 years, so I don’t really think their picking rifles because their cheap or ‘free’. They’re fighting for their very existence against an enemy which is embedded all around them; not to mention one who’s openly supported by almost every industrialized nation save the United States, who supports them tacitly at best. The stakes are very high, and I doubt that anyone could convince them to adopt an inferior weapons system when the lives of every man, woman, and child hang in the balance with oblivion. But I’m sure you’re right, the Galil is CLEARLY better. Because you say so.

    Many grades of Aluminum, like 7075-T6, are actually TOUGHER than many steels that are suitable for stamping. You may consult your machinery handbook for more evidence of this. Saying that “stamped steel” is “naturally stronger than aluminum” is just terribly naive.

    All of those Japanese designs were based on other countries designs, and they were generally inferior to the parent firearm. The Arisaka was a very good action, but it was a Mauser 98 after all.

    The Type 64, like the CETME, could fire .308 in full auto, like the FAL, the G3, the AR-10 and the M-14, but unlike those rifles, it could NOT DO IT WITH FULL POWERED AMMO. Unlike the later variants of the CETME, using full powered ammo in the Type 64 could actually DAMAGE the gun, and render it inoperable. But I’m sure it’s better than an AR! Its got a piston!

    If you re-read that article with L. Jame Sullivan, you’ll see that he’s condemning the AR-18 design, not the bolt. I’m condemning the bolt. He didn’t like what they did with the charging handle. He states that it’s very dependent on properly designed recoil springs, and that the ones he designed were BARELY ADEQUATE, which means it’s finicky. Considering the design is 100% OBSOLETE and not in production, the fact that you mention it at all is what amazes me. The gas system is obviously good, that’s why it’s used in almost every rifle that isn’t an AK derivative, but a rifle is more than its Wikipedia entry.

    And you’re telling Lance that he needs to cite sources, which you only site a periodical. He cites veterans he’s spoken with, and you question their credentials? Using the weapon in combat doesn’t count to you? What are your credentials?

    Here’s a tip: when you insert the magazine into ANY weapon, check to make sure it’s secure before you attempt to chamber a round. This is done with the classic “tap, rack, bang” method that’s taught to anyone who’s ever handled an M-16 in an official capacity. If you don’t secure your magazine, it will usually fall out.

    Why did South Africa build their own guns instead of buying someone elses? There was this little thing called “Apartheid” that made some people angry, so they all got together and said “we’re not gonna sell these assholes anything”, but the people who weren’t invited to that meeting decided that they were okay with selling them stuff.

    You like the VZ 58, that’s fine. More power to you. I’ve know three people who had one of these, and so far, I’ve only seen one of them break, so enjoy!

  • Whatever

    The Daewoo K1 and K2 are not the same rifle. The K1 uses a similar direct impingement gas system that the AR-15/M-16 uses. The K2 is a long stroke piston gas system, a sort of hybrid between the AR and the AK.

  • Scott

    Matt Groom-

    “I never claimed that there was a be all and end all weapons system out there. YOU made that claim. I simply mean the AR is FINE and there’s nothing out there that could be considered such a dramatic improvement as to warrant the billions of dollars it costs to change weapons systems.”

    Ah yes you did call the AR better when you chastised me for the choices that I would choose over an AR. You started the whole debate by nitpicking at every rifle that I chose (which is a huge chunk of what the world uses mind you) and for most of them calling them garbage. I never said the AR was bad just that I would prefer those firearms over it and you went on to chastise me so naturally I went on to backup what I said as to why I chose them over the AR. So by default you do pretty much claim that it is the end all be all system unless you have something you would choose over it otherwise??

    “I don’t know where this anti-Semitic nonsense about the Israelis not having an industrial base come from. What the hell are you people thinking? Have you ever heard of a little company called IMI? Ever heard of the Desert Eagle? What desert do you think they’re talking about? The Gobi? The Israelis have been building their own tanks and jets since the 1970’s, and they’ve been building their own small arms since before the War of Independence in 1948, so you can take your whole ‘They don’t know how to make stuff’ crap and shove it…..”

    now you are just putting words in my mouth. Where did I say anything anti-Semitic about the Jews?? If you have to resort to name-calling of that caliber and dragging my name in the mud with that racist garbage then you know you have already lost the argument. When did I say they were terrible fighters? Point that out PLEASE!! When did I say they had NO industry? I said their industrial base was SMALL compared to a superpower like the United States and thus could not churn out the quantity (note I said QUANTITY not QUALITY) like the United States could in a short period of time. Also where did I say Israeli stuff was junk or couldn’t make stuff?? Did I not just say I would take the GALIL over an AR?? Also when I was saying free I was talking financial wise from the ISRAELI pockets (as in THEY did not pay a dime for them with money) because they did receive FREE AR’s during the Yom Kippur War to fight the Arabs. Someone needs to learn to read better before ranting off such fallacies on what I said so you should shove it right back to you and LEARN TO READ and stop making crap up about what I say when I never said it.

    “They adopted the Galil because the FAL sucked.”

    FAL sucks?? Look at this thread and tell me im wrong. http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=68486. You try doing this test with an AR and see how long it lasts. The FAL was heavier than the Galil and the nature of warfare was moving away from high-powered full/semi-auto rifles to intermediate caliber full-auto rifles thus they were keeping up with the times.

    “the stakes are very high, and I doubt that anyone could convince them to adopt an inferior weapons system when the lives of every man, woman, and child hang in the balance with oblivion. But I’m sure you’re right, the Galil is CLEARLY better. Because you say so.”

    So you are denying that they ever used Shermans and M3 halftracks until the 1980’s?? You are denying the fact that they used Soviet weapons (which are excellent btw) captured from the Arabs that some of the time was already obsolete? Go look at their website and tell me that they aren’t pack rats. I never said their equipment was inferior but you cannot deny that they are picky about what they use BECAUSE THEY USE ANYTHING THAT SHOOTS!! Also again if the AR is what they want then why are the Israelis coming up with the Tavor then? Seems that they want something more capable and modern.

    “All of those Japanese designs were based on other countries designs, and they were generally inferior to the parent firearm. The Arisaka was a very good action, but it was a Mauser 98 after all.”

    The Mauser came from the designs of the French Lebel rifle being the first rifle to use smokeless powder so what is your point?? Every rifle design came from something beforehand (like the 1903 from the Mauser). The AR’s gas impingement concept was borrowed from Erik Eklund’s Ljungmann AG-42 and EGYPTIAN Hakim so its really hard to say that any rifle is really original in thought or concept since everyone is borrowing from something.

    “The Type 64, like the CETME, could fire .308 in full auto, like the FAL, the G3, the AR-10 and the M-14, but unlike those rifles, it could NOT DO IT WITH FULL POWERED AMMO. Unlike the later variants of the CETME, using full powered ammo in the Type 64 could actually DAMAGE the gun, and render it inoperable. But I’m sure it’s better than an AR! Its got a piston!”

    That was the detailed point I was trying to make since I said the CETME and CETME only. I know the M14, G3, and FAL could fire full-auto with high-powered ball ammo however a low-powered .308 will still kill you dead just as well as a high-powered .308. Yes the Type 64 like the CETME was designed to fire low-pressure ammo and it did what it was designed to do without hassle. They had to adopt a low-pressure round so it wouldn’t knock your typical Japanese soldier down on his rear end. And you prove my point again that the piston is an important aspect of modern firearms designs since NO OTHER COUNTRY uses an assault rifle designed without one even the next generation U.S. rifles are going with pistons because they found out that direct impingement is more of a hassle than an improvement and a dead-end design concept. Even newer AR’s today are being fitted with pistons so you might as well call up the entire firearms design community and tell them they are idiots for going with something that seems to work.

    “If you re-read that article with L. Jame Sullivan, you’ll see that he’s condemning the AR-18 design, not the bolt. I’m condemning the bolt.”

    He may have said that but you are wrong in saying he doesn’t criticize or dislike the AR-15. If you actually took the time to read my source he says so right here in his OWN WORDS:

    “JIM SULLIVAN: That AK-74 out-hits the M-16 by two to one on full automatic. And the reason that there was 100 million AKs made wasn’t to equip the Russian army. It was to give to our third world opponents so the United States can’t win ground wars anymore. It’s the rifleman and his rifle, that’s what decides ground wars.

    PAUL SOLMAN: The rifle Sullivan would have his own son use in Iraq today? The opposition’s.

    JIM SULLIVAN: He should have an AK.

    PAUL SOLMAN: Really?

    JIM SULLIVAN: Yes.”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec07/rifles_09-24.html

    Again not my words but his words and one of the designers of the AR criticizing his own design he helped to create.

    “And you’re telling Lance that he needs to cite sources, which you only site a periodical. He cites veterans he’s spoken with, and you question their credentials? Using the weapon in combat doesn’t count to you? What are your credentials?”

    Im not claiming to be an expert in anything but giving a second opinion that the AR is not the best thing since sliced bread. And yes there are also many veterans who I have talked to who said the AR was garbage so the dialogue can go both ways on who likes it and who doesn’t. And yes I do cite periodicals from sources who TEST GUNS FOR A LIVING BOTH FROM LIVE TESTS AND FROM VETERANS!! I use multiple sources not just the word of mouth.

    “Why did South Africa build their own guns instead of buying someone elses? There was this little thing called “Apartheid” that made some people angry, so they all got together and said “we’re not gonna sell these assholes anything”, but the people who weren’t invited to that meeting decided that they were okay with selling them stuff.”

    I will quote myself again: “Also as previous said if the M-16/M-4 is so better than the European and Asian guns then why did those countries come up with their own designs instead of adopting the M-16 and building it under license?? A PART FROM SOUTH AFRICA all those other countries could have easily gotten contracts to build the M-16/M-4 but decided not to for obvious reasons because it isn’t the end-all be-all of firearms.” Therefore you already repeating what I have already said AND KNOW!

    “You like the VZ 58, that’s fine. More power to you. I’ve know three people who had one of these, and so far, I’ve only seen one of them break, so enjoy!”

    I will enjoy a rifle that has an unrestricted port, short stroke piston system, no tools required to disassemble, milled receiver lighter than an AK, hammer fired, that will not fail when I need it. My question is how did the other one break?? Bad receiver?? Poor workmanship?? Worn parts??

    @LANCE
    “I dont know why you love jap crap sop much. NO ONE OUT SICE OF JAPPAN USES THERE WEAPONS!”

    Where did I say I loved their weapons? You too love putting words in my mouth. I was merely stating 3 weapons designs that the Japanese fielded successfully. And the only reason no one uses their weapons is because it is in their Constitution as well as their government policy to not export military firearms outside of their country to other countries a practice which predates the 20th century. Look it up.

    “The FNC is a pieace of crap. It has a bad piston system and his heave and ouckward butstock. FN left out mosts of the FALs key features and got a sucky clone when it went to 5.56mm.”

    Have you ever handled or fired and FNC? So I guess you are calling the Alaskan State Police a bunch of liars then and should not be fit to carry any firearms in the wilderness is that what you are saying?? Because they already had a series of tests and the AR fell flat on its face while that piece of crap carbine stood up to all the tests that the Alaskan wilderness threw at it. I guess its pretty bad when a piece of crap beats your high and mighty AR in Alaska. Also they had two versions of the butt-stock a fixed and folding. Again show me where these complaints are about how bad the butt-stock is. So I guess the SCAR is going to be a piece of crap since it utilizes a lot of features from the FNC so I guess the Belgians are just making the same mistakes with quality firearms again.

    @ Whatever- I stand corrected.

    • Guys please – not need for this to be personal. If you take 3 gun nuts, and ask them their opinion about something, you will get at least 4 different opinions. Disagreeing does not equal disrespecting. Keep it friendly.

  • Lance

    I have friends who have FNCs and have played with some myself. There no better than a AR-18 they are stamped and have poor long range accracy.

  • Matt Groom

    “Ah yes you did call the AR better when you chastised me for the choices that I would choose over an AR”

    Where? You obviously know how to cut and paste, where’s the quote? I chastised you for saying that weapons that you have never handled and know nothing about were better than a weapon that you’ve had limited experience with and know nothing about.

    If you had actually read my statements, my point was that there is no such thing as a perfect weapons system. “You started the whole debate…” Oh, really? Your first comment was this:
    “I can make a huge list of 5.56 rifles that I would take over the AR in a heartbeat.” You turned this into a firestorm with the first thing you wrote. I did no such thing. But I did write this “I never claimed that there was a be all and end all weapons system out there.” Which you interpreted incorrectly as this: “So by default you do pretty much claim that it is the end all be all system…” Uhh, no. YOU ASSUME that I meant something completely the opposite of what I actually wrote, by your own admission. I said the XCR was great, but expensive. You apparently couldn’t be troubled to read that far.

    “Where did I say anything anti-Semitic about the Jews??” Your exact words “C) the Israelis are pack rats they will take anything they can get that shoots” Nothing racist about that! “Go look at their website and tell me that they aren’t pack rats.” http://www.Israel.com?

    “now you are just putting words in my mouth.” That’s rich. I thought that was your tactic? “They only switched to the AR system because America gave them millions upon millions of them that their own industry would never have been able to churn out…” Is that not a slight at Israel’s industrial capacity? Do you know how much a million is? “Millions upon millions of them…” means that every man, woman, and child would have gotten, like two of them. When it comes to hyperbole, I bow before the master. Manufacturing a rifle is too difficult for them? The Israelis built the fuckin’ Uzi, for cryin’ out loud!

    “When did I say they were terrible fighters?” Where did I say you said that?

    “When did I say they had NO industry?” I already hit that one, but here’s another: “A) they did not have the industrial capacity to equip their entire military force during the period it was first introduced ”

    “I said their industrial base was SMALL compared to a superpower like the United States and thus could not churn out the quantity” Yes, you did just say that. Just now. In that sentence. What you actually wrote before, was something completely different.

    “Someone needs to learn to read better before ranting off suc
    h fallacies on what I said so you should shove it right back to you and LEARN TO READ and stop making crap up about what I say when I never said it.” Someone needs to take his own advice. You are right though, you never said half of what you apparently meant to say. Esprit de escalier, I suppose.

    “The Mauser came from the designs of the French Lebel rifle being the first rifle to use smokeless powder so what is your point??” What? Uhh, no. It doesn’t. You’re wrong, pure and simple. The only thing those two actions have in common is the fact that they are both BOLT ACTIONS. They share almost no other similarities. When a design is BASED on another design, it’s basically a copy, not just something similar. You seem to understand this concept with your example of the ’03 Springfield being based on the Mauser 98, but then you fail to grasp that similar action types can be completely different with your ‘Mauser is Lebel’ argument, which is sheer nonsense.

    “That was the detailed point I was trying to make since I said the CETME and CETME only.” Really? Then why did you write this about the Type 64: “and the only rifle next to the CETME that could fire .308 in automatic fire.”?

    “And yes I do cite periodicals from sources who TEST GUNS FOR A LIVING BOTH FROM LIVE TESTS AND FROM VETERANS!!” Uhhh, I’m a veteran who tests guns for a living, and so are most of my friends. I served as a US Marine in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom in March of 2003, and I have used the AR-15 family in anger.

    “My question is how did the other one break??” Locking block cracked.

    This did not start out as an all-out assault on your sensibilities, but apparently you see enemies everywhere and anyone who disagrees with you must be out to get you. So pardon me for not wanting to throw out a perfectly good rifle for any random number of other designs simply because you prefer to believe what you believe over what experience hath taught the rest of us.

  • Matt Groom

    And as far as I can tell through my cursory research, the Valmet won the Alaskan State Trooper trials, not the FNC.

  • Scott

    I apologize Steve I did not mean to start this whole debate. I love your site and thank you for your effort in showing the latest firearm related news. All I stated was that there were firearms I preferred over the AR and I was attacked for it. I stated an opinion and I guess my opinion was wrong and therefore I was chastised for it. And for the record I AM NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE!!!! I use the term pack rat loosely as an expression for anyone who never throws anything anyway. I call my mother a pack rat because she never throws anything anyway. I used to call the Russian military pack rats because they never used to throw anything away but now since they are short on funds they are selling anything surplus they can find. I should have stated Israeli military and not Israel as a whole again. I don’t know how one can assume being called a pack rat an insult but then again some people are just wired differently. You are all entitled to your opinion. Enjoy your AR’s, I will enjoy anything else.

    • Scott, thanks. I did not take your comments as anti-semite – I know what you meant.

  • Scott

    @ Matt Groom

    I know it was the Galil/Valmet won but it also said the FNC was tied with them for being first so all 3 were the defacto winners.

  • theH

    I doubt the FNC is a piece of crap…and I also doubt FN doesn’t know what they are doing

  • Adrian

    Greetings from Colombia.
    Here we use both rifles M-16 and Galil in two calibers 5.56×45 and 7.62×51 and the only sin of the Galil is its weight in comparassiom to an M-16 ,the M-16 is a delicate weapon and its used for assault missions ,but in long battles against the FARC the Galil its a rugged ,reliable and accurate weapon ,a Colombian soldier proof rifle.The galil ACE is too new ,it has to proove too much,the point is setting too high.
    By the way I am in the “Glorioso Ejercito de Colombia” first person witness.