Comments on: Army requests changes to M4 carbine http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/ Firearms not Politics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:19:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: erekcja http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-85851 erekcja Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:53:49 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-85851 An interesting dialogue is value comment. I feel that you must write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo topic however usually persons are not sufficient to talk on such topics. To the next. Cheers An interesting dialogue is value comment. I feel that you must write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo topic however usually persons are not sufficient to talk on such topics. To the next. Cheers

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: John http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-65655 John Fri, 24 Jun 2011 02:36:46 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-65655 Maybe if we trained our troops to that of a real standard anymore they wouldn't have these problems. There ain't nothing wrong with DI, ain't nothing wrong with 5.56, ain't nothing wrong with the M4 or M16. Maybe if we trained our troops to that of a real standard anymore they wouldn’t have these problems. There ain’t nothing wrong with DI, ain’t nothing wrong with 5.56, ain’t nothing wrong with the M4 or M16.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
]]> By: Rohan http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-52964 Rohan Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:08 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-52964 @Lance. The body of the M16 is alloy, correct? The barrel is fixed to the alloy receiver. The bolt moves back through the alloy body and into the stock and hits the buffer. That's inside a plastic stock. That'a OK because it's a M16. The core body of the AUG is alloy. The barrel is fixed to the alloy receiver. The bolt and bolt rods moves back through the alloy body and into the stock. That's inside a plastic stock. That's not OK because it's a bullpup. By the way I wasn't talking bullpup, I was talking concept, modular weapons. @Lance.
The body of the M16 is alloy, correct? The barrel is fixed to the alloy receiver. The bolt moves back through the alloy body and into the stock and hits the buffer. That’s inside a plastic stock. That’a OK because it’s a M16.

The core body of the AUG is alloy. The barrel is fixed to the alloy receiver. The bolt and bolt rods moves back through the alloy body and into the stock. That’s inside a plastic stock. That’s not OK because it’s a bullpup.

By the way I wasn’t talking bullpup, I was talking concept, modular weapons.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Lance http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-52890 Lance Sun, 16 Jan 2011 10:17:41 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-52890 Only the stock on a M-16 is plastic the whole body of a Aug is plastic thats why. Only the stock on a M-16 is plastic the whole body of a Aug is plastic thats why.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Rohan Wilson http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-52865 Rohan Wilson Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:11:46 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-52865 @Lance Many were happy with their Thompsons, M1s and BARs. M16 is a Mattel plastic girlie gun that the USAF wanted to replace the M1 carbine. Which plastic gun are you talking about? @Lance
Many were happy with their Thompsons, M1s and BARs. M16 is a Mattel plastic girlie gun that the USAF wanted to replace the M1 carbine.

Which plastic gun are you talking about?

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Lance http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-52742 Lance Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:00:57 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-52742 Thats if you want a plastic bullpup.... Many are happy with what they got. Thats if you want a plastic bullpup….

Many are happy with what they got.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Rohan Wilson http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-52725 Rohan Wilson Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:43:08 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-52725 @ Destroyer. In 1977 the Austrians released the the AUG-77. It was modular (quick change barrel, no tools), it was polymer and alloy (body and magazine), it had a forward pistol grip and optical sight as standard, is gas piston driven and it was compact (20" barrel in a 31'' weapon). How come 30 years later soldiers are having to fight to get own national armies to have a similar concept? @ Destroyer.

In 1977 the Austrians released the the AUG-77. It was modular (quick change barrel, no tools), it was polymer and alloy (body and magazine), it had a forward pistol grip and optical sight as standard, is gas piston driven and it was compact (20″ barrel in a 31” weapon).

How come 30 years later soldiers are having to fight to get own national armies to have a similar concept?

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Destroyer http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-52223 Destroyer Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:29:25 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-52223 "There are plenty of electronic devices currently bolted on to the M4. M68 CCOs, PAQ/PEQ-whatever, flashlights, etc. Why would a small, solid-state device with no external controls and no moving parts, probably tucked into a pistol grip fare any worse? Luddite-ism is no excuse for not doing something smarter. Try again." yes and anybody who has had experiences with those devises knows that they fail. Especially when exposed to kinetic shock, rain, moisture, and heat. The seals for the batteries also fail, as do the batteries themselves. Indeed, much of the electronic technology is limited by batteries. Sorry to burst your bubble, ignorance will not breed success... "Red Dots, IR Lasers, Radios (pocket and military), NVGs, CD Players, MP3 Players, Cell Phones, Ballistic Computers (Like AFTDS), and my GameBoy Pocket which surrvived 3 years in the field, including a tour in Iraq, before I retired it for a Gameboy SP. These are all electronics that I used in the field extensively over four years in the USMC. But you’re right, I’m sure a simple, solid state, electronic counter stored in a solid plastic housing won’t survive. I mean, that watch battery inside is gonna burn out in, like, five years!" And if you noticed, all of these devises were stored in a protective manner, which a devise on a personal weapon cant be. If a block like round counter devise was attached to the rail, would it be 100% accurate? and please tell me where batteries can be obtained that last 5 years...i think you have solved the entire US military's problem with batteries to begin with... (LMAO) again, ignorance breeds failure. Here's something for a change: how about fielding a relatively inexpensive, rugged, reliable, and modular rifle for the front-line soldier to use and have confidence in??? ps, please provide sources for the SCAR "failures". im curious anybody. A good armorer will notice FN engineered the SCAR well. Get over it, the AR15 concept is obsolete. There is better technology out there. In addition: there is a substantial difference between "plastic" and "polymer". polymers are some of the strongest man-made materials in existence. Comparing polymer to plastic is like comparing machine steel to tin and calling it "metal". utterly absurd. “There are plenty of electronic devices currently bolted on to the M4. M68 CCOs, PAQ/PEQ-whatever, flashlights, etc. Why would a small, solid-state device with no external controls and no moving parts, probably tucked into a pistol grip fare any worse? Luddite-ism is no excuse for not doing something smarter. Try again.”

yes and anybody who has had experiences with those devises knows that they fail. Especially when exposed to kinetic shock, rain, moisture, and heat. The seals for the batteries also fail, as do the batteries themselves. Indeed, much of the electronic technology is limited by batteries. Sorry to burst your bubble, ignorance will not breed success…

“Red Dots, IR Lasers, Radios (pocket and military), NVGs, CD Players, MP3 Players, Cell Phones, Ballistic Computers (Like AFTDS), and my GameBoy Pocket which surrvived 3 years in the field, including a tour in Iraq, before I retired it for a Gameboy SP. These are all electronics that I used in the field extensively over four years in the USMC. But you’re right, I’m sure a simple, solid state, electronic counter stored in a solid plastic housing won’t survive. I mean, that watch battery inside is gonna burn out in, like, five years!”

And if you noticed, all of these devises were stored in a protective manner, which a devise on a personal weapon cant be. If a block like round counter devise was attached to the rail, would it be 100% accurate? and please tell me where batteries can be obtained that last 5 years…i think you have solved the entire US military’s problem with batteries to begin with… (LMAO)

again, ignorance breeds failure. Here’s something for a change: how about fielding a relatively inexpensive, rugged, reliable, and modular rifle for the front-line soldier to use and have confidence in???

ps, please provide sources for the SCAR “failures”. im curious anybody. A good armorer will notice FN engineered the SCAR well. Get over it, the AR15 concept is obsolete. There is better technology out there.

In addition: there is a substantial difference between “plastic” and “polymer”. polymers are some of the strongest man-made materials in existence. Comparing polymer to plastic is like comparing machine steel to tin and calling it “metal”. utterly absurd.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Colin http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-34920 Colin Thu, 27 May 2010 10:04:22 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-34920 With the M203 being replaced by the M320 that shouldn't be a problem anyway - it doesn't attach to the barrel, only the the lower rail... With the M203 being replaced by the M320 that shouldn’t be a problem anyway – it doesn’t attach to the barrel, only the the lower rail…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Jason http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-34728 Jason Tue, 25 May 2010 23:52:57 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-34728 The heavy "SOCOM" barrel has a notch cutout between the barrel nut and front sight base that still allows a M203 to mount. The heavy “SOCOM” barrel has a notch cutout between the barrel nut and front sight base that still allows a M203 to mount.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: leopard http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-34666 leopard Tue, 25 May 2010 11:55:36 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-34666 I think the heavier barrel would be a problem to mount an M203 because the current M4 barrel is thin enough under the hand guard to allow the mounting of a GL. I think the heavier barrel would be a problem to mount an M203 because the current M4 barrel is thin enough under the hand guard to allow the mounting of a GL.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Jason http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-28816 Jason Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:08:55 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-28816 Um...they already have a general issue RDS (the M68 CCO) and ACOGs. And Thermal/FLIR stuff. Why would they ask for those when they already have them? This is about updates to a rifle, not updates to accessories. Um…they already have a general issue RDS (the M68 CCO) and ACOGs. And Thermal/FLIR stuff. Why would they ask for those when they already have them? This is about updates to a rifle, not updates to accessories.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Shogun http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-28811 Shogun Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:47:06 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-28811 Why didnt the army ask for red dot or eotech sight? OR ACOG and NV Thermal scope? Or Fucking heartbeat sensor for SF?That would be cool to have. Why didnt the army ask for red dot or eotech sight? OR ACOG and NV Thermal scope? Or Fucking heartbeat sensor for SF?That would be cool to have.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Carl http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-28481 Carl Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:12:36 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-28481 Electronics is no big deal to harden. Of course, an incompetent person/company can screw up anything. But that's sort of beside the point. Presumably they have tested this thing in field conditions. Electronics is no big deal to harden.
Of course, an incompetent person/company can screw up anything. But that’s sort of beside the point. Presumably they have tested this thing in field conditions.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Matt Groom http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-28479 Matt Groom Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:50:16 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-28479 Red Dots, IR Lasers, Radios (pocket and military), NVGs, CD Players, MP3 Players, Cell Phones, Ballistic Computers (Like AFTDS), and my GameBoy Pocket which surrvived 3 years in the field, including a tour in Iraq, before I retired it for a Gameboy SP. These are all electronics that I used in the field extensively over four years in the USMC. But you're right, I'm sure a simple, solid state, electronic counter stored in a solid plastic housing won't survive. I mean, that watch battery inside is gonna burn out in, like, five years! Red Dots, IR Lasers, Radios (pocket and military), NVGs, CD Players, MP3 Players, Cell Phones, Ballistic Computers (Like AFTDS), and my GameBoy Pocket which surrvived 3 years in the field, including a tour in Iraq, before I retired it for a Gameboy SP. These are all electronics that I used in the field extensively over four years in the USMC. But you’re right, I’m sure a simple, solid state, electronic counter stored in a solid plastic housing won’t survive. I mean, that watch battery inside is gonna burn out in, like, five years!

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Jason Smith http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-28477 Jason Smith Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:29:51 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-28477 Destroyer, There are plenty of electronic devices currently bolted on to the M4. M68 CCOs, PAQ/PEQ-whatever, flashlights, etc. Why would a small, solid-state device with no external controls and no moving parts, probably tucked into a pistol grip fare any worse? Luddite-ism is no excuse for not doing something smarter. Try again. Destroyer,

There are plenty of electronic devices currently bolted on to the M4. M68 CCOs, PAQ/PEQ-whatever, flashlights, etc. Why would a small, solid-state device with no external controls and no moving parts, probably tucked into a pistol grip fare any worse? Luddite-ism is no excuse for not doing something smarter. Try again.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Destroyer http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-28450 Destroyer Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:12:05 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-28450 yes matt, and im sure a electronic counter will survive field conditions (LOL) yes matt, and im sure a electronic counter will survive field conditions (LOL)

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Matt Groom http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-27935 Matt Groom Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:23:06 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-27935 "Well, judging by the shine of the parkerizing, and the oxidation on the exposed aluminum, I tell you this rifle has EXACTLY 7,247 rounds through her." Flips safety, Pulls trigger: "1,512 of which were fired on burst." Sniffs the ejection port: "About 328 blanks, too". Yeah, well, I don't like the whole idea of an expert guess as to how many rounds have been through the rifle I'm issued. There's nothing more dangerous than an armorer who "KNOWS" that those gas rings or that spring isn't worn out yet. “Well, judging by the shine of the parkerizing, and the oxidation on the exposed aluminum, I tell you this rifle has EXACTLY 7,247 rounds through her.”
Flips safety, Pulls trigger:
“1,512 of which were fired on burst.”
Sniffs the ejection port:
“About 328 blanks, too”.

Yeah, well, I don’t like the whole idea of an expert guess as to how many rounds have been through the rifle I’m issued. There’s nothing more dangerous than an armorer who “KNOWS” that those gas rings or that spring isn’t worn out yet.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Destroyer http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-27911 Destroyer Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:37:32 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-27911 a armorer worth a s--t will know the round count just by looking at the weapon's parts anyways... a armorer worth a s–t will know the round count just by looking at the weapon’s parts anyways…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Matt Groom http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/11/22/army-requests-changes-to-m4-carbine/comment-page-1/#comment-27734 Matt Groom Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:18:37 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=9406#comment-27734 The round counter is for inventory, not for the field. It's for the Armorers, not the grunts. The round counter is for inventory, not for the field. It’s for the Armorers, not the grunts.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]>