In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
M4/M16A2 Light weight, light ammo, low recoil. To me the greatest advantage of the M4 is not its size, it is on of the only rifles that I have ever seen that from 0-300m you aim center mass of the target and you will hit it. A grate benifit for using it at night. As far as killing power as long as I hurt them bad enough they dont want to fight anymore I have done my job, but most people that bad mouth the 5.56 are people that have never seen someone shot with it, let alone someone hit twice in the chest at close range.I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as firefightng goes. OF COURSE knocking out the enemy and ensuring he doesn't keep shooting is of paramount importance, however, it is important to understand that if you leave the wounded enemy alive, it consumes the enemy's vital resources to administer to their wounded. This is a strategic consideration.
Naturally you don't want the "M1 Carbine syndrome" to develop, as in Korea, where those using the Carbine would shoot a Chinese soldier and as the force advanced the Chinese soldier would sit up and shoot the American troop in the back. It became SOP to put a couple more rounds in the enemy as you advanced to make sure you did not get shot in the back.
Fact is, however, the 5.56 round will leave a nasty wound and a center-mass hit is more likely than not to, for all practical puroses, put that unlucky sob out of the action.
Right, ensuring that you overwhelm the enemy's support resources is great for fighting a large military that has the resources to exhaust. Now days WE end up caring for the enemies wounded. They leave them lying in the street or take them to a FOB and claim they were collateral damage from a US operation, worst that could happen is that they get detained, fed, and housed for awhile. 7.62 in an M1A or M14. Put 'em down for good.
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
quote:Originally posted by jsuggs
M4/M16A2 Light weight, light ammo, low recoil. To me the greatest advantage of the M4 is not its size, it is on of the only rifles that I have ever seen that from 0-300m you aim center mass of the target and you will hit it. A grate benifit for using it at night. As far as killing power as long as I hurt them bad enough they dont want to fight anymore I have done my job, but most people that bad mouth the 5.56 are people that have never seen someone shot with it, let alone someone hit twice in the chest at close range.I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as firefightng goes. OF COURSE knocking out the enemy and ensuring he doesn't keep shooting is of paramount importance, however, it is important to understand that if you leave the wounded enemy alive, it consumes the enemy's vital resources to administer to their wounded. This is a strategic consideration.
Naturally you don't want the "M1 Carbine syndrome" to develop, as in Korea, where those using the Carbine would shoot a Chinese soldier and as the force advanced the Chinese soldier would sit up and shoot the American troop in the back. It became SOP to put a couple more rounds in the enemy as you advanced to make sure you did not get shot in the back.
Fact is, however, the 5.56 round will leave a nasty wound and a center-mass hit is more likely than not to, for all practical puroses, put that unlucky sob out of the action.
My last tour in Afghanistan ended in Dec 2010, we rolled 4 to 6 MRAPs or a combo of MRAPs/MATVs depending on the mission and truck status. The primary weapons on the gun stations were M2s and 240Bs, we normally went half M2, half 240B alternating. The gunners also had 249s and M9s and frags up in the station and had easy access to the drivers M4/M203 directly below them. At least two trucks had AT4s in the gunner station at any time. We had a few Mk19s in our inventory and ammo for them but the ROE was tight on their use, so we usually did not take them. We had one M14 and a DM on each mission. We carried enough more than enough ammo for pretty much anything.
I liked my M4, wasn't happy with the EO Tech they gave me when my ACOG got busted but the M4 was reliable and accurate. There were times I wished it was a 7.62 but we had plenty of big rounds on the gun stations. We didn't have all of the toys that some units had, we didn't have the remote gun stations or miniguns (saw a SOCOM group rolling with one in a gun station) but we were heavily armed and could fight day or night (night vision and thermal).
Originally posted by walther86
Yep..Janitors first, soldiers second![8D]
[/quote
[;)]I am an 'old' soldier and I use to say if you learned nothing else in the army you could be a janitor!!![:D]
That said, While I did two tours in the Big Green Latrine (RVN) I loved the 60 and the MA Deuce!!![^]
The units I was with did not have many problems with the M-16's. I think there were problems with the first ones deployed. This was due to two factors.
1. When they were first introduced they were supposed to be 'maintenance free', if you can believe that.
2. They were very sensitive to the pressure curve, which was determined by the powder used. Some manufactures just plain use the wrong powder, out of ignorance.
It seems alot on her like the m60, look at the way they operate the gas system end at the gas cylinder in from of the hand guard. M16 blows back into the receiver, dumping all that dirt in there, can't work very long with sticky oil and dirt. Also 6 lug bolt not good, the m1, carbine, 03 m14 had 2 lug bolts. If you look at the progression the mini 14 would have been the next logical gun, I would rather have any gun with a 2 lug bolt that dumps its garbage outside
Comments
M4/M16A2 Light weight, light ammo, low recoil. To me the greatest advantage of the M4 is not its size, it is on of the only rifles that I have ever seen that from 0-300m you aim center mass of the target and you will hit it. A grate benifit for using it at night. As far as killing power as long as I hurt them bad enough they dont want to fight anymore I have done my job, but most people that bad mouth the 5.56 are people that have never seen someone shot with it, let alone someone hit twice in the chest at close range.I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as firefightng goes. OF COURSE knocking out the enemy and ensuring he doesn't keep shooting is of paramount importance, however, it is important to understand that if you leave the wounded enemy alive, it consumes the enemy's vital resources to administer to their wounded. This is a strategic consideration.
Naturally you don't want the "M1 Carbine syndrome" to develop, as in Korea, where those using the Carbine would shoot a Chinese soldier and as the force advanced the Chinese soldier would sit up and shoot the American troop in the back. It became SOP to put a couple more rounds in the enemy as you advanced to make sure you did not get shot in the back.
Fact is, however, the 5.56 round will leave a nasty wound and a center-mass hit is more likely than not to, for all practical puroses, put that unlucky sob out of the action.
quote:Originally posted by Wolf.
quote:Originally posted by jsuggs
M4/M16A2 Light weight, light ammo, low recoil. To me the greatest advantage of the M4 is not its size, it is on of the only rifles that I have ever seen that from 0-300m you aim center mass of the target and you will hit it. A grate benifit for using it at night. As far as killing power as long as I hurt them bad enough they dont want to fight anymore I have done my job, but most people that bad mouth the 5.56 are people that have never seen someone shot with it, let alone someone hit twice in the chest at close range.I think this pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as firefightng goes. OF COURSE knocking out the enemy and ensuring he doesn't keep shooting is of paramount importance, however, it is important to understand that if you leave the wounded enemy alive, it consumes the enemy's vital resources to administer to their wounded. This is a strategic consideration.
Naturally you don't want the "M1 Carbine syndrome" to develop, as in Korea, where those using the Carbine would shoot a Chinese soldier and as the force advanced the Chinese soldier would sit up and shoot the American troop in the back. It became SOP to put a couple more rounds in the enemy as you advanced to make sure you did not get shot in the back.
Fact is, however, the 5.56 round will leave a nasty wound and a center-mass hit is more likely than not to, for all practical puroses, put that unlucky sob out of the action.
I liked my M4, wasn't happy with the EO Tech they gave me when my ACOG got busted but the M4 was reliable and accurate. There were times I wished it was a 7.62 but we had plenty of big rounds on the gun stations. We didn't have all of the toys that some units had, we didn't have the remote gun stations or miniguns (saw a SOCOM group rolling with one in a gun station) but we were heavily armed and could fight day or night (night vision and thermal).