Why M4 for the US army?

[Harrod200]

Originally Posted by Tirak

Third weapon I believe was H&Ks 416, an improved version of Colts M-4. The reason the military won't replace them is because it would take away a lucrative contract from an American company who pays certain American senators quite a bit of money to ensure that contract stays, which is about as stupid a reason as you can get when soldiers have to trust their rifles with their lives.

Politics and 'democracy'. Give me a straight dictatorship over a corrupt 'democracy' any day. At least with a dictator you know where you stand; politicians will promise you the world to get your vote then bend you over and go for penetration once they get it.

[M1126 Stryker]

The M4 is light, compact, lethal, accurate, and relatively cheap. All around it is a good weapon system and it's advantages over the M16 have lead to the Army replacing most of their M16s with M4s. Plus the rail system on today's M4s means you can slap all sorts of things on them.

Other weapons certainly provide some advantages but the question is if these are enough to justify switching to a new weapon system.

My biggest problem with the M4 is the fact that most still have the three round burst mode, unlike the M4A1 which is used in smaller numbers. I wish the Army would make all new buys M4A1s.

[charliegrs]

Originally Posted by M1126 Stryker

The M4 is light, compact, lethal, accurate, and relatively cheap. All around it is a good weapon system and it's advantages over the M16 have lead to the Army replacing most of their M16s with M4s. Plus the rail system on today's M4s means you can slap all sorts of things on them.

Other weapons certainly provide some advantages but the question is if these are enough to justify switching to a new weapon system.

My biggest problem with the M4 is the fact that most still have the three round burst mode, unlike the M4A1 which is used in smaller numbers. I wish the Army would make all new buys M4A1s.

m4a1 is the full auto version right? didnt they stop giving every soldier a full auto rifle after vietnam because of all the wasted ammo?

[TheScot666]

Yeah i think that was the reason...

[Lieutenant-FPS-Bob]

That is the reason indeed, just watch videos of Nam, people sitting down emptying mags into the jungle. Nothing wrong with burst, and the fact is everyone is trained to fire semi auto now anyway.

[M1126 Stryker]

Yeah ammo use was one of the main reasons for introducing the three round burst mode but on average our soldiers are much better trained than they were in Vietnam. Plus logistics are better.

Nobody is emptying magazines on full auto at long range these days and in experienced hands full auto can offers some advantages over three round burst.

[pwnerfrancis]

Soldiers said it was just easier to handle in vehicles and what not. I say we use the FAMAS since french pple don't got a good use for it :P

[tlindy]

I dont know where people get the idea a M16/M4 is a POS. It has been killing people for 40 years! Is there a better weapon? yes! does politics play a role in keeping it in service? yes! but it isnt the POS that some seem convinced it is.

[ret1]

I'll throw my 2 cents in....

I haven't fired an m4 per se, but I have fired the equivalent civilian version, with the only difference between the two being a non-selectable rate of fire(it did have a telescoping butt). I can attest that the weapon is very light and has enough power. I can imagine that the weapon would be well suited for urban warfare, crewmen, and would be a relief to carry on long heavy treks. On the other hand, it seemed a bit too light to me. It didn't feel like a weapon I would want to have if I needed to roll around in trenches for a period of time without the ability to properly clean it.

I know the m16's initially had troubles in Vietnam due to the conditions, I believe the problems were subsequently smoothed out a bit, however I can clearly see how problems could still arise.

The idea that the majority of forces switching to the m4 is very intriguing. I believe it offers insight into what the military believes it's operations will consist of for ~10 years or so, and I am sure that it is well suited for the job. I do believe there could be a better weapon, but at high numbers and tight budgets, I don't see one available in the near future for the masses.

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

Originally Posted by tlindy

I dont know where people get the idea a M16/M4 is a POS. It has been killing people for 40 years! Is there a better weapon? yes! does politics play a role in keeping it in service? yes! but it isnt the POS that some seem convinced it is.

Ask Kenwayy. He's been using the M16 platform for years professionally, and he loathes it.