US Military Rifle

[2506]

Here's an interesting article likely to stir up some discussion:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/

Read More

 

[bolus]

Is that a slide fire stock? Did the article just put a picture of an AR with a slide fire stock and then proceed to tell me their opinion on military firearms?

Perhaps they should show a picture of a Winnebago and then tell me what is wrong with an Abrams tank?

 

[Flopsweat]

I think he raises a few issues that merit consideration, but his delivery is a bit over the top. Not sure he knows as much about rifles - specifically the M16/M4 - as he wants us to think he does.

 

[rick benjamin]

Robert H. Scales, US Army Artillery officer.
He didn't clean his rifle.
He didn't check his troops rifles.
He didn't secure their perimenter.
He slept.
Now he's an expert
A live expert.
With an opinion.
End of story.
Nite-Nite.

 

[decklin]

Robert H. Scales, US Army Artillery officer.
He didn't clean his rifle.
He didn't check his troops rifles.
He didn't secure their perimenter.
He slept.
Now he's an expert
A live expert.
With an opinion.
End of story.
Nite-Nite.

Maybe he should have been focusing on priorities of work. One of the first things covered in basic.

 

[Medic!]

A forward assist is a cosmetic change? Aluminum gas tube? An m-16 is the same gun as a M-4?

He new he they should have cleaned there guns but chose not to? Imagine that. A soldier did not take care of his equipment. And it let him down.

Like Flopsweat said. He's a little over the top.

 

[The Heretic]

Yes, looks like a slide-fire stock to me.

Probably grabbed a pic off the net.

Despite his professed experience with an AR, his knowledge and understanding of its mechanics vs. that of the AK is lacking. Probably his knowledge of its history too (recommended reading: "The Black Rifle" and "The AK47 Story" - both by authoritative authors who knew their stuff, both firearms and their history).

His premise of why the AR is less dependable than the AK is somewhat flawed, poorly explained and just touches the tip of the iceberg.

First, it isn't just that the piston is attached to the bolt carrier on an AK vs. not attached on the AR. Besides the advantages of piston vs. direct impingement :

1) The added mass of the carrier and the piston. This is an important point. The bolt carrier group of an AR weighs about 12 ounces. The AK BCG weighs about 18 ounces - 35% heavier.

2) The AR bolt carrier rides in an aluminum tube, with a much larger bearing surface and closer tolerances. The AK bolt carrier rides on thin steel rails with a much smaller bearing surface, the bolt carrier does not rub on the action cover and has a much larger distance to that cover - you can take the cover completely off the rifle and run the rifle without it just fine.

These differences alone make the AK much more tolerant to dirt and other crud getting into the action and causing a failure or slowdown of the bolt. Combined with the much higher bolt carrier group mass, it takes a LOT more to stop the bolt carrier in an AK than in an AR.

3) The magazine lips on an AK mag vs. an AR mag. The magazine is the heart of any repeating magazine fed firearm, whether semi-auto or bolt action or lever action. In turn, the lips of a box magazine are the heart of the magazine - if they are not designed properly, if they are deformed, you will most likely have a feeding problem.

AK (74 and Saiga 223) mag lips (AK47 is similar):



AR mag lips:



Which do you think is more robust?

Which do you think will be more likely to be deformed by being dropped?

 

[SCARed]

The article sounds like posturing for more money for firearms development. If I can make everyone think the current rifle used by the military is tragically flawed, maybe I can generate support/funding for new rifle program/development.

 

[Medic!]

Look if you want a gun that feeds better. Go with the FN FAL.

The feed lips are built into the receiver. Not the magazine.

But ''Features that make the perfect gun'' Is another thread.

I just don't like to see somebody disparage any gun with lies. And half truths. The article discredited it's self with embellishments. We all know the highlights and problems with certain gun designs. And we make our choices and live with them. We have to. There is no perfect gun. Just compromise.

Maybe that's why there is such a big argument over AK vs. AR. We hate to compromise.

So we passionately argue! It's our way of lying to ourselves.

 

[The Heretic]

Some of the big reasons the military is not rushing to replace the AR rifles are:

1) Simple logistics. There are a lot of rifles, ammo, parts, procedures, depots, armorers trained, documentation, etc., etc., on the current system. It is not just replacing the rifle, it is all the other stuff that goes along with the rifle.

2) The DoD is working on developing the next gen weapons systems, which revolves around the next gen rifle. They have been doing this for decades. They do not want to adopt a new rifle just to have to adopt yet another new rifle in 5 to 10 years. They want one that will last for at least a few decades. They are waiting on "breakthrough" tech, something that is so compelling that they decide they need it "yesterday".

3) Training and acceptance by the troops of a new rifle, plus deployment of the rifle while we have ongoing conflicts around the world.

The article makes it seem simple to replace the standard infantry rifle, but it isn't. Far from it.

 

[The Heretic]

Look if you want a gun that feeds better. Go with the FN FAL.

The feed lips are built into the receiver. Not the magazine.

But ''Features that make the perfect gun'' Is another thread.

I just don't like to see somebody disparage any gun with lies. And half truths. The article discredited it's self with embellishments. We all know the highlights and problems with certain gun designs. And we make our choices and live with them. We have to. There is no perfect gun. Just compromise.

Maybe that's why there is such a big argument over AK vs. AR. We hate to compromise.

So we passionately argue! It's our way of lying to ourselves.

Good point and I like the FAL too.

Each rifle has its advantages and disadvantages. I was only addressing the issue of reliability due to the action mechanisms. There is also durability and robustness. Ergonomics (which the AR has many advantages over the AK, except for the charging handle IMO) and accuracy, among other things.

I was just saying that the article was poorly written, especially with regards as to why the AR has reliability problems.

 

[Medic!]

Do you believe there are politics involved it fielding a new service rifle?

Would you want to be the administration sticking there neck out if there are problems with the new service rifle? Look at the hell storm the M-16 caused! This article is based on it. And it will never end.

No. Better to just keep the blooded rifle in use today. Let the next Administration worry about egg on there face. And the decision get's kicked down the road.

Money. And existing parts have nothing to do with it. Since when did the government shy away from spending or even clearly wasting money? Need a $600 toilet? Or hammer?

Money may be there excuse. But I don't buy that. The choice of a new rifle has got little up side. And a huge down side!

 

[The Heretic]

Do you believe there are politics involved it fielding a new service rifle?

Does a bear defecate in the woods?

Is the pope catholic?

 

[Sstrand]

Med
If a new weapon were to be selected under the current administration it would likely be an AIRSOFT variant!

Sheldon

 

[Sabertooth]

How many here have carried a M-16 or M-4 or one of the other variant's of these in combat???

 

[decklin]

I have.

 

[Ron Eagle Elk]

I carried an M-16 or it's variant for almost 23 1/2 years of active duty. Never had one fail, even during three and a half years in Viet Nam, as a grunt with the 173d Airborne Brigade (Sep). The primary reason I never had one fail is that I cleaned the damn thing every day, if it needed it or not. I also made sure my troops cleaned their weapons and I inspected them to be sure it was done. (Okay, I did have a CAR-15 that would only function when it was carboned up and heavily lubed, but that was an oddity.)

He also mentioned the new sight that is computerized. If I'm in a fire fight I don't want to have my eye glued to an optic while a scope decides when to fire. Not having your head on a swivel in a fight is a sure way to end up at graves registration...as a customer.

 

[clearconscience]

You would think it's because they want wars to be fought without troops.

Why spend money on tech for ground troops when they don't want troops occupying other companies.

There is more money in selling arms to other countries and hiring contractors to do your dirty work.

 

[Stomper]

How many here have carried a M-16 or M-4 or one of the other variant's of these in combat???

Guilty. (M16A1, made by Hydra-Matic)

I also sported (in anger) a M-60, and a (Remington)1911A1. All my kit worked, every time.

 

[The Heretic]

You would think it's because they want wars to be fought without troops.

Why spend money on tech for ground troops when they don't want troops occupying other companies.

There is more money in selling arms to other countries and hiring contractors to do your dirty work.

The military would very much prefer not to put humans at risk. It makes war much easier to sell to the public if their family in the military is not put in harms way.

But for now, war still requires boots on the ground, just not so many, and not so many are killed or injured.

On the one hand this is a good thing, on the other it isn't; it makes it easier to sell getting involved in armed conflicts that we shouldn't be poking our noses into.