Favorite Weapons

[SARMedTech]

I dont really know all that much about the M4A1 (carbine) but from what I have heard from those that use it, its the best thing since the M-16 and sliced bread put together. I dont have alot of experience with rifles (most just single shot long distance target shooting with a reproduction BAR) but I would love to get some trigger time with the M4. To me, it just looks like what a good rifle should look like and I cant help but think that is has amazing functionality.  Ive been talking to some USCG friends and apparently they have heard some scuttlebutt about the CG's Port Security Specialists transitioning to the M4, so they are very excited about that.

As far as handguns go, Im in love with my XD .40. One of the best things to happen to sidearms in a very long time. And its true what they say about it that you hit what you point at with this weapon.

[Stonewall]

I dont really know all that much about the M4A1 (carbine) but from what I have heard from those that use it, its the best thing since the M-16 and sliced bread put together.

After a few articles in AF/Army Times along with some other readings on the internet and watching retired "shooter" Larry Vickers on Military Channel, I'm think the HK416 is the way to go as far as a standard issue rifle for the guy with boots on the ground.

M16 Rifle and M4 Carbine: Time For a Change  <<---Click there for article
Date: Saturday, December 29 @ 18:16:04 PST
Topic: Rifles and Carbines

By Charlie Cutshaw

For those of you who may have been on another planet for the past three or
four years, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are having serious
reliability issues with the M16 rifle and M4 Carbine, especially the latter.
The basic problems with the M16 and M4 are nothing new. M16 reliability
issues date to the mid-1960s and more recently, a study of the M4A1
conducted by the Special Operations Command in 2000 stated that the M4A1 was
"fundamentally flawed" for a number of reasons.

The M4/M4A1 Carbine has also turned out to be a poor "people stopper" when
used with standard M855 ball ammunition. This is less of an issue if one is
carrying an M16, but most troops in the "Sand Box" are equipped with M4 or
M4A1 Carbines. The difference between the M4 and the M4A1 is that...

[mikeylikey]

^ I had no problem with either weapon.  I think some of the "problems" are the competing manufacturers that were not awarded contracts putting spin on a few instances of malfunction. 

Then again, most soldiers, airman and marines (even though we are at war) fire their weapon at basic and then on the Qual-range.  (I think I read that only 1/8 of active Duty Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan actually fire a weapon.  That is low, figuring what we see on the news every night.   

I do believe we need a huge re-design of all military equipment.  Since we are no longer going to operate in jungle and marshy environments (in the foreseeable future) we need equipment that can stand up to sand and sun.  Hell, my biggest probelm I ever had was the huge rip in the ass of my ACU's. 

In short, we need weapons and equipment that can be used in CHINA, and IRAN.  Those are the next foreseeable operational areas in my mind.  (But I pray that I am wrong!)

[Stonewall]

Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Dec 18, 2007 13:08:26 EST

The M4 carbine, the weapon soldiers depend on in combat, finished last in a recent "extreme dust test" to demonstrate the M4's reliability compared to three newer carbines.

Weapons officials at the Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., exposed Colt Defense LLC's M4, along with the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA's Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and the H&K 416 to sandstorm conditions from late September to late November, firing 6,000 rounds through each test weapon.

When the test was completed, ATEC officials found that the M4 performed "significantly worse" than the other three weapons, sources told Army Times.

Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here's how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:

• XM8: 127 stoppages.

• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.

• 416: 233 stoppages.

• M4: 882 stoppages.

the results of the test were "a wake-up call," but Army officials continue to stand by the current carbine, said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, commander of Program Executive Office Soldier, the command that is responsible for equipping soldiers.

"We take the results of this test with a great deal of interest and seriousness," Brown said, expressing his determination to outfit soldiers with the best equipment possible.

The test results did not sway the Army's faith in the M4, he said.

"Everybody in the Army has high confidence in this weapon," Brown said.

Lighter and more compact than the M16 rifle, the M4 is more effective for the close confines of urban combat. The Army began fielding the M4 in the mid-1990s.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform the test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army combat forces to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Coburn is questioning the Army's plans to spend $375 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009.

Coburn raised concerns over the M4's "long-standing reliability" problems in an April 12 letter and asked if the Army had considered newer, possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, who was traveling, said the senator was reviewing the test results and had yet to discuss it with the Army.

The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Some weapons experts maintain the M4's system of blowing gas directly into the firing mechanism of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication, causing excessive wear on parts.

The other contenders in the dust test — the XM8, SCAR and 416 — use a piston-style operating system, which relies on a gas-driven piston rod to cycle the weapon during firing. The gas is vented without funneling through the firing mechanism.

The Army's Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that the piston operating system significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts. The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to develop the new carbine.

U.S. Special Operations Command has also revised its small-arms requirements. In November 2004, SOCom awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace its weapons from the M16 family.

And from 2002 to 2005, the Army developed the XM8 as a replacement for the Army's M16 family. The program led to infighting within the service's weapons community and eventually died after failing to win approval at the Defense Department level.
How they were tested

The recent Aberdeen dust test used 10 sample models of each weapon. Before going into the dust chamber, testers applied a heavy coat of lubrication to each weapon. Each weapon's muzzle was capped and ejection port cover closed.

Testers exposed the weapons to a heavy dust environment for 30 minutes before firing 120 rounds from each.

The weapons were then put back in the dust chamber for another 30 minutes and fired another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.

Testers then wiped down each weapon and applied another heavy application of lubrication.

The weapons were put back through the same sequence of 30 minutes in the dust chamber followed by firing 120 rounds from each weapon until another 600 rounds were fired.

Testers then thoroughly cleaned each weapon, re-lubricated each, and began the dusting and fire sequencing again.

This process was repeated until testers fired 6,000 rounds through each weapon.

The dust test exposed the weapons to the same extreme dust and sand conditions that Army weapons officials subjected the M4 and M16 to during a "systems assessment" at Aberdeen last year and again this summer. The results of the second round of ATEC tests showed that the performance of the M4s dramatically improved when testers increased the amount of lubrication used.

Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test.

in the recent tests, the M4 suffered 643 weapon-related stoppages, such as failure to eject or failure to extract fired casings, and 239 magazine-related stoppages.

Colt officials had not seen the test report and would not comment for this story, said James Battaglini, executive vice president for Colt Defense LLC, on Dec. 14.

Army officials are concerned about the gap between the two tests because the "test conditions for test two and three were ostensibly the same," Brown said.

There were, however, minor differences in the two tests because they were conducted at different times of the year with different test officials, Brown said. Test community officials are analyzing the data to try to explain why the M4 performed worse during this test.

Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that did not address "reliability in typical operational conditions," the test report states.

Despite the last-place showing, Army officials say there is no movement toward replacing the M4.

The Army wants its next soldier weapon to be a true leap ahead, rather than a series of small improvements, Brown said.

"That is what the intent is," he said, "to give our soldiers the very best and we are not going to rest until we do that."

Col. Robert Radcliffe, head of the Directorate of Combat Developments for the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., said the test results will be considered as the Army continues to search for ways to improve soldier weapons.

For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon's popularity among troops in the combat zone.

"The M4 is performing for them in combat, and it does what they needed to do in combat," Radcliffe said.

[JohnKachenmeister]

^ I had no problem with either weapon.  I think some of the "problems" are the competing manufacturers that were not awarded contracts putting spin on a few instances of malfunction. 

Then again, most soldiers, airman and marines (even though we are at war) fire their weapon at basic and then on the Qual-range.  (I think I read that only 1/8 of active Duty Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan actually fire a weapon.  That is low, figuring what we see on the news every night.   

I do believe we need a huge re-design of all military equipment.  Since we are no longer going to operate in jungle and marshy environments (in the foreseeable future) we need equipment that can stand up to sand and sun.  Hell, my biggest probelm I ever had was the huge rip in the ass of my ACU's. 

In short, we need weapons and equipment that can be used in CHINA, and IRAN.  Those are the next foreseeable operational areas in my mind.  (But I pray that I am wrong!)

Mikey:

The Philippines and Indonesia both have active Muslim terrorist insurgencies.  And they have jungle and marshy environments.

And, if I'm not mistaken, Iran has a large marsh in the south near Abadan (sp?)

[afgeo4]

If we create weapons systems for predicted enemies we will always run into problems because it is usually the unpredicted who becomes the enemy.

Our military has been trained and equipped to fight wars in the jungles of Central America, plains of Central Europe and mountains of Central Korea and Taiwan. That is why our military had such a difficult time fighting an insurgency campaign in the desert environment (and that's even after Desert Shield/Storm).

We need all-purpose weapons that hold up in MOST environments. Yes, they do exist. The AK's do that and do it well all over the globe. No reason why we can't design and procure a weapon that will do the same.

[mikeylikey]

The Philippines and Indonesia both have active Muslim terrorist insurgencies.  And they have jungle and marshy environments.

And, if I'm not mistaken, Iran has a large marsh in the south near Abadan (sp?)

The Philippines can go to hell for all I care.  They wanted the USA out of there SO bad, they can deal with what arose once we were gone.  If I read history correctly, didn't the US Army already put down one Muslim insurrection there, like 100 years ago?  They made movies about it too right?

Indonesia is another subject entirely.  I have no knowledge of the situation there, thus can not comment.

[Stonewall]

Indonesia is another subject entirely.  I have no knowledge of the situation there, thus can not comment.

Been to indonesia lots of times.  Just wait for another tsunami to come along and wipe it all out.

[mikeylikey]

^ That seems like the only time other countries want our help, when they can't help themselves.  I say, sure lets help them out, but in exchange, we want all their gold, and precious resources.  With the gold, we can then start putting more into R&D for future weapons that will work when we eventually go back to that country and take over. 

Too far off topic....sorry everyone! 

Back to topic............my favorite weapon is knowledge!   

[Johnny Yuma]

Most of the gun writers listed are freelance writers who'll write whatever will get their articles sold. Most magazine are little more than industry catalogs with little objective reporting.

The U.S. army abandoned the OICW project a few years ago, one they've been working on since 1989. They came to the conclusion that all the new "advanced" designs were no more reliable and capable than the M16/M4 platforms and way more expensive than what they were buying M16A2/M4's for.

Most every one of the rifles were variations of rotary bolt gas operated chambered in 5.56mm NATO. Guess what? So's the M16 platform. All of the same drawbacks to the M16 platform was incorporated into these rifles.

Comparison: The Hk OICW was going to have a price tag pretty close to $10,000.00 which included the 20mm airburst grenade launcher. The Army is buying M4A1's for something around $500.00 and M203's for $300.00

Now, ATK, HK and FN poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this project only to see it go down the drain. So the media offensive is on to convince the public, military procurers and members of Congress that the U.S. serviceman is ill equipped to fight today's wars and the only way to fight terror on every environment on the planet is with their rifle.

The super weapons were supposed to be modular, able to add optics and ordnance as the mission required. The U.S. Army's proven that they can add the same options to the M16/M4 without the added extra expense.

Cartridge performance is another big issue with the 5.56mm NATO. Problems with M855 (standard issue) was found. It didn't work as advertised in the short barreled M4's in the cold weather, the bullet was too slow. This is being fixed with the Mk. 262 round that uses a 77 grain match bullet. This load is essentially what the US Army and USMC has been using in rifle competition and not only has far better terminal performance it increased the range of both rifles about 200 meters.

It also helps if you hit your target where it will do the most damage, center mass. Many Iraqi and Afghan insurgents are high on dope, so hits in the appendages or gut shots don't stop. Hit a lung, heart and/or spine they will go down.

[BigMojo]

Let's see some gun porn... post a picture of your favorite sidearm (that you own) and why it's your favorite. I'll start:

This is my Springfield Full Frame 1911 in .45acp, "Black Stainless" Model. I bought this firearm in a private sale, for less that $500  but is was scratched to hell, and had holster rash from a cheap holster, including rub marks for the thumb strap. As well as the grips being cracked (heat from being left in the truck in Florida I guess).

I completly stripped it and cleaned, replacing worn, or abused parts myself. Had new grips made, put a match barrel in it, higher pound recoil spring and an upgraded guide rod. Left the sights alone for now but that's on the short list of upgrades to do, that and a trigger job. I had a gunsmith go over it before I shot it just to make sure my work was good. I hope to make this an heirloom someday, as that gun now has a lot of meaning to me now, even though it's not a daily carry piece, and kind of a "gun safe queen", but she's one hell of a tack driver.



Let's here some more stories and see some pics.

[NIN]

At that big honking gun show I was at in VA this past weekend, I saw a gold-plated Desert Eagle .50 cal.  Apparently there is an interlock that prevents it from being fired unless you're holding it sideways....

[JC004]

my Springfield XD, .40 S&W (Service model).  Why?  Why wouldn't it be my favorite?  It's an XD!  XDs are a pleasure to shoot, reliable, and generally awesome.

[BigMojo]

I have an XD Service in 9mm that is my carry piece...I won a Insight X2 laser/tac light in a raffle at a gun show, and put that on it for fun some times...makes it so anyone can shoot 10's!

[W3ZR]

On duty, Glock 22  off duty, Glock 22.

[Stonewall]

As goofy as I look in this pic, I enjoyed shooting this M4 with Surefire supressor.

Also, we shot at a Level IV chest plate to see if would actually stop a 5.56.  It performed as it should have.  Only difference is, there was no "wrapping" or "laminate" around the plate to capture the debris, so it just kind of cracked open.  But there wasn't so much as a small bump on the inside of the plate, where you'd be wearing Level IIIA soft armor anyway. 

[wuzafuzz]

I carried .38 revolvers, and 9's as a former copper.  Didn't have any choice in the matter.  Later, as a non-sworn (but sworn at) crime scene guy I attended many autopsies after deputies dropped bad guys with one shot from a .40 cal Glock.  It seemed like they couldn't go wrong.  It seemed to be a good balance between stopping power and shoot-ability.

However, the ultimate one shot stop I saw was one bad guy shooting another.  Drive by.  The shooter launched one round at contestant number two, who went down for good.  At the post it became apparent the .45 FMJ round entered in one thigh, hit the femur, bounced upward through the leg, into the abdomen, pinged around the ribs a few times before going up through the neck, hit and bounced off the inside of his skull before coming to rest at the bottom of his skull. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I carried .38 revolvers, and 9's as a former copper.  Didn't have any choice in the matter.  Later, as a non-sworn (but sworn at) crime scene guy I attended many autopsies after deputies dropped bad guys with one shot from a .40 cal Glock.  It seemed like they couldn't go wrong.  It seemed to be a good balance between stopping power and shoot-ability.

However, the ultimate one shot stop I saw was one bad guy shooting another.  Drive by.  The shooter launched one round at contestant number two, who went down for good.  At the post it became apparent the .45 FMJ round entered in one thigh, hit the femur, bounced upward through the leg, into the abdomen, pinged around the ribs a few times before going up through the neck, hit and bounced off the inside of his skull before coming to rest at the bottom of his skull. 

I hope that wasn't a taxpayer that got shot!

[Stonewall]

I'm no ballistics expert, but I continue to say "placement counts".  I won't argue that a larger caliber like a .357 Sig, .40 or .45 will provide for a bigger punch, but I just can't give in to the whole 9mm ain't nuthin theory.

In January, JSO SWAT Officer Jared Reston was shot 6 times at point blank range with a Glock 21, a .45 caliber pistol.  Shot #1 went straigt into his face, hitting his jaw.  3 hits were to his ABA Xtreme™ XT vest, stopping those 3 rounds.  He was also hit in the leg and butt.  Reston killed the guy at point blank range with his Glock 22 .40, only after the bad guy expended all 12 or 13 of his .45 rounds.

I am not saying that 9mm is the ultimate round, I am just, once again, saying, that 9mm kill.  Just like the post by "wazafuzz", you can get hit in the leg, a seemingly survivable hit, but there's no telling what that round will do once it enters the body.  

Just sayin', don't blow off a gun cuz it's a 9mm.  They kill people all the time.

"Speed is fine, accuracy is final"

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yes, the 9mm can kill.  But...

The problem with the 9mm is what the bad guy can do between the time the first 9mm round hits him and the time he assumes room temperature.  I have seen at least three situations where a guy was fatally hit with 9mm's, but was still able to fire on the police.  In one case he put 4 .38 slugs in a policewoman after sustaining a 9mm shot through the heart.

That being said, I just bought a 9mm.  I am going to a law enforcement firearms instructor school, and will take over teaching armed security guards at the security school I work at.  Florida law restricts security officers to the .38 special or the 9mm, and I need one to teach with.  I bought a Browning FNP-9, but I won't be carrying it as a self-defense weapon very often.  Most of the armed security officers in my county use the 9mm, so I got to go with the market.

I also just bought a 12-guage Mossberg riot shotgun today.  I think I am now the most heavily armed person in my neighborhood.  One .45 caliber M-1911, one .38 caliber revolver with a 2-inch barrel, one 9mm semiauto pistol, and one riot gun.

If I work it right, I think I have enough firepower to take over a third-world banana republic.  I can declare myself president for life and give speeches to my adoring people from the balcony of my palace in my TPU!