Us troops sounding off on their weapons

[scout 0]

this article mentions some problems with M-4 and SAW in conditions of dust.

Hell, all they had to do is to ask the IDF, we deal with these problems for years........

[Tex -USMC- 0]

LOL, not surprised. The M4 is a carbine M16, and you know how jam-prone that rifle is, and the SAW... well, you just have to look at the SAW to see that it will have problems with dust

[bn880 5]

The topic reminds me of this:

They are also getting an acoustic/sound weapon to use in the caves. 145 DB of annoying sound will drive people to give up, at least they hope...

[Blaegis 0]

There's one thing that struck me as a bit odd in that article: M-249 SAW (FN Minimi) got much lower reliablity and confidence marks from the troops compared to M-240B (FN MAG). I thought that Minimi was an evolutionary development of MAG - some design changes with the gas piston plus smaller caliber, but essentially a similar weapon. How come the Minimi comes out as more prone to dust fouling and stoppages?

[scout 0]

the M-240, being bigger with larger parts is more robust and naturally has much more stronger spring.

the minimi is smaller and gentler. the fact that its not handling dust very well caused for the manufacture of the Negev.

[Blaegis 0]

Sounds like another victim of the NATO caliber-unification drive... Still, the Minimi seems to be a basically sound weapon.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, Afghanistan is a friggin nightmare for combat ops in the first place, and Im not surprised a number of weapon systems are having problems in that awful environment. I guess thats why everyone loves the Ak47, because of its 'keep it simple, stupid' reliability

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Aug. 05 2002,09:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's one thing that struck me as a bit odd in that article: M-249 SAW (FN Minimi) got much lower reliablity and confidence marks from the troops compared to M-240B (FN MAG). I thought that Minimi was an evolutionary development of MAG - some design changes with the gas piston plus smaller caliber, but essentially a similar weapon. How come the Minimi comes out as more prone to dust fouling and stoppages?<span id='postcolor'>

You aren't the only one who is confused -- the researchers also noted inconsistencies and seemingly very subjective feedback from the troops.

[M_S_Holder 0]

Is the M-240 the same thing as a MAG-58? That thing is a kick-ass MG. It is a hell of a lot better than the M60!

Doesn't the U.S. still use the M60? Now that MG sucks, and I thought there would be a lot of complaints about that thing.

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Doesn't the U.S. still use the M60?<span id='postcolor'>

No....unless you are in the Arkansas National Guard.

[M_S_Holder 0]

Hey I got out in 1995, and they were still using that piece of crap!

[Snoopy 0]

i think the us marines still use the m60

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think the us marines still use the m60 <span id='postcolor'>

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the current weapon used by the USMC in a heavy machine gun role is the M240G variant.

E6Hotel?

I could be wrong though, there are Arkansas National Guard infantry units that still use the M16A1.

[Antichrist 0]

That what US troops gonna use from now on. Finally Yanks admitted that AK is better than M16

Read here.

[RedStorm 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ Aug. 06 2002,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That what US troops gonna use from now on. Finally Yanks admitted that AK is better than M16

Read here.<span id='postcolor'>

They didnt admit the Ak is better than the M16. They said they rather have the Sr47 because it can house Ak clips so they won't run out of ammo in Taliban caves (eg. a lot of ammo storages there).

[Mister Frag 0]

Also, ARs chambered in 7.62x39 are nothing new. For example, you can buy a complete rifle or just an upper receiver in that caliber from companies like Olympic Arms.

The big advantage of the SR-47 is the ability to accept existing AK magazines.

[Warin 0]

That's pretty slick. Especially the part about your spec ops guys not having to police up their shell casings. Very clever, plus you dont have to hump around so much ammo.

My question to those in the know about such things (Mister Frag) is this:

It the standard M4 carbine is having problems with the environment, will using the 7.62x39mm ammo and the different action help alleviate these problems?

[Mister Frag 0]

The SR-47 wasn't intended to address the reported reliability problems with the M16/M4, it was intended to eliminate the need to carry lots of rifle ammunition in an environment where 7.62x39 ammunition is plentiful.

If the SR-47 is manufactured to the same tight tolerances as other US weapons, I'm afraid it will have the same or higher rate of failure as the weapons it is intended to replace.

At least with the M16 and especially M4, the weapon has been fine-tuned over several decades to the point where it is as reliable at it will get -- a good example are the feed cuts of the M4 chamber, for example. That's an evolutionary enhancement that was the result of many years of testing and actual combat use, and the SR-47, while based on a proven cartridge design, appears to be otherwise brand-new.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If the SR-47 is manufactured to the same tight tolerances as other US weapons, I'm afraid it will have the same or higher rate of failure as the weapons it is intended to replace.

<span id='postcolor'>

Hum. Considering the length of time the AK has been around, and it's reputation for reliability under adverse conditions, why hasnt the US produced a similar weapon... sacrificing some of the manufacturing tolerances for reliability?

[Mister Frag 0]

NATO standardization.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ Aug. 06 2002,07:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i think the us marines still use the m60 <span id='postcolor'>

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the current weapon used by the USMC in a heavy machine gun role is the M240G variant.

E6Hotel?

I could be wrong though, there are Arkansas National Guard infantry units that still use the M16A1.<span id='postcolor'>

I left da grunts in '98 and we were still using the 240G. (Try patrolling with a MG that doesn't have a front handgrip.) I'm not sure but I think we've got the 240B now.

Edit: BTW, we classify the 240 as a medium MG. The M2's and Mk 19's are heavy MGs.

Semper Fi

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Aug. 07 2002,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NATO standardization.<span id='postcolor'>

I can understand the need to standardise so that any of our allies can use each others ammunition.  I've a friend that owns a rifle maufactured in Korea that uses the same ammunition and mags as the M16, but it seemed a lot less complex. (It is manufactured by Daewoo. Heh..cheap VCR's to assault rifles. LOL)  does the standardisation of ammunition mean that the firearm needs to be more complex and less reliable?

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 06 2002,16:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

does the standardisation of ammunition mean that the firearm needs to be more complex and less reliable?<span id='postcolor'>

Nope. The Russians have AK variants like the AK-100 series that are chambered in 5.56, but I have no data on their reliability.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 07 2002,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Aug. 07 2002,00:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">NATO standardization.<span id='postcolor'>

I can understand the need to standardise so that any of our allies can use each others ammunition.  I've a friend that owns a rifle maufactured in Korea that uses the same ammunition and mags as the M16, but it seemed a lot less complex. (It is manufactured by Daewoo. Heh..cheap VCR's to assault rifles. LOL)  does the standardisation of ammunition mean that the firearm needs to be more complex and less reliable?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually that rifle, K1A1(or K1A2, depending on stock) is based partially on M16 AND AKs.

and Daewoo(the mother company-conglomerate) no longer exists, and its founder is running from the law. and yes, you get what you paid for

also, I think ammunition manufacturer PMC actually gets their product made from a Korean company called Poongsan.(come to think of it, it might me a same company... Poongsan Metal Company anyone? )

i guess standardization allows eaiser logistics supporting. so in joint excercise, you can swap ammunitions in case you need them.

[scout 0]

if you'd like to know the difference between western and eastern bloc philosphy of arms:

eastern bloc: this weapon would fit your blind, half deaf, peasant mother-in-law of yours

western bloc: talk to me after you've finished your degree.

thats why americans build very good weapon systems but their Infantry weapons suck and vice versa.