Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SP Community pls read & mobilize, M4 Debate
SCCOMarine    4/30/2007 2:44:21 PM
I came across this article at military.com. Its very interesting, it on how the military complex bows Special Interest at our expense. This is just one of many issues I've come across over the years but this one is the first that I'm going to personally get involved with. The reason why it BURNS ME UP is b/c they are dismissing the HK 416 and any other Rifle w/out even a competion to point out the short comings of the M4. This happens repeteatedly in the acquistions business, and they hope to keep it low level and out the press long enough to die out. Then they can move on and aquire a piece of sh*t w/out any fuss. I've sent an email giving my personal support in anyway needed to help out.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
cato3    Sceptical   5/1/2007 12:01:34 PM
   Undoubtedly, the HK is a fine weapon. But what, in real terms, what does it bring to the table, that the M-16 family does not? I've never spoken to a rifleman who used an M-4 in combat (admittedly, I've only spoken to OIF vets) who responded to any deprecation of the weapon system with anything more than a shrug, and an, "It works just fine". The HK design is a MARGINAL improvement over the AR family. Nothing revoluionary, nor sufficient justification to replace the M-16 family. Whip out a reliable caseless 6- 7mm round, and a solid rifle to shoot it from, we may be in business. An assault rifle is a series of compromises, and the M-16 does well enough within it's design paramters.
Thanks,
Cato
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       5/1/2007 1:12:11 PM

Listen if you think that the whole point of the article or the reason I posted it is to choose the 416 over the M4 or the ABC over the XYZ your missing the whole point and not thoroughly reading the article or understanding the debate.

I don’t care which rifle they choose as long as they go through the paces to choose the best rifle at a reasonable price.  But that’s not what’s going on.

For far to long due to kick backs, back channel deals, and shady lobbying the US military has made acquisitions not based on the best equipment available but on these deals and the “good enough” label.

 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       5/1/2007 1:22:23 PM

But that’s not the part that pisses me off. What pisses me off is the shady ways its(acquisitions in general) are handled. When they decide on a particular piece of equipment that may not be the best piece of gear they try or smear or discredit the competition. If that doesn’t work they try and rush the acquisition process B4 a proper head to head comparison can be set up

And the latter is what’s happening here, again.  All the Senator is asking for, which is what I’m asking your support on, is a proper competition for the next rifle.  But they’re trying to rush the acquisition to jump ahead of the Senator.

Such a small thing SCCO, why get so bent out of shape?  Here’s why, when the Colt Corporation found out that may have to actually compete for the contract they changed the design of the M4 that they would enter in to the competition.  Changing the main flaw that they already know is FU(KED UP about the rifle, the gas tubing that blows back the bolt setting a new round.

This happens far to often and it has to stop.

 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine    Horse   5/1/2007 1:33:56 PM

Great idea.  Let's blow a billion dollars on a rifle that is supposed to go 15,000 rounds between cleaning without a stoppage to replace a rifle that goes 5000 rounds between cleanings without a stoppage, when we could spend that money on all sorts of things that do need fixing. 

When was the last time anyone who has ever worn a uniform fired 5000 rounds through their issue weapon without cleaning?  (At least without being negligent in their laziness.)
I've handled some HK 416s (10" barrel models).  Nice, heavier than a comparable M4 though.  Doesn't seem to bring anything really noteworthy to the table, though -- at least not enough improvement to justify the expense of replacing the M4A1.
Now, when the SCAR-L comes out, that may be another story (should be playing with them this summer or fall, personally).  Also gas piston, plus additional tweaks to improve fightability over the already superb AR ergonomics.

Listen I could give a Fu(k which rifle they choose, the competition is open to about 6 different designs, may the best rifle win. But to sit here and argue about this one fires 5,000rds and this one 10,000rds is to argue about semantics and really demeans the discussion.

The competition will meet out the details, if the M4 is only marginally weaker than the competition that will show in the report, but for them to try and smother the possibility of a comp ahead of time is wrong.

If this was a corporation w/these practices it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago w/all the bad acquisition that were made off shady deals.


 
Quote    Reply

GOP       5/1/2007 1:47:09 PM







I hear ya, SCCOMarine, but I think the fact that the Pentagon is allowing the SEALS to buy and deploy the HK-416 is significant.  Perhaps after extended field use the brass will take notice and take another look at this weapon. 



Well, the Pentagon realizes that their best SOF unit should get to buy and deploy the best weapon availible, so of course they are letting the Teams deploy the HK. Just teasing guys.



Alot of former SEALs are working with H&K and they put alot of valuable input into making the weapon. I think the reason SEALs are so attracted to the weapon is the reliability. The Teams have been having a good bit of ops in desert enviroments lately, and of course alot of training ops in the water, so the HK 416's reliability in those enviroments is a extremely attractive to the Teams. I have a feeling that the SBS could be fielding the weapon soon aswell for.








Larry Vickers, gun God and former D-Boy was instrumental in developing the 416,

BTW, the 416/417 is already in/going to be in service with unit's outside the US, the Dutch have it, the Germans are in the process of getting it, the Canadians/Irish/Italians/Norweigians and a few others have them or are getting them, it's becoming a very popular choice


I didn't know that. I believe he was interviewed on "Futureweapons" I think, but I don't think they mentioned his unit/military experience.
With those nations fielding it, I wonder if it has any real combat experience? It must be an excellent weapon. I remember watching Future weapon, and they buried it in the sand and it fired, they held it under water and it fired, etc. I just hope we (The US) takes a more serious look at this weapon, not just the SOF units.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP       5/1/2007 1:54:57 PM

   Undoubtedly, the HK is a fine weapon. But what, in real terms, what does it bring to the table, that the M-16 family does not? I've never spoken to a rifleman who used an M-4 in combat (admittedly, I've only spoken to OIF vets) who responded to any deprecation of the weapon system with anything more than a shrug, and an, "It works just fine". The HK design is a MARGINAL improvement over the AR family. Nothing revoluionary, nor sufficient justification to replace the M-16 family. Whip out a reliable caseless 6- 7mm round, and a solid rifle to shoot it from, we may be in business. An assault rifle is a series of compromises, and the M-16 does well enough within it's design paramters.

Thanks,

Cato


Cato, this is the most reliable M-4/M-16 around. It can be fired after being submerged in water, it can be fired after being buried in the sand, and it can be fired 360 degrees. This may not be anything great to you, but I know to alot of SOF units with freedom to buy their own weapons and nice procurement budgets, it's just the ticket.
 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine    GOP   5/1/2007 2:02:21 PM
I would love to be able to help push for the HK 416, that thing is unbelievable. I just don't have the resume to make a difference. I'd write a letter praising the 416, and at the bottom it would read:

Mike ***********,
17 year old high school student with absolutely no military/law enforcement experience.

So what am I asking, write the Senator an email.  Say that your behind his efforts to make the acquisition process free of all the bullshit. And that you’re behind him pushing this as far as he has to make the competition for contracts about receiving the best equipment at the best price, not about bureaucracy.

I’m not asking any one to put their weight behind any weapon but to show support behind pushing for fair practices.  What the SecArmy is waiting for is for this to die down, he’ll do nothing in the mean time and once the debate has subsided he’ll go ahead w/his acquisition.

No! Show support to the Senator to keep the pressure on!


 
Quote    Reply

SCCOMarine       5/1/2007 2:20:22 PM

Listen I hear a lot of ppl referring to SOCOM.  What SOCOM has and that SOCOM is leading on acquiring these new weapons?... YES! But WHY?

 

The answer...POLICY!  I told you B4 in many of our discussion in the past many of these issue always come down to POLICY!  So what the policy on this one?

 

When SOCOM was created they were allowed to have an acquisition process that was outside that of the rest of the military’s BULLSH*T.  It was called, I believe(I’ll have to look it up) MPF-11 or something like that.

 

This allows them to acquire the best equipment, to test it, report on it, do whatever outside of the pressures of the 4 services and their multi-billion dollar deal/kickback machine. Aka the “Military-Industrial Complex”

 

W/out their own acquisitions process they would be subject to the same BULLSH*T “good enough” equipment of whichever company gives the best kickback/deal/whatever and not the fine pieces of gear they have today.

 

The thing is the military is under contract to do the same, but somehow it never works out like that.

 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/1/2007 3:43:23 PM

Listen I could give a Fu(k which rifle they choose, the competition is open to about 6 different designs, may the best rifle win. But to sit here and argue about this one fires 5,000rds and this one 10,000rds is to argue about semantics and really demeans the discussion.

The competition will meet out the details, if the M4 is only marginally weaker than the competition that will show in the report, but for them to try and smother the possibility of a comp ahead of time is wrong.


If this was a corporation w/these practices it would have gone bankrupt a long time ago w/all the bad acquisition that were made off shady deals.




Wow.  You seem to be ratcheting up the brilliance of your thinking by leaps and bounds.  
So what you're now saying is Everytime some company wants to sell a new widget to the government, we should blow millions of dollars seeing if their new widget works as well as they claim it works.  Even if we don't need a new widget, and their new widget would end up costing us one or more billion dollars for a percentage point or two of improved performance.
 
Please tell me you work for the HK public relations department.  Because the alternative -- that you really think what you're saying makes sense -- is frightening. 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       5/1/2007 3:55:03 PM


Cato, this is the most reliable M-4/M-16 around. It can be fired after being submerged in water, it can be fired after being buried in the sand, and it can be fired 360 degrees. This may not be anything great to you, but I know to alot of SOF units with freedom to buy their own weapons and nice procurement budgets, it's just the ticket.

Future Weapons should probably be called Military Industrial Complex Informercial 2007 . . . if you watch that footage of the HK 416 dog and pony show closely the results are not as impressive as the narration would suggest.  Not to say that it is not a well made weapon (it certainly is) but take anything on that show with a grain of salt, since 75% or so of their segments are from companies trying to sell the military something.  Strangely the host of the show seems gushiest with his praise and kind of retarded narration (SEAL or no SEAL, he seems to know very little about weapons, or is being systematically dumbed down by the writers/directors/etc on the show) with those items that have not yet been sold to the government.  I suspect some of SCCOMarines "shady" money is changing hands here . . .
The main appeal of the HK 416 with SOF units seems to be, again, the super short barrel options.  I've seen a bunch of them lately, and none had more than a 10" barrel on them.  The overall consensus seems to be that they're solid weapons, don't group as well as people would like (short sight radius with irons and shorter barrel likely being the issue, not any flaw specific to the weapon), and are a bit heavy.  I haven't seen one torture tested to see if it can go a trillion rounds without jamming or whatever, but nobody I know who's actually carried the M4A1 in combat seems to feel it is unreliable, so it seems like kind of a moot point.
 
As for the "just the ticket" issue . . . eh, maybe.  The HK 416 is one of a bunch of options in the sub-14.5" barrel world.  LMT and Noveske seem to work well using direct gas at those lengths -- LMT (Lewis Machine and Tool) is, if I'm not mistaken, actually the go to guys for the SEALs, making whatever Mark # they're calling their 12" (?) upper receivered ARs.  Keep in mind that an upper receiver from HK, LMT, Noveske, or anyone else is not a serial numbered item and is not considered a weapon, so procurement for SOF units is basically as easy as getting your IMPAC card or op fund account in order and making a couple phone calls.

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics