• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

M4 and M249 failure during sustained firefight

Bevo said:
words
Click to expand...

I agree. I always cast a wary eye at groupings advertised by a gun manufacturer simply because they either use a machine rest or someone who's sole purpose is to test the rifles, plus match grade ammo.

That said, I'm like you in that I like to try and practice as much as I can to get as close to that advertisement.
 
Bevo said:
With Hornady TAP they claim a 1.0 MOA group, with a factory employed professional shooter, from a bench rest. Subtract the uber-fine ammo, add government ball ammo, add combat conditions, and army shooters (not a slam, just not as good as the factory guys)....I am just not buying it. Even at 600 yards. For that test they also put (probably) at least a 10 power scope on that rifle, obviously not an optimal set up for field conditions for a service rifle.

I LOVE my M1A. LOVE IT. I got the loaded model and they advertised .5 MOA accuracy with it. I have not been able to get that out of it yet, but I am getting there and having fun with it. I am sure that the rifle is doing it's part, I just have to do mine (still shooting mostly 20 year old surplus ammo at this point too).

The M-14 is still in service to some degree, so it's utility is still appreciated by the folks who make such decisions. I know that special ops guys (like SEALS) get some flexibility in what weapons they carry, and how they set them up. I wonder what the results would be if troops had the option to carry the M-14 instead of the M-4.
Click to expand...


Point taken... and I'm sure they do have a little bit of bias towards their product. However, note that he does say "easily nail a man-sized target"... we're not talking about tight groupings and MOAs here, just hitting something the size of an enemy combatant. He doesn't seem to think its much of a challenge to hit it with optics.... I think it would be a challenge to hit it with iron sights, however I bet I could do it, I bet you guys could do it too, just requires using those shooting fundamentals from the prone. I just have trouble believing that a weapon chambered for 7.62 and with a longer barrell than an M-4 (which hits that man-sized target consistently at 500 yds w/iron sights and ball ammo) is going to just barrely measure up and possibly fall short at 3-400 yards. While I might have to finger my sights a little bit more overall the .30 cal round is more consistent and less affected by wind and other factors. Let me put it like this, If I were to stand in the open out at 600 yds, knowing that you were in the prone with a SOCOM II, I would be EXTREMELY uncomfortable :) If you had an ACOG I'd straight up be legging it out of there. But hey, thats just me... I'm not an expert... and when I go to the range I only use optics on my .30-06.

Basic point: hitting something at 500 with an M4, iron sights, and ball ammo is definitely doable under field conditions with an experienced shooter. I think the SOCOM can do better. /2c

I think those troops that are educated and have had a chance to compare the two would definitely choose the M-14, or the scout. Its one hell of a battle rifle. A standard M1A is definitely on my list of things to buy, sounds like you're having a blast with yours Bevo... the Army guys can roll around with the socom II, not as well balanced IMO.
 
I messaged my buddy who is there right now. Here's what he says:

Me: I was reading about M4 failures in the stan last year. You have any problems? What are the specops guys using?

Him:I have no clue who the specop guys are anymore - if someone has a beard and a baseball cap, they are either an operator or the dude who cooks our food :-)

My M4 runs just fine, and everyone one I see (even the ODA guys) are using M4's. As far as M4's being a problem... We rely more on our crew served weapons, helicopter gun ships, fixed wing close air support, and artillery :-)
Click to expand...
 
^^^

What little I've read makes it seem like the biggest problem was the loss of crew-served weapons at the outset.
 
Does the FN SCAR L and H coming online with SOCOM kind of make this M16 vs M14 a moot point? Open source has a Ranger Regiment taking them to the desert this year. If it's a hit there, I'd think those will come to the regular infantry troops soon, no? We get to keep both calibers in a more reliable gas piston form.
 
SynixMan said:
Does the FN SCAR L and H coming online with SOCOM kind of make this M16 vs M14 a moot point? Open source has a Ranger Regiment taking them to the desert this year. If it's a hit there, I'd think those will come to the regular infantry troops soon, no? We get to keep both calibers in a more reliable gas piston form.
Click to expand...

The M14 is virtually free. The SCAR is very very far from free.
 
C420sailor said:
The M14 is virtually free. The SCAR is very very far from free.
Click to expand...

The cost of the weapon is the a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of switching. Besides, I doubt we have enough M14's mothballed to replace the M16. And why wouldn't you go to a modern 7.62 platform instead of regressing?
 
mmx1 said:
The cost of the weapon is the a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of switching. Besides, I doubt we have enough M14's mothballed to replace the M16. And why wouldn't you go to a modern 7.62 platform instead of regressing?
Click to expand...

The M14 has proven itself on the battlefield many times.
 
Don't forget the trebuchet.

I have no idea how many M-14's the government still owns, but I suspect "bringing them back" would take a lot more than just taking some old rifles out of mothballs.

Still, the action is proven, reliable, and round has everything the 5.56 lacks and it is highly accurate. That is why we are still using it to some extent. The elite Navy units can carry whatever they want, and they are not tripping over themselves to adopt the SCAR.

None of that matters much. The best points in the thread were that the problem was not the M-4 carbine failing under normal circumstances. The problem happened when the M-4 carbine was asked to be a machine gun. Would an M-14 be able to go through 300-400 rounds in a 15 minute firefight and keep going? Hell if I know. I don't plan on abusing my M1A in that manner to find out.

The moral of the story is that every rifle has it's limits and is designed to operate within a set of parameters. If one rifle could do it all, we would all have that one and there would be no debate.
 
There was an automatic M14. First they had the M15 which had a heavier barrel and bipod. It was supposed to be a replacement for the BAR. Then they decided that a fully auto M14 with a bipod worked just as well so they dropped the M15. But I read that it was too uncontrollable due to the 7.62 and they made it semi-auto only.

P_MUSEUM-SERVICES_IMAGES_OBJECT-IMAGES_3501-4000_3914A.jpg



You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
 
RedFive said:
There was an automatic M14. First they had the M15 which had a heavier barrel and bipod. It was supposed to be a replacement for the BAR. Then they decided that a fully auto M14 with a bipod worked just as well so they dropped the M15. But I read that it was too uncontrollable due to the 7.62 and they made it semi-auto only.




You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
Click to expand...


Some of the M-14's they demilled for drill use at USNA still had the select fire switch installed.
 
I'm with Bevo on this one, add synthetic stocks to our old M-14s and a KAC rail or two and we're in business. Its a battle proven design, and I've heard complaints about the SCAR-H and SCAR-L with this M-16 syle action. I say go to rotating bolt M-14s or M1A scout models (the scout is a little more compact).

Yah the whole BAR concept didn't really cross over well to the -14... its not as heavy of a weapon and has a different center of gravity. Reminds me of that scene from "born on the 4th of july" when tom cruise is spraying and preying with his M14... makes it look very doable...
 
invertedflyer said:
Reminds me of that scene from "born on the 4th of july" when tom cruise is spraying and preying with his M14... makes it look very doable...
Click to expand...

Sometimes I feel that way when I'm chasing MIGs with my polaroid. He makes it look so easy! :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top