The Carbine War Escalates

[Manedwolf]

Whenever I've spoken with returning troops about the quality of their weapons, they usually say that the rifles and machineguns work well enough.  Some of them require more care and attention than others, but they all can be made to work without any real diffuculties, they say.  They all say they absolutely hate the M9, though.

My best friend did his first tour back in '03.  The only weapon he was allowed to carry was his issued M9, a gun which absolutely would not cycle.  He spent the entire initial invasion of Iraq with nothing to defend himself with except a single shot 9mm.   

I guess my point is that if Congress wants to re-evaluate which weapons are soldiers are issued, they should start with the M9, not the M4.

Wasn't that because of the Checkmate sandproof mags that were proof against Southwest US sand, but worse than regular ones with Iraq desert powder?

I'm still not sure why they don't go to the SIG 226 that various letter groups do get. Any reason besides existing inventory?

[ilbob]

I suspect that for most military purposes, the AR/M16/M4 platform is quite adequate. maybe you could get some incremental bang for the buck using the 6.8 cartridge.

A few special cases should probably have M14s issued to them.

20 or 30 years down the road, I fully expect something a whole lot more lethal than a run of the mill rifle with the latest bells and whistles tacked on. Nothing I see as being currently available really gives you that much more capability than what they have now.

[atomd]

I think if they are going to change anything up, the 6.8 SPC is probably the way to go. It will be cheaper to transition to and everyone is already familiar with the platform. I'm not really a 5.56 critic or anything but if you wanna grease the squeaky wheel....

I think a 6.8 upper might be added to my short list anyways. Seems like people are happy with them. Actually, I'd like to try out some of the  options from Alexander Arms / Bohica. Sounds like fun (hard on the wallet though).

[Balog]

Well, sure. Most rifles are never fired in battle, so any damn thing would be "adequite." Doesn't mean we should just ignore the needs of the actual trigger pullers.

And 20-30 years from now we'll have something better.... Uh, so what? Shall we ignore the needs of todays troops because in 30 years they'll get something useful?

[Manedwolf]

AFAIK, the advances made recently haven't been ballistics, they've been in rapid acquisition aiming device technology.

I know that lots of people are very happy with their EOtechs and ACOG sights.

[lupinus]

And 20-30 years from now we'll have something better.... Uh, so what? Shall we ignore the needs of todays troops because in 30 years they'll get something useful?

Same people arguing this that ten years ago argued it would take ten years to get new drilling sites up and running.

[Phantom Warrior]

The M9 is not one of the more important weapons fielded.  That may not make your friend feel better, but it's true.

If it was all I was carrying it would seem pretty damned important to me!   

If all you are issued is a 9mm there is a good chance you are stationed in Kuwait.  Or not exactly in the line of fire.  I'm hard pressed to think of anyone I saw out in sector without an M4 except VIPs.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

He was an infantry medic.  If my memory serves, I think his unit was operating somewhere in southern Iraq.  An Najaf comes to mind, but I'm not certain. 

[ilbob]

Well, sure. Most rifles are never fired in battle, so any damn thing would be "adequite." Doesn't mean we should just ignore the needs of the actual trigger pullers.

And 20-30 years from now we'll have something better.... Uh, so what? Shall we ignore the needs of todays troops because in 30 years they'll get something useful?

The point is we should not be wasting scarce resources trying to solve a problem that probably does not really exist. You really believe a brand new rifle will solve any of the alleged problems the current platform may have? Maybe it will, but it almost certainly will introduce new problems.

[Manedwolf]

Well, sure. Most rifles are never fired in battle, so any damn thing would be "adequite." Doesn't mean we should just ignore the needs of the actual trigger pullers.

And 20-30 years from now we'll have something better.... Uh, so what? Shall we ignore the needs of todays troops because in 30 years they'll get something useful?

The point is we should not be wasting scarce resources trying to solve a problem that probably does not really exist. You really believe a brand new rifle will solve any of the alleged problems the current platform may have? Maybe it will, but it almost certainly will introduce new problems.

The question is whether moving to a gas piston upper (such as the 416) really is "brand new", or just going back to a proven solution that was unfortunately put on the shelf, and is now once more proving its many benefits in dirty environments.

I have to wonder if DSA has ever considered submitting their modernized SA-58 carbine length and commando length barrel models with a sandcuts-version of its bolt and paratrooper folding stock for consideration as something for specialized operations. They are short, balanced and durable .308s with a history on the good-guy side, for certain.

[Balog]

Well, sure. Most rifles are never fired in battle, so any damn thing would be "adequite." Doesn't mean we should just ignore the needs of the actual trigger pullers.

And 20-30 years from now we'll have something better.... Uh, so what? Shall we ignore the needs of todays troops because in 30 years they'll get something useful?

The point is we should not be wasting scarce resources trying to solve a problem that probably does not really exist. You really believe a brand new rifle will solve any of the alleged problems the current platform may have? Maybe it will, but it almost certainly will introduce new problems.

No, we should spend billions more on super advanced weapons systems that have almost nothing to do with the wars we're fighting. Bonus points if they just don't work, full stop.  

I'd say that in the middle of a couple of different shooting wars getting a better rifle (when you have to replace the old ones with something anyway) would be a good thing. But you're right, the new rifle wouldn't be perfect, so screw it.

Pray tell what would you spend our scarce resources on?

[Perd Hapley]

The M9 is not one of the more important weapons fielded.  That may not make your friend feel better, but it's true. 

If it was all I was carrying it would seem pretty damned important to me!   

I don't know what you're rolling your eyes about.  I was responding to this comment:

I guess my point is that if Congress wants to re-evaluate which weapons are soldiers are issued, they should start with the M9, not the M4.

As Phantom Warrior mentioned, not that many ground-pounders are depending on the M9 to save their bacon and win the battle.  Usually, the military prefers to issue real guns for that purpose.  That is, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, etc.  As callous as it may seem, pistols are further down on the list of priorities.  As they should be. 

Fix your M9 problem, and you've helped out a few people that are only issued an M9 because they were not expected to need to do any serious shooting anyway.  So excuse me if I find that to be a lower priority than making sure we have an effective rifle in service. 

[41magsnub]

Er..  that was taken wrong then.  I guess it should have been more of a  or a  or insert the funny yet not angry emoticon of your choosing

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, very well then.   

[MechAg94]

Well, sure. Most rifles are never fired in battle, so any damn thing would be "adequite." Doesn't mean we should just ignore the needs of the actual trigger pullers.

And 20-30 years from now we'll have something better.... Uh, so what? Shall we ignore the needs of todays troops because in 30 years they'll get something useful?

The point is we should not be wasting scarce resources trying to solve a problem that probably does not really exist. You really believe a brand new rifle will solve any of the alleged problems the current platform may have? Maybe it will, but it almost certainly will introduce new problems.

The question is whether moving to a gas piston upper (such as the 416) really is "brand new", or just going back to a proven solution that was unfortunately put on the shelf, and is now once more proving its many benefits in dirty environments.

I have to wonder if DSA has ever considered submitting their modernized SA-58 carbine length and commando length barrel models with a sandcuts-version of its bolt and paratrooper folding stock for consideration as something for specialized operations. They are short, balanced and durable .308s with a history on the good-guy side, for certain.

My question would be whether or not a gas piston really solves any problems?  Most of the problems I have read about had to do with sand/powder getting gummed up around locking lugs.  I don't think a gas piston changes that at all.   

[seeker_two]

The M9 is not one of the more important weapons fielded.  That may not make your friend feel better, but it's true. 

If it was all I was carrying it would seem pretty damned important to me!   

If that's all you're carrying, you need to schmooze the QM and get something heavier issued to you before people start shooting at you......

[Bigjake]

The new FN-SCAR or Sig 556 would fit the bill perfect, without getting away from being "ARish"

[Manedwolf]

The new FN-SCAR or Sig 556 would fit the bill perfect, without getting away from being "ARish"

I did not like the SIG 556 at all. I love SIG stuff. I picked it up. It was horribly nose-heavy, and would be very uncomfortable for me to shoot for an extended period. I was very disappointed with it.

Something wrong when my $300 Saiga 223 has way better balance as a rifle than SIG's latest offering. I've picked up an old STG-57, with its glides-on-oiled-glass feel to the charging handle, and the 556 isn't even close. 

[wmenorr67]

The biggest issue isn't with the rifle as much as it is with the little piece of metal being thrown by said rifle.  The simplest and probably cheapest solution would be to exchange upper receivers and go with the 6.8.  So that won't happen and millions of dollars will be spent to totally change the platform and rounds for said platform.

[yesitsloaded]

I thought this was the High Road for a second. Whats up with the gun threads as of late? I second the 6.8 motion.

[Leatherneck]

I thought this was the High Road for a second.

Well, it is the Armed Polite Society. What you don't like guns? 

TC

[seeker_two]

I've always thought that the M4 makes an excellent extended-range submachine gun, but it's use as a battle rifle at longer ranges is questionable due to the 5.56 round. If anything, the military should issue more M14/AR10-type rifles to each unit--maybe 2-3 per unit instead of one. Either that, or keep the AR platform and change calibers to 6.5 or 6.8.....

I also think the Berettas are good pistols (when you buy the right mags), but the 9mm ammo needs to be improved--either a flat-point FMJ (the Spanish had a pretty good design) or an expanding FMJ (like the ones from Federal or CorBon). And I think many who carry pistols probably should be carrying something like the FN P90 instead (think 1911 vs. M1 Carbine in WWII).

IMHO, that is..... 

[Manedwolf]

I thought this was the High Road for a second. Whats up with the gun threads as of late? I second the 6.8 motion.

What's wrong with that?

There, there'd be a lot more mallninja BS and mods closing threads for a single post straying into the political decisions of the matter.

Here, it's better. You do not need to read threads you're not interested in...

[doc2rn]

I think they should do like in WW1, WW2, Korea, or Vietnam. If it is a war drop and better than what you have carry that instead. If all I had was a single shot nine, probably a corpsman on the front lines, then pick up a pppsh or AK and use it. COs should be banned from taking them away.

Most guys I know swap with their counterparts when they get relieved to rotate out anyway.

[Manedwolf]

I think they should do like in WW1, WW2, Korea, or Vietnam. If it is a war drop and better than what you have carry that instead. If all I had was a single shot nine, probably a corpsman on the front lines, then pick up a pppsh or AK and use it. COs should be banned from taking them away.

While I'm sure that many pickups from fallen enemies happen in serious firefights if one's own weapon is out of ammunition or nonfunctional, you would not want to use such on a continual basis, especially with enemy ammunition.

Logistics problems, the distinctive rattle of an AK possibly leading to a friendly fire incident, and the possibility of bad ammo destroying the gun in your hands would all be reasons to NOT encourage that, I think.

A lot of "war drops" were also anecdotal, such as the long-held stories that the British soldiers in the Falklands picked up and used the Argentine full-auto FALs instead of their own L1A1 FALs. It's simply not true, or was extremely isolated. Why would you use a weapon whose condition is unknown, and in a mode that makes it uncontrollable?