is this the end of the 5.56 round?

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
When you're in the army and you're about to go do some battle do you get to pick which kinds of guns you use like in a video game or do you just gotta deal with what they give you or what you're trained in?
 
the M4's not really the problem; all things considered, it IS a good rifle. the issue, really, is that the platform can be tweaked to be better at what you want it to do. there's a reason why all these next-generation AR/M16-style rifles (for lack of a better term that "next-generation") do things like switch out the barrel for a heavier one (looking at you, LWRC, HK, Adcor, etc) and the whole "is piston > DI" thing.

IMHO, the whole "5.56 lacks killing power" is the debatable claim. it DOES lack the range of a larger round, but that should be self-evident.

also... what's wrong with how this is written: "Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales ... said its 5.56-caliber bullet is too small and the gas-piston firing system is prone to stoppage. He said better weapons — the German Heckler-Koch G36 and Russian AK-74 (a version of the venerable AK-47) — use superior firing systems." hint: G36 fires 5.56, AK74 fires 5.45, and i'm pretty sure they're rocking pistons. and i am not sure who the fuck is spraying down armored vehicles expecting results.

side note: SCAR = "meh"

Black_Samson;6851751 said:
no it aint...

just looks cool...
really, the weapons family is a top 5 rifle. totally get it if one prefers something else, but what 5 rifles beat it out?

i mean, the 416 is cool (and the MR556 legal despite the fact that my fascist governor got AR15s banned)... but let's be honest, what did they do? went piston over DI (despite whatever the fuck Scales was talking about) and slapped a heavier barrel on it. i would still call it "essentially" the same gun. everything else is ergonomics and window dressing. see also: M27/IAR.

ps. all this talk is just going to make me go shoot my AR-180 and smugly ask where all these pro-piston dudes were in 1963.
 
wasn't it just like 2yrs ago DOD had their lil competition to find a replacement for the m4, shit I remember seeing it on the cover of the army times, and anyways m4's are garbage, getting into a firefight and having to perform sports or pops is the worst
 
1891228_10152228049933606_1574714279_n.jpg


m4 is fucking great isn't it
 
Black_Samson;512103 said:
www.washingtontimes.com...

The M4 has brought consistent complaints about at least three shortfalls: At a 250-yard effective-kill distance, it lacks range; its 5.56 mm round lacks killing power; and the gun requires constant maintenance — cleaning and lubricating — in sandy conditions or is prone to jamming. Soldiers also complain that the magazine dents easily and the springs break.

i hate it. that rifle is just for looks. and agreed 5.56 is horrible unless you put 2 too the head which i doubt a civie knows anything about

 
Black_Samson;6853066 said:
the 5.56 is not the issue. a larger caliber means more costly training rounds.
larger caliber also means you're carrying less rounds, which theoretically was the argument

plus, to be fair, some of the arguments in the article --which go all over the place-- ARE saying "the problem is 5.56"

Black_Samson;6853066 said:
are there better variants? fuck yeah...
right, but we're still coming back to my point: HK416s and the rest of the next-gen variants are, well, variants of the M16 family. so there's a point where i don't think you can bash it to death as a general concept and then roll with the 416 as your choice. i have no doubt it's a better rifle (a little out of a price range i can justify for myself right now, but hey), but that's arguing the 416 > M4, not that the M16 family sucks it in all respects.

Black_Samson;6853077 said:
lets all agree that these guys should be going into battle with SCARs....
nah

now, if we're saying M4s should be phased out in favor of better variations, i completely agree.

Black_Samson;6853707 said:
@janklow are you speaking from a civilians perspective?
if you're asking me if i personally am in the military, correct, i am not. if you're asking me if my argument is based on me fucking around with an AR15 in my yard... not so much.

note: hating on AR18s eliminates people from my list of "people with well-reasoned opinions"

Sneak Dissa;6856043 said:
damn so y'all just gonna ignore a civilian?
what's really funny though is that you have an article quoting a military guy that throws out some straight-up bullshit. so i would hope we're basing this on our logic. which is not to say we all have to agree. honestly, there's a point with almost any gun where you like what you like and you hate what you hate. and shit, if you have a bad experience with something, you're not going to forget it.

peterpiffin;6856214 said:
i hate it. that rifle is just for looks. and agreed 5.56 is horrible unless you put 2 too the head which i doubt a civie knows anything about
going to be honest: all this sounds like in the absence of a reasoned argument is big internet talk
 
the M4 is a superior carbine

that's why the technology behind it has been used by the US military for approx the last 40 years

the problem with the weapon is the maintenance involved and the fact that the M4 is used for pretty much every mission when there are better weapons that could be used for different situations

the M4 shouldn't get as much criticism when most of the shortcomings are because of the 5.56 round
 

Members online

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
19
Views
2
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…