[SGTspazzo]

oh wow. i swear i thought they were getting discontinued. well that would be a good gun for standard issue.

[JackH (Banned)]

Originally Posted by SGTspazzo

oh wow. i swear i thought they were getting discontinued. well that would be a good gun for standard issue.

I'd take my M4 over one any day of the week

[Aero$mitty]

Take an M16 over an M4 any day, lol. More weight, but definitely worth it.

[pwned6910 (Banned)]

Originally Posted by JackH

I'd take my M4 over one any day of the week

What are you all looking for in a gun? Like what would a new gun have to provide to replace?

[berserker19]

The only thing an M16 has over an M4 is a longer iron sight radius.. I never found the M16 to have much more accuracy unless it was modified with a heavy barrel. The M4 is a better overall system since it is easier to maneuvre around vehicles or in MOUT. It also balances better and is easier to fire an M203 on that platform. Just my opinion..

[barrel roll]

Guns... I've played with the Mosberg 12 GA, the M16, M9, M60, MK43. Gun is guns.

Gear... who I worked with buys their stuff off civilian market. Blackhawk is a brand we used alot. I enjoyed under arm holsters.

[Big P]

Was one of the Ranger Bats not testing out the SCAR in a Special Operations format a few months back? I recall reading an article on the Armytimes about that.

EDIT: Here is one story. I guess it was the SF guys and maybe not the Ranger Bats testing it.

http://www.military.com/news/article...ndo-rifle.html

Would love to know what they think about it when their not talking to the news... I dont know anyone anymore who are active operators though, all are retired.

[justavillain]

lets see I usually carried/had

SAW/M16
X amount of ammo
cammies or flight suit
water lots of it
food sometimes
flack w/ SAPIs
helmet
sun glasses
gloves
WAG bag
baby wipes
and any other mission essential gear

of that most of it is SI

as for in the field/drilling/home/gear list there is a whole bunch of stuff that I got issued

S3 complete sleeping system - black,green and bivi sack
2 canteens
2 canteen covers
Etool
Etool pouch
gortex top
gortex bottom
2 pairs of boots
kevlar
kevlar cover
ILBI pack main
ILBI pack small
poncho
poncho liner
long john tops
long john bottoms bottoms
glove inserts
glove shells
S3 NVG system
TO Wpn
S3 kit for TO wpn
<gunners/SNCO's only>2edary TO Wpn
<gunners/SNCO's only>s3 kit for 2edary TO wpn
camel back
I know I'm forgetting some stuff but yeah

[Legumeofterror (Banned)]

Originally Posted by berserker19

The only thing an M16 has over an M4 is a longer iron sight radius.. I never found the M16 to have much more accuracy unless it was modified with a heavy barrel. The M4 is a better overall system since it is easier to maneuvre around vehicles or in MOUT. It also balances better and is easier to fire an M203 on that platform. Just my opinion..

the M-16 also get the proper velocity for 5.56 ammo because of the much longer 20 inch barrel, so it fragments at greater distance than when fired from an M-4. the M-4 is better for close combat, but after a particular distance it loses effectiveness when the projectile no longer fragments. it also has a proper length gas system, so there is less ware on the internals of the rifle and the recoil is less violent. this is because then the gas tube is connected closed to the chamber the gas that is shot through it is under much more pressure than it would be out of a longer gas tube.

[berserker19]

Originally Posted by Legumeofterror

the M-16 also get the proper velocity for 5.56 ammo because of the much longer 20 inch barrel, so it fragments at greater distance than when fired from an M-4. the M-4 is better for close combat, but after a particular distance it loses effectiveness when the projectile no longer fragments. it also has a proper length gas system, so there is less ware on the internals of the rifle and the recoil is less violent. this is because then the gas tube is connected closed to the chamber the gas that is shot through it is under much more pressure than it would be out of a longer gas tube.

The differences are so minor that you can't really even tell. IMO the benefits don't justify carrying a longer and heavier rifle. Most shots are taken under 400m anyways so it shouldn't matter. Actually my biggest gripe with the M16 is that the buttstock is too long to be shouldered properly while wearing an IBA and plates.

[Aero$mitty]

legumeofterror is right, that was the reason for my statement of the extra weight being worth it. As a medic, while in iraq I also had to tend to wounded insurgents. Over a long while I began to notice that some wounds were much bigger than others. Turns out that generally, the wounds that were bigger were from the insurgents shot by an M16 (even though we were active duty, our unit's weapons were mixed at the time, about even between M16A4's and M4's).

I paid little attention to it until about a year later when I was home and saw a documentary on the military channel. Turns out the M16 was designed by stoner to have a 20 inch barrel, to allow the round to get above 3000 fps. Once above 3000 fps, the bullet will fragment and do much more damage on impact, regardless of range (it will do it close up, and also at a further range than the M4). With the 16 inch barrel on the m4, the round can't get to 3000 fps, and upon impact does not fragment, and only leaves a small wound tract going through the body.

In the end, regardless of weight and length, M16 = much better terminal ballistics than the M4. Though I carried an M4 most of the time while in Iraq, knowing what I know now and being able to apply it to what I've seen, I'd definitely request an M16 if I had a choice.

[Eric99BL]

2nd Deployment, I don't remember what Haji was asking me

8 mags, smoke, radio, weapon, leather man, sapis x4, 2 frags.. prolly added up to about 60.. maybe 70 pounds

my first deployment I prolly carried almost 80 pounds just cause I was Litter Carrier and Radio Operator... Yea I was a boot so give me the heavy stuff..

[JackH (Banned)]

Originally Posted by berserker19

The differences are so minor that you can't really even tell. IMO the benefits don't justify carrying a longer and heavier rifle. Most shots are taken under 400m anyways so it shouldn't matter. Actually my biggest gripe with the M16 is that the buttstock is too long to be shouldered properly while wearing an IBA and plates.

Yup, I dealt with an M16A2 in OIF '03

Second time I went over there there was no way in hell I was carrying an M16, I hated it, and with the fragmenting you were bringing up... Honestly, my M4 did the job

[Legumeofterror (Banned)]

I'm just saying, the weapon and ammunition were designed for a 20 inch barrel, not 14.5, and it leads itself to better performance in that configuration. now i'm sure in an urban environment you prefer the carbine, but your just going to get much better wound profiles from the longer barrel at any distance.

[berserker19]

Originally Posted by Legumeofterror

I'm just saying, the weapon and ammunition were designed for a 20 inch barrel, not 14.5, and it leads itself to better performance in that configuration. now i'm sure in an urban environment you prefer the carbine, but your just going to get much better wound profiles from the longer barrel at any distance.

Everytime I have ever seen someone shot dead in a firefight, they were shot about 100 times.. in the real world of combat I don't see it being that big of a deal. I do think we should adopt a round with better performance than 5.56. I have tried 6.8 SPC and found it to be pretty awesome. I like 7.62 but it is too heavy to carry an adequate load, and not very appropriate for CQC.

[Eric99BL]

The reason we carry 5.56mm is because of the range, weight advantages. Now we're getting away from that because of all the narcotics they are using like Speed and Cocaine, so we could shoot a guy 10 times with a 5.56 and they wont die.. 5.56 is meant to go straight in and out.. They need to make it Legal for military members to use hollow points, or they need to give us 6.8 or 7.62

[xxxarsonist]

This multicam shenanigans looks pretty gnarly.

http://www.militarymorons.com/gear/crye1.html


im really really likeing the new 'combat shirt' thing. i hate wearing my iba, and i havent even been to the desert yet.

opinions on it?

[Aero$mitty]

Originally Posted by xxxarsonist

This multicam shenanigans looks pretty gnarly.

http://www.militarymorons.com/gear/crye1.html


im really really likeing the new 'combat shirt' thing. i hate wearing my iba, and i havent even been to the desert yet.

opinions on it?

I got used to it after a while, but some people never do. The new shirt thing does look like a pretty good idea though.

[solrflare]

Google TA-50 for Standard Issue ****.

[solrflare]

JackH, did you ever get you some Tactical Tailor ****?

[Quarshmar]

Originally Posted by mct783

I know the XM-8 was originally designed to do that, but the Army dropped it. My friend in the Marines said there's something else being looked at now.



M416 or something like that?

edit: lol just watched the vid with sound. He says it right out in the beginning

HK416 yeah and they bolt on to the lower receivers of an m4 they also have the 417 which is a .308/7.62