M-16 to be replaced by M-4
 

Just read that the M-16 will be replaced by the M-4.
From what I read the M-4 is basically a carbine version of the M-16. I wonder if this is a good move? According to the article it will cut down on its killing distance by 100 yds. Though it will be easier to handle in tight confinements. Yet soldiers complain about its lack of killing power. I believe if you are going to change why not go with a completely new design and add some fire power with it.

Keith

7.62 cal. would be nice..

KEITH, I usually visit a gun shop near Ft. Lee, Va. Lot of young soldiers come in and hang around, shoot the breeze and such. I was surprised at the number who expressed little faith in the M-16 round. Most want the AK-47 in 7.62 x 39 round to go into combat with, I have always thought shot placement was more important then bullet mass at the shorter ranges. Army did'nt teach me that, the Police PPC course did.

Keith........
 

During the VN War, our small craft crews and boarding parties had the CAR 15 and the over watch guy had a 12 ga. Remington trench pump shotgun. Backing them up was rail or deck mounted M2 50 cals and M60s. Way up on the 04 deck there were sharp shooters with M14?s. Anyway, I assume the CAR 15 has similar ballistic characteristics to the new M4. I didn?t hear anyone swearing by the CAR 15 as great stuff and given their choice they would have carried the .45 semi auto pistol and so stated, vehemently. But the rational was that a CAR 15 round would fragment in close quarters and a .45 round would bounce around and probably hit the shooter.
During my competitive shooting days, I took a military .223 casing, opened it up to 7mm, put in a hot rod propellant load and a boat tail 7mm projectile. The load was called a 7mm TCU. This was pistol competition and the 7mm TCU was flat and fast, just the right stuff. My pistol was a Thompson Contender.
Anyway, given all that, I can see why a Troop would prefer an AK 47 round.

Scamp

Personally
 

It seems like a dumb mistake to go the route of M-4. I also felt the M-16 lacked fire power to begin with. The M-14 probably needed some improvements in some areas but it had good fire power and accurracy. I would think something similar to the AK 47 would be more of an improvement over the M-16.

Keith

Keith, so do a lot of other people in the service right now ! But I still think shot placement is very important. Once saw a State Trooper shoot a guy with a .45 automatic, guy went down with a shot in the belly at close range, dropped his knife but jumped right back and attacked the trooper again. Then it became a fight to keep the guy from getting the Troopers gun away from him. If I had not seem this with my own eyes, I would not believe it.

I've seen a deer run several miles.
 

After a gut shot with a 30-06. Placement important. (Wasn't my gut shot!) But, knock down power can be very important also.

My hunting partner shot a nice mule deer buck at over 500 yds on a very lucky shot. The bullet didn't even expand, it was just under the skin next to the rib bone. If the buck hadn't run toward him, he'd never got that deer. That was with a 30-06. Even a 30-06 has limited killing abilility after 500 - 600 yds. Imagine what a .223 does after 500 - 600, very little, inspite of the hype.

Keith

Arty,

The guy that was shot with a .45 cal, was he under the influence of PCP?

Keith,

I'm still learning about various weapons of interest to me. I'm by far no expert on any weapons. So, I'm just going to ask the questions. :) I was wondering if you feel we need more stopping power, such as, the 7.62 round because of the type of enemy we are fighting today?(terrorists)

I recall someone telling me the .223 was an excellent round for shooting during our past fought wars. His reasoning behind it was that the .223 often times wounded the soldier instead of killing him requiring an additional two soldiers to carry him off the battlefield. I suppose it wouldn't apply to the type of people we are fighting today because they don't seem to stop for their wounded on the battlefield, correct? :r: Heck, they tape bombs to their chests and send them to checkpoints to kill our kids. :d: :d:

Stopping power was the reason for bigger and better. Vietnam caused a re-thinking because of the concept search by fire and the lack of a good field of vision in the jungle. From Somilia to Iraq, the idea was volume of fire and weight. Anyway that is my 7.62 worth.

Sarge!
 

Sarge,

You said it correctly. The .223 M-16 wasn't built for long open spaces of desert warfare. A infantry weapon with 7.62 Nato has a great deal more knock down power at longer distances. It also has more knock down power at closer distance. Its just a better cartridge for warfare. In other words as a hunter, you can hunt deer with a .223 and do okay but when you move up to large animals like elk and bear you want 7.62 Nato or larger. If hunters know how to upgrade when the distances get longer, and the animal is bigger, you'd think the pentagon would use the same common sense.

7.62 Nato = about 2500 lbs of muzzel energy.
.223 Nato = about 1250 lbs of muzzel energy.

7.62 Nato uses a 150 - 160 grain slug.
.223 Nato uses a 69 grain slug.

Philly, I hope this answers some questions. The .223 might be good in the jungle but it doesn't get the job done in desert.

Keith