Indeed Magpul Masada is an interesting design, but with no relation to Tavor IMO. It's more about AR18/AR180.
Should the M16 be replaced?
- Thread starter Sgt.Banes
- Start date
There's always "either it fires or it doesn't". Doesn't make it a 50/50 chance. He "knows" that chances are pretty good (99.62%) that this round will not fail to fire.
Mr Ignorant
New Member
No. The M16 should not be replaced. Where is the evidence to suggest the M16A4 is comparatively worse then other western rifles?
A few may suggest replacing then upper receiver and modifying the weapon with pistons added, but how positive are those changes???
I can only think of one company that has introduced some changes, that is the Patriot P415. But is it effective??
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1081
click on the above
A few may suggest replacing then upper receiver and modifying the weapon with pistons added, but how positive are those changes???
I can only think of one company that has introduced some changes, that is the Patriot P415. But is it effective??
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1081
click on the above
1 Partisan
New Member
Extern, forgive me if that statement was misleading but I was saying that the masada was kind of a hybrid of sorts that included the XM29/G36, M16 and others and then went on to mention the TAR-21 made by IMI seperately. I am a huge fan of the TAVOR TAR-21 as one can easily see...It is NATO STANAG compatible and has beat the M4 heads up in accuracy, reliability and ergonomics which is saying something IMO. Its durable and waterproof composite design along with sniper-rifle like accuracy and a 15 rps rof should put it at the front of the list in this discussion IMHO.
I have nothing to say, excepting that Magpul MAsada is a different designed staff, not the bulpap. This is a good article with pics about it scanned from a Russian journal:
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/236/image30hy4.jpg
http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8987/image31pt8.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1050/image32qf4.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/7323/image33sf3.jpg
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/3352/image34ms5.jpg
http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/7566/image35eo2.jpg
Also we should remember about the 6.8 mm variant of M4 - Barret M468
This is a good video about it, however with the Russian translation:
Discovery. Future Weapons (2007) SATRip - 370 MB
http://rapidshare.com/files/82223182/Future_Weapons_-_Top_Guns_epidem.ru_mega-shalash.ru.part1.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/82224124/Future_Weapons_-_Top_Guns_epidem.ru_mega-shalash.ru.part2.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/82223811/Future_Weapons_-_Top_Guns_epidem.ru_mega-shalash.ru.part3.rar
http://rapidshare.com/files/82220629/Future_Weapons_-_Top_Guns_epidem.ru_mega-shalash.ru.part4.rar
There are many weapons better than the M16.
The HK416 is a better. So are dozens of other 5.56 out there including all the M16 clones with pistons etc.
But we are talking about a military issue weapon. If they are not many times better, but just slightly better, slightly more reliable etc, you cannot justify a replacement.
The HK416 may sound like a simple enough solution - just swop the upper.
But in a military with already hundreds of thousands of M16 & M4, such a swop is probably anything but simple. Or cheap. (Good business for HK.)
Please reference HK416 thread where I also refuted some of the famous M16-jam stories.
And let me quote Jessica Lynch:
"My weapon did jam and I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. "
The weapon wasn't fired. Which means no carbon fouling to be blamed on the DI gas system. So replacing the M16 with a gas-piton upper is gonna solve... which problem...?
Did the weapon jam? Or was it a jamming or trigger fingers? People never asked. But the one nail was added to the coffin for the M16.
The HK416 is a better. So are dozens of other 5.56 out there including all the M16 clones with pistons etc.
But we are talking about a military issue weapon. If they are not many times better, but just slightly better, slightly more reliable etc, you cannot justify a replacement.
The HK416 may sound like a simple enough solution - just swop the upper.
But in a military with already hundreds of thousands of M16 & M4, such a swop is probably anything but simple. Or cheap. (Good business for HK.)
Please reference HK416 thread where I also refuted some of the famous M16-jam stories.
And let me quote Jessica Lynch:
"My weapon did jam and I did not shoot, not a round, nothing. "
The weapon wasn't fired. Which means no carbon fouling to be blamed on the DI gas system. So replacing the M16 with a gas-piton upper is gonna solve... which problem...?
Did the weapon jam? Or was it a jamming or trigger fingers? People never asked. But the one nail was added to the coffin for the M16.
Last edited:
May I remind everyone that the author of this "38% chance of failing" was using numbers from the FN SCAR's 0.38%.
Which makes the M4 have a whopping 147% chance of failing (1.47%) every 100 rounds.
Which means the M4 will definitely fail after just 100rds.
Gosh, if the M16/M4 was really this bad, how did the IDF put up with this for several decades of desert warfare?
Grand Danois
Entertainer
No. 77.3% probablity of one or more stoppages for 100 rounds.
You guys can bash the M16 series all you want but U.S soldiers and Marines have alot of confidence in their systems and they are getting the job done so you will not see a major change any time soon because there is no reason to replace it, it is battle proven and they are doing a good job killing the enemy with it. IDF forces use it also and you do not see them pissing and moaning over theirs either.
Using Jessica Lynch as an example is BS, there are alot of people in military circles who have a different opinion on how that skirmish panned out.
Sorry Chino - I was reading your post half ass while being distracted with something else. Please disregard my comments inregards to Jessica Lynch.
Using Jessica Lynch as an example is BS, there are alot of people in military circles who have a different opinion on how that skirmish panned out.
Sorry Chino - I was reading your post half ass while being distracted with something else. Please disregard my comments inregards to Jessica Lynch.
Last edited:
Not all time the condition on the real battlefield is so bad as was during those dust testes. But if you are unfortunately trapped in prolonged fighting in sandy desert, you can be in real trouble with M4.
No worries. I don't believe the M4 is as bad as some people make it out to be.
But HK416 is merely a slightly more reliable M4. Too small a step up.
I've been using the M-16/M-4 for 18 years, and it's a pretty good weapon. It's very accurate (especially with an optic), reasonably light and handy, and is reliable in most conditions if kept scrupulously clean. That being said there are better weapon systems out there. If given the choice I would carry an HK 416 or a FN SCAR over the M-4. Why? Gas Piston. I own a Patriot Ordnance P-415-16 Gas Piston M-4 and I love it. It runs far cleaner and cooler than the normal direct gas M-4 (it doesn't hurt that the entire bolt & bolt carrier are also hard chrome plated). My friend and I broke it in by putting around 600 rounds of 5.56m through it over the course of an hour or so, and while the barrel got hot, I could still touch it without losing skin. And cleaning took about 5 minutes. I wiped the bolt & carrier clean with a dry rag. No baked on carbon on the bolt or in the chamber. Now I understand why the army is reluctant to spend money on a new rifle with out seeing significant improvements in performance. Is it worth it for the HK 416 or SCAR - from a cost vs. benefit perspective? Probably not. But in many people's opinions (including mine) the Army needs an entirely new cartridge. The 5.56mm has shown to be on the anemic side in Iraq & Afghanistan. I would like to see it replaced by the 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendle (or similar cartridge). If we start facing more bad guys who wear body armor like us (which is bound to happen eventually) the 5.56mm is really going to be inadequate. Since a new cartridge would mean a new rifle (and SAW), now switching to the HK 416 or SCAR makes more sense, instead of just buying M-4s in the new caliber.
Adrian
Adrian
The vast majority of stoppages I have personally experienced with the M-16 and M-4 have been due to magazines.Issue magazines tend to dent easily, the "lips" get bent, and as they are frequently left loaded for long periods of time, the springs wear out. The Army improved them once with the new green follower, but it still binds on occasion. Plus a lot of magazines soldiers are using are old, beat and generally neglected. We were issued new HK 30 round magazines when we deployed to Iraq, which are excellent. They are much more heavy duty than the issue mags and the follower moves easily without binding. I also have a number of the plastic Magpul magazines which are just as good (IMHO) and have the benefit of being lighter (the one possible drawback is that they are a bit thicker, and as a result fit more tightly in a magazine pouch - but for me, thats a plus - they don't fall out). Don't let the word "plastic" fool you - they are made of some hi-tech material that withstand more abuse than even the heavier steel HK mags.
So a couple of quick fixes to M-4/M-16 reliability issues (other than keep the damn thing clean):
-Get new issue mags and take care of them (to include cleaning them - a lot of folk never clean thier mags).
-If you identify a bad mag - crush it. It keeps the supply guy from issuing it back out again to someone else (which I've seen happen).
-If possible obtain quality aftermarket mags - Magpul & H&K are the best I know of.
-Don't store ammo in mags for extended periods. If you have enough extra mags, rotate them periodically. Magpul mags have a neat cover that you can clip on the top that somehow prevents problems when leaving ammo in them for extended periods.
-Only put 28 rounds in each mag. Stuff 30 in and you increase the likelyhood of a failure to feed stoppage.
Adrian
So a couple of quick fixes to M-4/M-16 reliability issues (other than keep the damn thing clean):
-Get new issue mags and take care of them (to include cleaning them - a lot of folk never clean thier mags).
-If you identify a bad mag - crush it. It keeps the supply guy from issuing it back out again to someone else (which I've seen happen).
-If possible obtain quality aftermarket mags - Magpul & H&K are the best I know of.
-Don't store ammo in mags for extended periods. If you have enough extra mags, rotate them periodically. Magpul mags have a neat cover that you can clip on the top that somehow prevents problems when leaving ammo in them for extended periods.
-Only put 28 rounds in each mag. Stuff 30 in and you increase the likelyhood of a failure to feed stoppage.
Adrian
With a gas piston system you don't need to change the propellent in the ammo to reduce carbon fouling - the design essentially eliminates it as a problem on it's own. The gas is kept away from the bolt & bolt carrier (and the rest of the internals in the upper reciever) by the piston, and vents to the air. That also helps keep the weapon cooler, by venting the hot gas after it works the piston rather than cycling back inside the action of the gun.
Adrian
I shoot regular DI M4 and my gas piston P-415-16" M4 pretty regularly, and the gas piston M4 might have a bit more felt recoil - but 5.56mm recoil is so negligable in the first place, I don't consider it an issue.
Adrian
6.8mm (6.8x45) is about the maximum that fits inside the 5.56x45 NATO case, without serious degradatation in performance.
For a 7.62mm, you'd likely need to design a wider case as well, meaning you are creating a whole new round.
The point in these is often also to use industry synergies to keep it cheap. Hence why e.g. 6.8x45 or Swiss 5.6x45 both use the 5.56x45 NATO case while offering different performance, or 5.7x28 (P90 round) uses the same bullet as 5.56x45 NATO.
Oh, and 7.62x45 exists btw. For the Czech vz52 rifle.