Proposed replacement for the M4: The AKM

kwelz said:

You can't just say it is BS without providing data. I have personally owned ARs with around 10K rounds and no failures. I have also seen AKs fail.

For instance. Out of 60,000 rounds fired from 10 M4 in one test they had a total of 307 malfunctions. That is a fraction of a percent Failure rate. Other tests have provided similar results. Some being higher, although in that test it was a dry M4 Vs. lubed competitors so that test has been thrown out.

The people who have had problems with M4s in service tend to break down into 2 categories. Either they had a faulty weapon, or they didn't properly maintain their weapon. Sadly the latter is far too common. Much more so than the Former. It is interesting the difference in the stories you hear from an average grunt vs armorers, SoF types, etc.

Click to expand...

I don't care about rumors. I don't care about what you say.
I have 20+ years of REAL world experience in some horrible conditions and the M4 sucks.
That's the whole reason for looking for a replacement in the first place.
Now have a nice day Sir.

SabbathWolf said:

I don't care about rumors. I don't care about what you say.
I have 20+ years of REAL world experience in some horrible conditions and the M4 sucks.
That's the whole reason for looking for a replacement in the first place.
Now have a nice day Sir.

Click to expand...

You can care or not care. And I have not said one thing about Rumor.

And they are no longer looking for a replacement. The SCAR was the only real contender and even it is out of the running.

like competition shooters, law enforcement agencies and military units.

Click to expand...

Well that is hardly empirical evidence. No one is saying the AK is more accurate than an AR so couple that with lower recoil and the AR is a hands down better choice for competition. LE agencies never have and never will make arms decisions based on what the officer prefer and most officers aren't really gun experts to begin with so they will choose what the military carries or what competitors use. The military choice has much more to do with political alliances than preference of weapon. There are several of our allies who could be outfitted with ARs by the US who choose to use something else, a notable example would be the Israelis.

Additionally, 17 years of qualifications and not ONCE have 18 ARs, most of which are relatively new with new magazines shooting factory new ammo, have I ever seen all 18 weapons shoot a simple 30 rounds without malfunction. I've personally have had several malfunctions. My converted Saiga has fired that many rounds with 20 year old surplus magazines and surplus ammo with ZERO malfunctions. I'll stick with my AKs when it comes to serious work, and ARs for less serious endeavors.

Neither of these are contenders for the military.

Click to expand...

Umm... Both the SCAR (FNAC variant) and Remington ACR are being considered as an M4 replacement in the Individual Carbine competition.

While there is an audit underway, the program has not yet been cancelled.

kwelz said:

You can care or not care. And I have not said one thing about Rumor.

And they are no longer looking for a replacement. The SCAR was the only real contender and even it is out of the running.

Click to expand...

Politics.
Has nothing to do with the M4 being a great weapon because it isn't.
A whole other issue is the 5.56 round itself as well.
But either way, you go ahead and go by what you read on the interwebzzz.
I'll stick with what I know as FACT.
The M4 should be replaced.

Fishbed77 said:

Umm... Both the SCAR (FNAC variant) and Remington ACR are being considered as an M4 replacement in the Individual Carbine competition.

While there is an audit underway, the program has not yet been cancelled.

Click to expand...

As far as I know, both are still in the running. I agree.
Remington for 2013 has made quite a few new upgrades to the ACR for example JUST for military use.
But, apparently, "Kwelz" knows everything and I'm just a dumb a**......lol

jon_in_wv said:

Additionally, 17 years of qualifications and not ONCE have 18 ARs, most of which are relatively new with new magazines shooting factory new ammo, have I ever seen all 18 weapons shoot a simple 30 rounds without malfunction.

Click to expand...

What make and model of ARs?

What make mags?

What make and load ammo?

Just curious as those results sound incredible to me. I have owned more than a dozen 556 / 223 Wylde ARs, have and do fire a good quantity of ammo both casually and in matches, and I have never had a single Ar Malf except one due to a C-Products mad that was welded together incorrectly.

The only time i have ever seen the platform (M16) have problems was while in the Army, where the guns and mags were simply worn out. Any worn out gun including Garands, M14s, whatever, will malf when they are worn out or are using worn out or damaged mags.

Thinking back, even our 1911s were AFU.

I have no experience with the M4 specifically - after my time.

Like I said earlier the ARs are Colt and FN. The magazines are factory, the ammo is Federal or Winchester, I don't know what weight. Trust me, if I had an answer as to why the high rate of failure I would feel differently but the fact is I find no real explanation for it.

Look, with the number of AK74 s that would be coming at you, you better have a damn good machine gun on each side, but oh yeah, the other side has those too (in spades). I've owned 3 AK74 type semi autos and if you scope one you can hit a blue rock at 200 yds pretty regular. Add to that how well they are reported to perform sustained fully auto, and gentlemen you aren't going to beat that.

Army uses Colt and FN for the most part.
Mags come from quite a few various companies with .gov contracts.
"Some" unit Commanders allow P-Mags....some do not. They are (were) not government issued when I was in. "Maybe" that changed since 2009. I don't know for sure honestly. Maybe not.

The point is that a "combat" weapon should never need to be constantly cleaned and scraped and lubed and babied to function properly.

Target Range plinking, Home Defense and Competition use, is in NO WAY the same thing as dragging your weapon through 50 or 75 meters of mud or sand pit, just to get behind some cover, so you can return fire without getting your head blown off.

And then...feel your heart jump up in your throat...and your stomach drop to your ankles... because all you hear is a "click" when you pull the trigger. That is just unacceptable. And now you find yourself yelling "Jam"..."Cover Me"!!!!.........while you try to fix it as fast as you can.

Combat conditions are not "clean" gentleman. And likewise, when you need your weapon the very most....it may not be totally "clean" or "properly lubed" either at the moment.
Spick and span in the rear with the gear just simply doesn't count.

Not directed at you specifically "Welding Rod" at all....
But I for one am sick and tired of armchair commandos trying to tell me just how great and fantastic and awesome the M4 is when they don't have a fricking clue about it in down and dirty serious business.

In 29 Palms I volunteered to shoot my buddies' extra ammo on a team rush range. I had no fewer than 14 magazines on my body, which was several more than I had pouches for and double a combat loadout. I fired every magazine on full auto in the course of about 8 minutes. No damage, no malfunctions.

18 AR's not being able to make it through 30 rounds is not typical performance. There is a lot more going on there than them just being AR platform rifles.

In addition to the M4A1, I've also carried the M14 DMR, which I had one malfunction with. I carried the M110 SASS which did not have any malfunctions that I recall, and I carried the M107 SASR which can be a bit finnicky, and I had several malfunctions with it in training, but never on mission.

Plenty of guns in use today have had reliability issues far beyond those that I've witnessed AR's showing. The SAW can be a veritable jam-o-matic, and don't even get me started on the beloved M2 machinegun. M4 or AK? The AK certainly does better with dirt, but it DOESN'T do better with recoil, range, fire selection, optics mounting, ease of loading, or accuracy.

But hey, I'm probably just some armchair commando who's never used an M4 "for real"

I thought we didn't do AR versus AR threads here...something about getting too heated

Yeah, we really have lost almost all sight of the original debate. I'll be the first to admit I started down that slippery slope.

In all honesty the next U.S. service rifle will be a piston-driven AR like the HK 416. The Marines have already adopted it and so far people seem to be happy with it for what it is. Some even believe that it was adapted as a light automatic rifle in part to get the piston-driven AR platform's foot in the door so that it would have some kind of track record when it was considered to replace the aging M16's and M4's. So maybe we'll both win in the future. Personally, I would still like a left-side charging handle affixed to the bolt carrier.

There...that should steer us back in the right direction.

Whether or not the AR should be replaced is rather irrelevant. For those calling up the stats on stoppages and failures, when you use massive numbers of rifles withe massive amounts of ammunition being fired by massive amounts of people, you're going to have failures... No matter what rifle you're using. Guns are machines and they will fail eventually. Aside from that, we can't afford to replace massive amounts of anything in this economic climate.

rugerdude said:

In 29 Palms I volunteered to shoot my buddies' extra ammo on a team rush range. I had no fewer than 14 magazines on my body, which was several more than I had pouches for and double a combat loadout. I fired every magazine on full auto in the course of about 8 minutes. No damage, no malfunctions.

18 AR's not being able to make it through 30 rounds is not typical performance. There is a lot more going on there than them just being AR platform rifles.

In addition to the M4A1, I've also carried the M14 DMR, which I had one malfunction with. I carried the M110 SASS which did not have any malfunctions that I recall, and I carried the M107 SASR which can be a bit finnicky, and I had several malfunctions with it in training, but never on mission.

Plenty of guns in use today have had reliability issues far beyond those that I've witnessed AR's showing. The SAW can be a veritable jam-o-matic, and don't even get me started on the beloved M2 machinegun. M4 or AK? The AK certainly does better with dirt, but it DOESN'T do better with recoil, range, fire selection, optics mounting, ease of loading, or accuracy.

But hey, I'm probably just some armchair commando who's never used an M4 "for real"

Click to expand...

You just admitted yourself that the AK does better in dirt.
So....I rest my case.
lol....
Plus, the 5.56 loses it's effectiveness after about 250 meters anyways, (ESPECIALLY out of an M4 compared to an A2 or A4) so the accuracy difference becomes irrelevant.
But...you do look all Purdy and everything considering you are talking about a rifle range in California. (that doesn't count as FOR REAL)
Cool pic though.

it's "better" in the sense of dirt, small grain, etc.

in all seriousness, a trip and fall into enough mud to jam an AR will likely do the same to an AK. The AK has so many open ports and loose clearances that mud gets into it way more easily. The AR's chief problem is that small-grain sand and dust has a habit of sticking to things like lube.

As far as "dirt" and fouling go, you're unlikely to see any real difference that outweighs the superior performance, handling and ergos of an AR. The AR can take THOUSANDS of rounds before it either fouls up or something bad happens.

If you really want a one-time buy, then the AK's only risk is a trigger hook messing up after a forever amount of time or handguards bursting into flames from running a Godless amount of rounds at one time. The AR will eventually require a new bolt and possibly a new barrel at some point, but if you can afford to shoot those things out then you can afford to buy new parts every now and again.

It's up to you. You're unlikely to encounter the uniquely harsh environment you find in the ME here in the US, so the AK's reliability won't be much of a factor unless you really just don't like maintaining your weapon.

BOth AK and AR kill the enemy just fine. I wouldnt sweat which one to have. The most important thing is to have as much ammo as possible .

I agree that the M4 has some issues so I propose a mid length barrel (16 to 18) and convert the ammo to 6x45. More velocity with a slightly heavier bullet with a minimal loss in velocity and trajectory. Turn the barrel to accomodate the grenade launcher if they insist on installing one. A longer front handguard to hang toys from. I think a lighter bullet with less cross section is the wrong direction. It's still DI but with regular cleaning and maintenance it's managable. Not that anyone will listen to what I suggest but there it is. JMHO

JustinJ said:

There will never be a machine gun fielded that is based off a DI AR. The temperature of the bolt and internal receiver just becomes far too high to remain reliable.

Click to expand...

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSV_M/04

http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=430

rugerdude said:

Yeah, we really have lost almost all sight of the original debate. I'll be the first to admit I started down that slippery slope.

In all honesty the next U.S. service rifle will be a piston-driven AR like the HK 416. The Marines have already adopted it and so far people seem to be happy with it for what it is. Some even believe that it was adapted as a light automatic rifle in part to get the piston-driven AR platform's foot in the door so that it would have some kind of track record when it was considered to replace the aging M16's and M4's. So maybe we'll both win in the future. Personally, I would still like a left-side charging handle affixed to the bolt carrier.

There...that should steer us back in the right direction.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.
Now you're talkin...

The entire goal is to find a new rifle that has the comfy ergos and relative accuracy of the M16/M4... but achieve the "Gold Standard" reliability of the AK...(which the M4 does NOT NOT NOT have regardless of popular objection to that statement.)
If what I am saying were not true, then the military would not even be bothering with looking for a replacement in the first place.

SabbathWolf,

Do you really think I'd be in uniform stateside with facial hair like that? Not even the slightest hint of a haircut? That was day 31 of a 33 day mission. No FOBs, COPs, OP's, or any other U.S. or allied military installations. Just living each day with the Afghans getting shot at a bunch. Lots of dirt. It was also dirty in 29 palms. Dirt is dirt. Sand is sand. But go on believing that nobody could possibly have been there and done that and liked the M4, or at least understood its merits.

Giving the AK the nod for firing in adverse conditions does not make it a superior choice overall. Hell, I'll even say that it's a heavier hitter, but a 5.56 hit at any range is better than a 7.62mm miss. And you won't be making hits with an AKM out to 5, 6, and even 700 yards like you can with an M4, particularly the heavy-barreled M4A1. I've shot a USMC rifle qual in Quantico at the foreign weapons instructor course, I'm quite aware of the AK's accuracy directly compared to the M4.

The debate here is whether it is worth it for the U.S. to switch it's primary rifle to the AK, and simply put it isn't. Even if the AK was hands down superior (which it isn't) there are still tons of logistical hurdles to go through that the AK's overall performance doesn't justify.


Also, nice on Sam Cade! I was thinking of that exact weapon when I read that post, but couldn't think of an army that actually fielded it.

Sam Cade, i stand corrected. I knew Colt had designed such weapons but didn't realize any army fielded them. However, i did notice that the article states that the gas tube had to be redesigned to increase both inside and outside diameter to help "deal with heat as the larger internal diameter increased the internal volume of gas, which lowered the temperature and operating pressure within the carrier". Also, the rifle does have a full rifle length gas tube as opposed to the carbine length which i imagine is essential for such a weapon. But let's be honest, this isn't exactly a well received weapon world wide. Mechanically speaking i just don't see DI as practical for heavy sustained fire.

Look at the tests that were done and what it took to make one fail. Hundreds upon hundreds of rounds fired non stop till the barrel was red and the hand guards caught on fire. I don't care if you are being over run. You are not going to shoot that much. LOL

Click to expand...

A sample size of one, with a likely brand new gun, in a clean and controlled environment is hardly any type of indication as to how a weapon will perform in combat in an extremely dusty location.

rugerdude said:

Also, nice on Sam Cade! I was thinking of that exact weapon when I read that post, but couldn't think of an army that actually fielded it.

Click to expand...

For sheer weirdness, dig this.
I was in Manila a couple years ago and kept seeing PNP doodz strolling around with Colt LMGs and SUSATs.
I bet there is an interesting story in how that happened.

kwg020 said:

I agree that the M4 has some issues so I propose a mid length barrel (16 to 18) and convert the ammo to 6x45. More velocity with a slightly heavier bullet with a minimal loss in velocity and trajectory. Turn the barrel to accomodate the grenade launcher if they insist on installing one. A longer front handguard to hang toys from. I think a lighter bullet with less cross section is the wrong direction. It's still DI but with regular cleaning and maintenance it's managable. Not that anyone will listen to what I suggest but there it is. JMHO

Click to expand...

Bumping up from 14" to 16-18"? I agree.
Bumping up the length of the hand guard? I agree.
Bumping up the grain weight of the bullet? I agree.
Still DI? I don't agree.
We're close here though....

rugerdude said:

SabbathWolf,

Do you really think I'd be in uniform stateside with facial hair like that? Not even the slightest hint of a haircut? That was day 31 of a 33 day mission. No FOBs, COPs, OP's, or any other U.S. or allied military installations. Just living each day with the Afghans getting shot at a bunch. Lots of dirt. It was also dirty in 29 palms. Dirt is dirt. Sand is sand. But go on believing that nobody could possibly have been there and done that and liked the M4, or at least understood its merits.

Giving the AK the nod for firing in adverse conditions does not make it a superior choice overall. Hell, I'll even say that it's a heavier hitter, but a 5.56 hit at any range is better than a 7.62mm miss. And you won't be making hits with an AKM out to 5, 6, and even 700 yards like you can with an M4, particularly the heavy-barreled M4A1. I've shot a USMC rifle qual in Quantico at the foreign weapons instructor course, I'm quite aware of the AK's accuracy directly compared to the M4.

The debate here is whether it is worth it for the U.S. to switch it's primary rifle to the AK, and simply put it isn't. Even if the AK was hands down superior (which it isn't) there are still tons of logistical hurdles to go through that the AK's overall performance doesn't justify.


Also, nice on Sam Cade! I was thinking of that exact weapon when I read that post, but couldn't think of an army that actually fielded it.

Click to expand...

I never said the AK should be the replacement. You are missing my point.
The AK and the M4 both have some flaws that need to be fixed. They are outdated designs. BOTH of them.
That's why I mentioned the ACR and SCAR as "possible" way early on just as an example.

I can just as easily say that a carbine that can shoot a gnat off a fly's butt at 300 meters is useless if it doesn't go "BANG" when you really need it to. So don't give me that a "hit is better than a miss" stuff when shooting a gun that won't fire when it's dirty. It's a moot point when the AK can still lob 10 or so more rounds on target before the M4 jam can be cleared...

Not only that....but I'll bet a whole months retirement check that you were running AKs with iron sights and no optics.
Optics and/or better irons sights on an AK make a world of difference.
The "inaccuracy" of AKs is an internet fable.
Yet, you almost always see optics on M4s too....for a reason.
I don't believe you are "aware" of the AKs accuracy at all.
Don't believe me yet again?
Watch this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9aFATFbJ04




I'll put this one up against any M4 you've got in accuracy.
A2s and A4s will probably win. But not M4s....it would be a dead heat tie.