FN gets M4/M4A1 contract

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19528 by jtallen83
Replied by jtallen83 on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract

mrraley wrote: This is my opinion and that is all this is...

The military went to the 3 rd burst to help conserve ammo and better controle.

So I think the 3 rd burst should still be used, especially in units that dont train enough to use FA and can controle it.


OK, I got some of those stupid questions; Are there issued US weapons now, or ever, that were limited to 3 round burst or were they all selective between safe-burst-FA? When did the burst setting hit the AR platform in military issue?
It has been some years now but I can't ever recall being told of a situation that I was to fire more than 6-9 round bursts with my 60. I do recall guys being taken off the 60 because they couldn't seem to get this technique down or just wanted to see a 100 round burst. Has SOP changed that much?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #19529 by mrraley
Replied by mrraley on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract
i do not remember when they went to the burst, it was already in place when I joined in 1990.

So they were taking the FA rifles and changing them with burst rifles.

But the M16 and M4 went to ... Safe - Semi - Burst

All the M4 series that I ever used all had the barrel step down for the M203 mounting. From what I understand, they are getting away from that also. And the M4A1 does have a thicker barrel under the handguards.

But the M4 was burst and the M4A1 was FA.
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by mrraley.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jtallen83

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19532 by LebbenB
Replied by LebbenB on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract
3-round burst was introduced with the M16A2 in the mid-eighties. The original M4 (Not to be confused with the XM177E2) carried this feature over. By the late 90's the sneaky petes over in SOCOM wanted FA instead of burst and that resulted in the M4A1 with a full-auto sear.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jtallen83

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19536 by VTIT
Replied by VTIT on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract
So what does everyone think about FN as a manufacturer? I haven't dealt with their stuff much. I am a little worried about the contract being awarded to a company who's main HQ is in another country but...they have a plant here and employ Americans. I guess that is our global economy at work.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19537 by foxhunter
Replied by foxhunter on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract
I have an FNAR made at the american plant and it is an excellent firearm. one gun from them is the extent of my experience though

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19539 by LebbenB
Replied by LebbenB on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract
M240 - Love it!. M249 - HATE, LOATHE it. Mk48 - Love it. Mk46 - A better version of the SAW, wish Big Army would buy it for the rest of the force.

Took a tour of the FN Factory in Columbia while I was stationed at Jackson. AMAZING facility. And the reps sat down with us knuckle draggers and asked for our input on their rifles and guns.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19541 by mrraley
Replied by mrraley on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract
I have never owned an FN but been to the factory twice for Armorers training on the M240, M249, and the M2 (was not certified on the M2 though.

Other than using them while in the ARMY, I have no complaints.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19557 by OleCowboy
Replied by OleCowboy on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract

VTIT wrote: Not to sound argumentative but I disagree with the whole FA vs 3 round thing. The reasons I have are these; 1) The military stays with the 5.56 round so that soldiers can carry more rounds and magazines. I say let them use them as they see fit. 2) Limiting soldiers to 3 round bursts is throwing a mechanical solution at a training problem. If soldiers on the battlefield are abusing the FA feature train them when and why they should use it. Don't cripple them by taking away a feature that may save their life one day. 3) Teach soldiers how to shoot. Train more. If you want a more deadly soldier and one that doesn't throw away ammo teach them how to shoot. Don't waste time making soldiers clean their weapons for a white glove inspection that is actually counter productive. Anyone that cleans an AR gas impingement type weapon that clean (and dry) in the field is asking for a weapons failure. Use that time to train more on shooting skills. Don't use it to eat up time so soldiers don't get in trouble. 4) OleCowboy you make a great point on giving the first 3 guys FA weapons. Problem is those first 3 positions should be getting rotated and that means throwing a weapon in the hands of someone that isn't used to it. It may not be there normal carry weapon and/or sighted in for them. I would rather assign a weapon to a soldier and have them use that weapon until it is engrained in their muscle memory. Even to this day I shoot better with a 1911, because I shot one while in the military. If all the weapons the normal soldier uses are FA then they keep THEIR weapon, they know how accurate it is, when it was cleaned last, how good the maintenance has been on it, etc. I don't want to take someone else's word on how good a weapon is when my life is on the line. I'd rather keep the one I KNOW will work when the SHTF.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I guess it kind of is. This has been a sore point with me for a while.

I see you points and have heard them all before.

That said the heat of combat is called hell for a reason. Trying to change a soldiers actions in combat are not easy and no matter how much training you have when you are out on patrol and the firefight begins the first rule of combat states that at first contact all plans are history.

In addition FA is NOT accurate fire and in fact its sole purpose is to pin down the enemy, if you kill or wound is by accident, not on purpose. FA only delays timely and accurate fires. Generally the first 3 guys on point are volunteer positions and I have never see a shortage of volunteers. Lots of possible reasons for that but most likely a smart enemy does not shoot the guy on point, mines are delayed for that exact reason...ask me how I know, glad I was on point that day...and as an added point, if the proper distance is kept between the point man and the rest of the patrol when that mine is stepped on the delay will only insure it explodes into thin air rather than taking someones foot off.

The objective is to wound or kill the enemy, not spew a bunch of rds down range that only accomplishes something in the short run. And without unit discipline I can assure most of the soldiers will do nothing but unload mag at full rock and roll thinking they are doing something when in fact they are staring to lose the battle. All too often that occurred in units that saw only sporadic engagements and sometimes the units running out of ammo. Trust me you cannot carry enough .22 lr to spray it in FA for a very long time let alone 5.56. In fact one of the drivers for going to the 5.56 was the excessive use of ammo and due to the size and weight of the 7.62 running out was an all too often occurance

I have a tendency to agree with you on white glove clean and in fact with direct impingement systems you really cannot clean the inside of the tube and unless properly taught lube will end up in places (like the inside) that only generates more carbon, not less.

I am sure there is a rationale for this move, I would like to know what it is, sure it makes sense, but till then I am not convinced.

And you are right, the CIB changes your outlook on warfare...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago #19564 by Sharkey
Replied by Sharkey on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract

LebbenB wrote: 3-round burst was introduced with the M16A2 in the mid-eighties. The original M4 (Not to be confused with the XM177E2) carried this feature over. By the late 90's the sneaky petes over in SOCOM wanted FA instead of burst and that resulted in the M4A1 with a full-auto sear.


I got out in 85 and we were doing the manual 3 round burst "attempts" still at that time - just to help narrow down the time frame a bit.

Since I got out in 85 and and they didn't have it and MrRaley went in in 1990 and they did, we've got a pretty good time frame guestimate of the transition.

Like JT, I also spent most of my time with my 60 where bursts were always recommended anyway but I do know the 16s were either safe-semi or FA at the time I left.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 years 3 weeks ago - 12 years 3 weeks ago #19565 by Sharkey
Replied by Sharkey on topic FN gets M4/M4A1 contract

OleCowboy wrote: I see you points and have heard them all before.

That said the heat of combat is called hell for a reason. Trying to change a soldiers actions in combat are not easy and no matter how much training you have when you are out on patrol and the firefight begins the first rule of combat states that at first contact all plans are history.

In addition FA is NOT accurate fire and in fact its sole purpose is to pin down the enemy, if you kill or wound is by accident, not on purpose. FA only delays timely and accurate fires. Generally the first 3 guys on point are volunteer positions and I have never see a shortage of volunteers. Lots of possible reasons for that but most likely a smart enemy does not shoot the guy on point, mines are delayed for that exact reason...ask me how I know, glad I was on point that day...and as an added point, if the proper distance is kept between the point man and the rest of the patrol when that mine is stepped on the delay will only insure it explodes into thin air rather than taking someones foot off.

The objective is to wound or kill the enemy, not spew a bunch of rds down range that only accomplishes something in the short run. And without unit discipline I can assure most of the soldiers will do nothing but unload mag at full rock and roll thinking they are doing something when in fact they are staring to lose the battle. All too often that occurred in units that saw only sporadic engagements and sometimes the units running out of ammo. Trust me you cannot carry enough .22 lr to spray it in FA for a very long time let alone 5.56. In fact one of the drivers for going to the 5.56 was the excessive use of ammo and due to the size and weight of the 7.62 running out was an all too often occurance

I have a tendency to agree with you on white glove clean and in fact with direct impingement systems you really cannot clean the inside of the tube and unless properly taught lube will end up in places (like the inside) that only generates more carbon, not less.

I am sure there is a rationale for this move, I would like to know what it is, sure it makes sense, but till then I am not convinced.

And you are right, the CIB changes your outlook on warfare...


I always like Mike Tyson's summary when he said "everyone's got a plan until they get hit". Truth... :thumbs:
Last edit: 12 years 3 weeks ago by Sharkey.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.