ShotShow 2024

PappyM3 said:
What are these deficiencies they have to work around? And what is the training to overcome these deficiencies. Explain it all to me. I’d love to know everything you know about U.S. infantrymen.

You do realize that soldiers WANT to keep using the M4, right? SOCOM tried the 5.56 Mk16 SCAR-L and didn’t like it. Stuck with the M4. There was a bullpup in the NGSW program, got rejected because nobody liked it.
Click to expand...
1) The charging handle is all the way in the back, which requires one to lower the rifle to rack it. EVERY modern rifle has a charging handle that can be used while the rifle is up. This is even more apparent when in CQB, wearing a PC and having to collapse the stock, bringing the charging handle even closer to one's face.
2) Slide release is a tiny button on the side that looks like it was an afterthought. If you are laying on the left side or in constrained spaces, the button is not readily accessible. Modern rifles, let's say CZ Bren(not the best representative is far more logical), have mag release inside the trigger guard
3) No gas adjustment. There is a reason why the US Army only uses US-made 5.56 ammo while every other NATO member that does not use M4s uses whatever is available, including steel garbage: the rifles are adaptable, while the M4 is not.
4) when running a suppressor, which is not a requirement on all new squad weapons(there was a lawsuit for soldiers coming home with tinnitus). The gas impingement system blows the gas straight back, and the charging handle, unable to seal the rear of the upper receiver, results in gasses blowing right in your face. Modern rifles do not have openings in the rear of the receiver, making it far more practical to run a suppressor constantly
5) The recoil buffer and spring are inside the stock, which is not foldable. Maneuvering an M4 inside a vehicle is ridiculous compared to modern rifles.
6) M4's creation itself was partially due to the desire to have a more compact and maneuverable rifle. The only thing they could come up with is partially telescoping stock and cut down barrel length. Ok, no problem, right? Wrong! Now the enemy is wearing PC and there is not enough energy to penetrate beyond 100yd. Barrier penetration is down, too, resulting in a change in tactics. Also, the army is looking at an entirely different caliber to help them solve the problem they could have avoided. Had they figured out how to keep the barrel length >=18" and still be compact, they would not be holding a "new squad weapon" competition every couple of years. Meanwhile, the solution already existed and was used successfully by the ONLY Army to win every war since WW2. Guess which one?

These problems result in workarounds and compromises that must be trained into troops. I am not even going to mention lefties. I hear lefties are like unicorns: they don't exist!

So no, the M4 is not ideal, and no, soldiers with NO EXPOSURE to proper rifles have nothing to compare to and will call the only weapon they know "the best!". Case in point: Soviet soldiers of WW2 loved their outdated bolt gun from the 19th century(1891). They called it endearing names "Mosenka" or somesuch. Consider this, the Soviets fought WW2 with a rifle design that was 50 years old. US Army fights with a rifle design that's 70 years old! US Army is asking infantry to fight with an ancient design, and we are supposed to praise them!?
 
40 Creedmoor fan said:
1) The charging handle is all the way in the back, which requires one to lower the rifle to rack it. EVERY modern rifle has a charging handle that can be used while the rifle is up. This is even more apparent when in CQB, wearing a PC and having to collapse the stock, bringing the charging handle even closer to one's face.
2) Slide release is a tiny button on the side that looks like it was an afterthought. If you are laying on the left side or in constrained spaces, the button is not readily accessible. Modern rifles, let's say CZ Bren(not the best representative is far more logical), have mag release inside the trigger guard
3) No gas adjustment. There is a reason why the US Army only uses US-made 5.56 ammo while every other NATO member that does not use M4s uses whatever is available, including steel garbage: the rifles are adaptable, while the M4 is not.
4) when running a suppressor, which is not a requirement on all new squad weapons(there was a lawsuit for soldiers coming home with tinnitus). The gas impingement system blows the gas straight back, and the charging handle, unable to seal the rear of the upper receiver, results in gasses blowing right in your face. Modern rifles do not have openings in the rear of the receiver, making it far more practical to run a suppressor constantly
5) The recoil buffer and spring are inside the stock, which is not foldable. Maneuvering an M4 inside a vehicle is ridiculous compared to modern rifles.
6) M4's creation itself was partially due to the desire to have a more compact and maneuverable rifle. The only thing they could come up with is partially telescoping stock and cut down barrel length. Ok, no problem, right? Wrong! Now the enemy is wearing PC and there is not enough energy to penetrate beyond 100yd. Barrier penetration is down, too, resulting in a change in tactics. Also, the army is looking at an entirely different caliber to help them solve the problem they could have avoided. Had they figured out how to keep the barrel length >=18" and still be compact, they would not be holding a "new squad weapon" competition every couple of years. Meanwhile, the solution already existed and was used successfully by the ONLY Army to win every war since WW2. Guess which one?

These problems result in workarounds and compromises that must be trained into troops. I am not even going to mention lefties. I hear lefties are like unicorns: they don't exist!

So no, the M4 is not ideal, and no, soldiers with NO EXPOSURE to proper rifles have nothing to compare to and will call the only weapon they know "the best!". Case in point: Soviet soldiers of WW2 loved their outdated bolt gun from the 19th century(1891). They called it endearing names "Mosenka" or somesuch. Consider this, the Soviets fought WW2 with a rifle design that was 50 years old. US Army fights with a rifle design that's 70 years old! US Army is asking infantry to fight with an ancient design, and we are supposed to praise them!?
Click to expand...

Great summary thanks! Fortunately suppressors are not an issue in Mass. 😡
 
40 Creedmoor fan said:
1) The charging handle is all the way in the back, which requires one to lower the rifle to rack it. EVERY modern rifle has a charging handle that can be used while the rifle is up. This is even more apparent when in CQB, wearing a PC and having to collapse the stock, bringing the charging handle even closer to one's face.
2) Slide release is a tiny button on the side that looks like it was an afterthought. If you are laying on the left side or in constrained spaces, the button is not readily accessible. Modern rifles, let's say CZ Bren(not the best representative is far more logical), have mag release inside the trigger guard
3) No gas adjustment. There is a reason why the US Army only uses US-made 5.56 ammo while every other NATO member that does not use M4s uses whatever is available, including steel garbage: the rifles are adaptable, while the M4 is not.
4) when running a suppressor, which is not a requirement on all new squad weapons(there was a lawsuit for soldiers coming home with tinnitus). The gas impingement system blows the gas straight back, and the charging handle, unable to seal the rear of the upper receiver, results in gasses blowing right in your face. Modern rifles do not have openings in the rear of the receiver, making it far more practical to run a suppressor constantly
5) The recoil buffer and spring are inside the stock, which is not foldable. Maneuvering an M4 inside a vehicle is ridiculous compared to modern rifles.
6) M4's creation itself was partially due to the desire to have a more compact and maneuverable rifle. The only thing they could come up with is partially telescoping stock and cut down barrel length. Ok, no problem, right? Wrong! Now the enemy is wearing PC and there is not enough energy to penetrate beyond 100yd. Barrier penetration is down, too, resulting in a change in tactics. Also, the army is looking at an entirely different caliber to help them solve the problem they could have avoided. Had they figured out how to keep the barrel length >=18" and still be compact, they would not be holding a "new squad weapon" competition every couple of years. Meanwhile, the solution already existed and was used successfully by the ONLY Army to win every war since WW2. Guess which one?

These problems result in workarounds and compromises that must be trained into troops. I am not even going to mention lefties. I hear lefties are like unicorns: they don't exist!

So no, the M4 is not ideal, and no, soldiers with NO EXPOSURE to proper rifles have nothing to compare to and will call the only weapon they know "the best!". Case in point: Soviet soldiers of WW2 loved their outdated bolt gun from the 19th century(1891). They called it endearing names "Mosenka" or somesuch. Consider this, the Soviets fought WW2 with a rifle design that was 50 years old. US Army fights with a rifle design that's 70 years old! US Army is asking infantry to fight with an ancient design, and we are supposed to praise them!?
Click to expand...
Ummm WTF?
 
Broc said:
Screw the Tavor. I hear they are a 4 MOA gun.
I get it, it is a battle rifle. All my WW2 battle rifles (Mausers) with beat up wooden stocks can do better than 4 MOA.
Click to expand...
Two points:
  • Nobody calls Tavors a 4MOA gun. They are a 2, maybe 3MOA, and it is perfectly fine to hit a human-size target at 300 yards with a 15" barrel(the actual barrel length of the military rifle, not the US garbage).
  • Tavor is a rifle with a mission, just like the M4. The M4 was a solution for changing combat. Modern wars tend to be in and around buildings, where 500-yard precision is not necessary. Most engagements are within 100 yards; if so, 1 MOA vs 2MOA is an inch and is of little advantage at 100 yards.

The point is that Tavors were designed with a purpose, and they are very effective. While I don't own one or plan to(I do have access to one and plan to take a GOAL course), I find them on par with and even better than M4s. I also consider DOD's lackluster effort to improve infantry rifles to be borderline criminal.
 
40 Creedmoor fan said:
1) The charging handle is all the way in the back, which requires one to lower the rifle to rack it. EVERY modern rifle has a charging handle that can be used while the rifle is up. This is even more apparent when in CQB, wearing a PC and having to collapse the stock, bringing the charging handle even closer to one's face.
2) Slide release is a tiny button on the side that looks like it was an afterthought. If you are laying on the left side or in constrained spaces, the button is not readily accessible. Modern rifles, let's say CZ Bren(not the best representative is far more logical), have mag release inside the trigger guard
3) No gas adjustment. There is a reason why the US Army only uses US-made 5.56 ammo while every other NATO member that does not use M4s uses whatever is available, including steel garbage: the rifles are adaptable, while the M4 is not.
4) when running a suppressor, which is not a requirement on all new squad weapons(there was a lawsuit for soldiers coming home with tinnitus). The gas impingement system blows the gas straight back, and the charging handle, unable to seal the rear of the upper receiver, results in gasses blowing right in your face. Modern rifles do not have openings in the rear of the receiver, making it far more practical to run a suppressor constantly
5) The recoil buffer and spring are inside the stock, which is not foldable. Maneuvering an M4 inside a vehicle is ridiculous compared to modern rifles.
6) M4's creation itself was partially due to the desire to have a more compact and maneuverable rifle. The only thing they could come up with is partially telescoping stock and cut down barrel length. Ok, no problem, right? Wrong! Now the enemy is wearing PC and there is not enough energy to penetrate beyond 100yd. Barrier penetration is down, too, resulting in a change in tactics. Also, the army is looking at an entirely different caliber to help them solve the problem they could have avoided. Had they figured out how to keep the barrel length >=18" and still be compact, they would not be holding a "new squad weapon" competition every couple of years. Meanwhile, the solution already existed and was used successfully by the ONLY Army to win every war since WW2. Guess which one?

These problems result in workarounds and compromises that must be trained into troops. I am not even going to mention lefties. I hear lefties are like unicorns: they don't exist!

So no, the M4 is not ideal, and no, soldiers with NO EXPOSURE to proper rifles have nothing to compare to and will call the only weapon they know "the best!". Case in point: Soviet soldiers of WW2 loved their outdated bolt gun from the 19th century(1891). They called it endearing names "Mosenka" or somesuch. Consider this, the Soviets fought WW2 with a rifle design that was 50 years old. US Army fights with a rifle design that's 70 years old! US Army is asking infantry to fight with an ancient design, and we are supposed to praise them!?
Click to expand...

Responding via pm so this thread isn’t flooded, but that’s mostly garbage regurgitated by internet commandos.

Edit: apparently not because you block PMs.
 
40 Creedmoor fan said:
Friend, my entire missive was about military M4s, not the civilian versions of ARs, which have been able to address many of the issues of M4. The Mass criminal disregard for the health of its citizens is criminal.
Click to expand...
Seriously. Wtf? I’m not joking


Why is the m4 vs ar-15 something vs not something?
 
SHOT show thread so not sure what that rant had to do with anything pertaining to the civilian market.
Also: If @ 40 Creedmoor was referencing the Israelis with his "only army to win every war" comment, I assure him it's not because of their small arms development.
 
Hmm, I already have two of the slx 1x microprosms. Tempting to grab that glx when available. Also has .5 moa adjustments instead of 1 moa on the slx.
 
240Geezer said:
SHOT show thread so not sure what that rant had to do with anything pertaining to the civilian market.
Also: If @ 40 Creedmoor was referencing the Israelis with his "only army to win every war" comment, I assure him it's not because of their small arms development.
Click to expand...
Read the thread instead of a single post.
 
Boghog1 said:
So it looks like Shot show is lever guns and revolvers.
View attachment 842792
Click to expand...

I am happy it isn't more polymer handguns. Or everyone is so sick of them, no one is posting.

I like to see companies like PSA releasing more stuff, as well as the chrono market evolving from just a couple offering a dopler radar to several and prices coming down, and although I don't care for SW, I like that they got in the lever world, it puts more pressure to build new stuff (I hope).
 
Broc said:
I am happy it isn't more polymer handguns. Or everyone is so sick of them, no one is posting.

I like to see companies like PSA releasing more stuff, as well as the chrono market evolving from just a couple offering a dopler radar to several and prices coming down, and although I don't care for SW, I like that they got in the lever world, it puts more pressure to build new stuff (I hope).
Click to expand...
PSA doesn't actually release anything they make noises about what they want to release and then you might as well just roll some dice it's basically garage reveal land but the door never actually finishes opening and then it just eventually goes in the other direction and closes. 🤣 I have a way more colorful analogy for psa's business model but I can't post it in this thread otherwise I'd have to ban myself..... 🤣
 
drgrant said:
PSA doesn't actually release anything they make noises about what they want to release and then you might as well just roll some dice it's basically garage reveal land but the door never actually finishes opening and then it just eventually goes in the other direction and closes. 🤣 I have a way more colorful analogy for psa's business model but I can't post it in this thread otherwise I'd have to ban myself..... 🤣
Click to expand...
They said their bolt action will be available I believe end of Q2.

At least the bolt action is doable because they won't sell a complete rifle.

But I don't follow PSA, I don't care for companies that are b*tches when shipping.
 
drgrant said:
PSA doesn't actually release anything they make noises about what they want to release and then you might as well just roll some dice it's basically garage reveal land but the door never actually finishes opening and then it just eventually goes in the other direction and closes. 🤣 I have a way more colorful analogy for psa's business model but I can't post it in this thread otherwise I'd have to ban myself..... 🤣
Click to expand...

I have no love for them, but they’ve come out with stuff that is still for sale. They started making AKs, made a 9mm AK, the dagger in a couple sizes and 5.7, and the JAKL. I know they’ve said they’d be making more, but I’d say there’s a solid chance a couple of their prototypes gets put into production.
 
Varmint said:
Man I’ve been waiting for a 4” blued Python, time to put up ($1600) or shut up.
Click to expand...
In the comment section of the YT video, some are not liking the 3 vents in the rib.
This is the 2024 version of the blued Colt Python. The 1988 version is history. Live with it.
These are the same folks that have been begging Colt to make the gun. It's beautiful and the new Pythons have a great trigger especially in DA.

I like it and will buy one.

I already have the 3" and 4.25 SS versions. Good grief.

 

Similar threads

It’s Almost 2024 Party Shooting Season!
Replies
4
Views
180
slap shot
slap shot
Flying domestically with declared firearm on JetBlue and Delta in 2024
2
Replies
50
Views
946
sbhaven
S
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
604
Zappa
Zappa
Kari Lake suggests supporters 'strap on a Glock' to be ready for 2024
Replies
19
Views
523
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
NH Gun Grab 2024?
Replies
21
Views
2K
design
design
Back
Top Bottom