I was with the 10th Mountain Division in the spring of 1998 when we were assigned the M4 carbines. They were brand new. We actually recieved them still in the packaging. It was the only time in fourteen years of serving in the U.S. Army that I was issued a brand-new weapon. I was very excited.:D

We didn't have any issues with the M4's failing to feed - no more so than with any other semi-automatic rifle. But we did have issues with rounds "cooking-off" while in the chamber. This usually happened after a soldier had fired two or three 30 round magazines through the weapon and it was hot. We had a few carbines fire off the chambered round even though the soldier did not have his or her finger on the trigger. At least this was what the troops were reporting.

This happened when we were at the range getting familiarized with our brand new carbines. Also some of the troops thought the heat waves coming off the shorter barrels interefered with the sight picture.

I didn't have any trouble and I never heard if there was any resolution to the cooking off of rounds.

No they weren't. The XM8 was basically just a last-ditch attempt to get SOMETHING out of the XM29/OICW program. By the time the XM8 was being tested, the military had already more-or-less selected the M4 and M16A4 with SOPMOD kit to replace the M16A2 as the main front-line infantry weapon. And remember that the M16A2 is the weapon that the OICW was supposed to replace, not the M4.

I've never had a jam firing live rounds with my C7. Blanks when in training, yes, but they're filthy and you tend to shoot alot more of them than live rounds. Interestingly, I've found the best thing for keeping it running in Afghanistan is the cans of compressed air they issue for cleaning your computer. Blows the moon dust right out of it.

I wonder if the cooking off problems had something to do with the lighter barrel on the M4 vice the M16A2 / A4. When we first got into serious fighting in Kandahar, people were finding that the barrels on the C8 / C8A1 heated up too fast (14.5" A1 profile). That's why they went to the extra heavy 16" on the A2. Of course the M4 has a heavier barrel than the original C8 and I've not heard any complaints about them since.

I'd imagine it was meant to save a few careers as well...

I've read comments on firearms blogs about the C7/C8 allegedly proving more reliable than the M16/M4. If that's true, it makes me wonder what you guys are putting in those things and why the heck we aren't doing the same thing down here...

Can't imagine why, under the skin it's the same weapon.

The glock subcompact .45s seem like a bad idea, as the record of subcompact .45s in general is not very good. As far as recoil, subcompact .40s make even less sense, as the .45 is pleasant next to the snappy .40.

Just saw that kahr makes a .40 caliber version of the pm9, the pm40. The PM9 seems like a great CC/BUG, but a palm sizedd .40? must kick like a beast and be impossible to control. Also, the waltehr pps in .40, all the tiny guns in big calibers make no sense.

My uncle owned a .40S&W Kahr. Nice feeling gun - it fit my hand fine. But Jesus Christ, .40 is way too big a bullet for a gun like that. After assuming a well-coached grip that I considered very decent and taking good aim at a condemned soda can, I promptly planted two rounds firmly into North Carolina dirt. I gave the gun back, not wanting to burn through all of his ammunition just trying to get one round on target.

Oh, and they're loud as all hell.

The pm40 isnt even big enough for your whole hand is its problem, i cant see firing a 40 where only a few fingers get on the grip.

You're in North Carolina? Or just your uncle?