imfdb.org  

Go Back   imfdb.org > The Forum > Just Guns

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-31-2009, 06:12 PM
Jcordell Jcordell is offline
Formerly "Checkman"
IMFDB Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Idaho
Posts: 1,029
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Oliveira View Post
I don't know why. The M4 and M16A4 are great weapons. And no, they don't jam that often.
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.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-31-2009, 07:46 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
The XM8 was pretty much a G36 in a new body. It's the same kind of internals and same charging handle and magazines. Originally the US army was close to adopting it
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.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:06 PM
Nyles Nyles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 921
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-05-2009, 03:01 PM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MT2008 View Post
The XM8 was basically just a last-ditch attempt to get SOMETHING out of the XM29/OICW program.
I'd imagine it was meant to save a few careers as well...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyles View Post
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'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...
__________________
"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman

RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-06-2009, 06:12 AM
Nyles Nyles is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 921
Default

Can't imagine why, under the skin it's the same weapon.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-16-2009, 09:10 PM
k9870's Avatar
k9870 k9870 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,255
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-18-2009, 02:33 PM
k9870's Avatar
k9870 k9870 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,255
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-19-2009, 11:25 PM
Clutch Clutch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9870 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-21-2009, 04:34 AM
k9870's Avatar
k9870 k9870 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Maine
Posts: 4,255
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-24-2009, 02:49 PM
MT2008's Avatar
MT2008 MT2008 is offline
IMFDB & Forum Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch View Post
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.
You're in North Carolina? Or just your uncle?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.