Why is the M4 so popular?

[mateba]

To tell you the truth the only great thing about the 416 is the gas piston system. Besides that and athletics its an M4. I don't know why the US forces have not converted their M16s & M4s to gas piston uppers. This tech is incredibly old. Stoner's following design included it and has since. All the major AR companies provide some sort of variation. With GP systems I don't think we could harass the airsofters with M4s and c-mags though.

[Danke]

Originally Posted by The Saint

Next thing you're going to tell suggest is that M4 users are like the mind-boggling "Civic Nation" demography and the type to pimp their guns with pointless neon bling.

That's ridiculous.

So 3 lasers red, green and blue don't count?

I think I may have lost the map here, is this about why more people in airsoft don't have 416s, or why every army out there with M4s hasn't converted?

[Ghost_boo]

[tunabreath]

Argh! Where is that picture... I've been looking for it forever. It was posted in a thread called "Pimp my Armalite" or something to that effect here on ASC, to be the subject of many a Peter Stormare joke.
There was one picture (not a shop like the above) where every single rail space was taken, and some expansion rails in addition (scopes on scopes in front of scopes kind of thing). I can't find it for the life of me...

PS, I wonder what was originally on the 12 o'clock rail on that pic. Everything about that scope is wrong, it couldn't have been the original. or is it... his eye seems to be too low to be looking through it.

[ThunderCactus]

Wheres the kitchen sink?

[demco11]

ITS THE HONDA CIVIC OF AIRSOFT

[Andres]

Originally Posted by demco11

ITS THE HONDA CIVIC OF AIRSOFT

In a nutshell, yeah.

[sigsour]

I noticed that there is a Stoner metal body for the M4 - would this be the stoner with a gas piston system?

Originally Posted by mateba

To tell you the truth the only great thing about the 416 is the gas piston system. Besides that and athletics its an M4. I don't know why the US forces have not converted their M16s & M4s to gas piston uppers. This tech is incredibly old. Stoner's following design included it and has since. All the major AR companies provide some sort of variation. With GP systems I don't think we could harass the airsofters with M4s and c-mags though.

[Lakonian]

Originally Posted by sigsour

I noticed that there is a Stoner metal body for the M4 - would this be the stoner with a gas piston system?

What he meant was.. Eugene Stoner's AR18. Looks exactly like the JSDF MBR (type 87??)

[attack-beaver]

because the the type 87 rifle operating system is the AR-18 the bought the license to use in their gun.

[Lakonian]

Originally Posted by attack-beaver

because the the type 87 rifle operating system is the AR-18 the bought the license to use in their gun.

Howa M&T bought the license from Armalite. They also improved a few things, can't remember the exact specs, but it's an improvement. No doubt.

[Sergeantmajor]

Originally Posted by Chrios

Troops die. That's their job.

no its not, its their job to make the other dumb bastard die for his country.

how the fuck can you win the war if you die?!

[ThunderCactus]

This is a sexy M4, it doesn't need to be an HK416 to look badass

[sigsour]

Just for the sake of discussion, because I know that everything I say is purely academic and won't make a lick of difference in the real world, but let's get back to the whole logic of not giving soldiers the best rifle out there.

Argument 1: Have to retrain armourers
Rebuttal: armourers are like car mechanics, once you know how to tear one apart you pretty much know how to tear up most other types. Furthermore the gas piston design predates WW2, and every single semi-auto rifle other than the M16/M4 series has it including many SWAT team and Special Forces weapons. I don't buy it that an armourer who takes pride in his job is not going to know how to fix a gas piston system

Argument 2: Have to retrain soldiers
Rebuttal: So? There were many more M1 Garands that were replaced, there were many M14s that were replaced. Just give soldiers a day or two to train them how to dissassemble the stuff. How difficult can it be? The time saved later on will pay for itself. Many armies around the world have gone through the same thing before - sure you could say they have a smaller army, but they also have a smaller budget.

Argument 3: It costs a lot of money?
Rebuttal: Let's be reasonable. Many armies use more than one type of rifle. There's no reason why a gas piston rifle can't be given to infantry troops in appropriate environments like Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops stationed on carriers, in South Korea, Okinawa, Europe, the Americas etc can still be fitted with regular M16s. I think this is a reasonable suggestion and I think will save money very quickly due to more effective combat, and less insurance payouts.

[Danke]

Do you work for H&K, got stock it the company? I mean yeah M4's suck at everything but they'll be around for many years to come.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003908.html

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0..._rifle_070715/

Originally Posted by sigsour

Just for the sake of discussion, because I know that everything I say is purely academic and won't make a lick of difference in the real world, but let's get back to the whole logic of not giving soldiers the best rifle out there.

Argument 1: Have to retrain armourers
Rebuttal: armourers are like car mechanics, once you know how to tear one apart you pretty much know how to tear up most other types. Furthermore the gas piston design predates WW2, and every single semi-auto rifle other than the M16/M4 series has it including many SWAT team and Special Forces weapons. I don't buy it that an armourer who takes pride in his job is not going to know how to fix a gas piston system

Argument 2: Have to retrain soldiers
Rebuttal: So? There were many more M1 Garands that were replaced, there were many M14s that were replaced. Just give soldiers a day or two to train them how to dissassemble the stuff. How difficult can it be? The time saved later on will pay for itself. Many armies around the world have gone through the same thing before - sure you could say they have a smaller army, but they also have a smaller budget.

Argument 3: It costs a lot of money?
Rebuttal: Let's be reasonable. Many armies use more than one type of rifle. There's no reason why a gas piston rifle can't be given to infantry troops in appropriate environments like Afghanistan and Iraq. Troops stationed on carriers, in South Korea, Okinawa, Europe, the Americas etc can still be fitted with regular M16s. I think this is a reasonable suggestion and I think will save money very quickly due to more effective combat, and less insurance payouts.