The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy

S

Steve Janes

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 97.1%
34   1   0
Location
Calgary/Ontario
The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy

The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy
Apr 29, 2012 16:14 EDT
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

The 5.56mm M-16 has been the USA’s primary battle rifle since the Vietnam war, undergoing changes into progressive versions like the M16A4 widely fielded by the US Marine Corps, “Commando” carbine versions, etc. The M4 Carbine is the latest member of the M16 family, offering a shorter weapon more suited to close-quarters battle, or use by units who would find a full-length rifle too bulky.

In 2006 an Army solicitation for competitive procurement of 5.56mm carbine designs was withdrawn, once sole-source incumbent Colt dropped its prices. The DoD’s Inspector General weighed in with a critical report, but the Army dissented, defending its practices as a sound negotiating approach that saved the taxpayers money. As it turns out, there’s a sequel. A major sequel that has only grown bigger with time.

The M4/M16 family is both praised and criticized for its current performance in the field. In recent years, the M4 finished dead last in a sandstorm reliability test, against 3 competitors that include a convertible M4 variant. Worse, the 4th place M4 had over 3.5x more jams than the 3rd place finisher. Was that a blip in M4 buys, or a breaking point? DID explains the effort, the issues, and the options, as the Army moves forward with an “Individual Carbine” competition. But will it actually replace the M4?
 
Morons are the M4's biggest problem, not just the users, but the maintainers, the DoD not opting for upgrades to the TDP, and the fact that everyone thinks their are a firearms expert and qualified to offer and opinion.

Its not a LMG - and shocker, used guns don't do as well in tests as new guns. The dust testing was a fraud
 
KevinB said:
Morons are the M4's biggest problem, not just the users, but the maintainers, the DoD not opting for upgrades to the TDP, and the fact that everyone thinks their are a firearms expert and qualified to offer and opinion.

Its not a LMG - and shocker, used guns don't do as well in tests as new guns. The dust testing was a fraud
Click to expand...

Handbuilt guns with proprietary magazines put head to head against rack grade guns and rack grade mags

Anyone actually believe the custom built equipment is g
oing to lose?
 
KevinB said:
Morons are the M4's biggest problem, not just the users, but the maintainers, the DoD not opting for upgrades to the TDP, and the fact that everyone thinks their are a firearms expert and qualified to offer and opinion.

Its not a LMG - and shocker, used guns don't do as well in tests as new guns. The dust testing was a fraud
Click to expand...

Next you will be bringing up those pesky head space issues piston guns using Stoner bolts still seem to have, or that test where the M4 was the most reliable.
 
KevinB said:
Morons are the M4's biggest problem, not just the users, but the maintainers, the DoD not opting for upgrades to the TDP, and the fact that everyone thinks their are a firearms expert and qualified to offer and opinion.

Its not a LMG - and shocker, used guns don't do as well in tests as new guns. The dust testing was a fraud
Click to expand...

This is what I remember from an article on the HK 416:
When well maintained, the M4 is very reliable unless:
  • substained automatic fire s required
  • it is used with a supressor
  • shorter than 14.3" barrel
  • ammo other than M193 or M855 is used

Basically, a well maintained stock M4 rifle with M855 ammo is very reliable but US forces found it lacking for more specialized uses and substained automatic firing.

Alex
 
I am no expert by any means but I think the M4/ m16 has had time to prove itself in secretin areas


Everything excels in something but nothing excels in everything
 
If you try real hard, you can overheat, fail to maintain, abuse and generally f*ck up any mechanical device. During WW1, failure to maintain your rifle was a serious offence and was punished, even if your unit was waist deep in slime - and armed with the firearms equivalent of a hammer (a Lee-Enfield). All of a sudden people think we're armed with full auto capable, minute of angle accurate rifles, firing high pressure cartridges that can reach out beyond 500 yards and yet require no maintenance. The first responsibility of a soldier used to be to clean and care for his weapon - before food, before shelter and before sleep. I guess that kind of discipline is old fashioned, but it used to seperate soldiers from civillians.
 
The thing I don't get about US army...

-They adopted the M-4 14.5 inch barrel replacing the M-16A2 20 inch barrel. Now they said it lack stopping/killing power over distance (duh!)

-They said the maximum range of the M-4 is 500m. Actually is more like 150-200m.

-Maybe the M-4 was the weapon needed in Iraq due to CQB situations but totally useless in Afghanistan where 50% of the engagements are between 250 and 600m. Now they complaint about the M-4 poor performances in those situations and scratch their heads why.

Personnally I think their something really fishy behind the M-4 replacement tests.
 
enefgee said:
If you try real hard, you can overheat, fail to maintain, abuse and generally f*ck up any mechanical device. During WW1, failure to maintain your rifle was a serious offence and was punished, even if your unit was waist deep in slime - and armed with the firearms equivalent of a hammer (a Lee-Enfield). All of a sudden people think we're armed with full auto capable, minute of angle accurate rifles, firing high pressure cartridges that can reach out beyond 500 yards and yet require no maintenance. The first responsibility of a soldier used to be to clean and care for his weapon - before food, before shelter and before sleep. I guess that kind of discipline is old fashioned, but it used to seperate soldiers from civillians.
Click to expand...

This.
 
There is no point at which weight of tests or evidence will ever kill the M4/M16, there is too much politics and influence invested in it.

Americans do not build weapons to win wars anymore, they build "weapons" to make money.

There is literally so much BS weight behind the M4/M16, it has displaced qualitatively better designs through means like artificially lowered prices and political influence. If we'd invested this much effort in the Sten and CSRG, we'd still be using those.

Seriously, it's been decades of superior weapons and nothing stops the M4/M16 because it has so much power, not fire-power, but political power.

Everytime i see this argument come up, anything beating the M4/M16 has some unfair advantage; the M4/m16 was old or too new and not broken in. Ammo was loaded wrong for the gun, user error, bad shot placement, cleaned too much, or too little, the M4/M16 is too "good" a weapon in terms of parts fit and tolerances to function under those conditions, ect, ect.

Anything better either isn't good enough to justify replacement, not enough money to re-equip, or the competition was somehow rigged. Yadda yadda.
 
very true and I feel the same way. I also think the polatices of the M4 are (affraid of change)

ilikeoldguns said:
There is no point at which weight of tests or evidence will ever kill the M4/M16, there is too much politics and influence invested in it.

Americans do not build weapons to win wars anymore, they build "weapons" to make money.

There is literally so much BS weight behind the M4/M16, it has displaced qualitatively better designs through means like artificially lowered prices and political influence. If we'd invested this much effort in the Sten and CSRG, we'd still be using those.

Seriously, it's been decades of superior weapons and nothing stops the M4/M16 because it has so much power, not fire-power, but political power.

Everytime i see this argument come up, anything beating the M4/M16 has some unfair advantage; the M4/m16 was old or too new and not broken in. Ammo was loaded wrong for the gun, user error, bad shot placement, cleaned too much, or too little, the M4/M16 is too "good" a weapon in terms of parts fit and tolerances to function under those conditions, ect, ect.

Anything better either isn't good enough to justify replacement, not enough money to re-equip, or the competition was somehow rigged. Yadda yadda.
Click to expand...
 
A lot of you guys are just missing the big picture, all the political power behind the M4 systems has to do with the companies that are making the AR and bidding for the contract, in this there is the majority of the politics. The bottom line is the M4 style rifle was so a head of it's time and with the evolution of parts and materials over the years it is still the top of the heap. There is so much DND that has gone into that rifle that simply moving away from it to another rifle design can only really happen if we change calibers or due something drastic like caseless ammunition that was done with the G11 experimented by HK. Possibly they could leave the AR system or style of rifle but that would have more to with marketing and politics rather than the ability of the AR style rifle. The AR rifles out there in the top tier production are not just about performance, you must also meet the "gun fighter" ability too and the AR style rifle is one of the best for this. All these new rifles like the FN SCAR, ACR, ARX 160, actually due not offer any major improvements over a say a KAC,LMT,HK,Colt Canada rifle, sorry but they don't. The G36 although offering better performance than most if not all AR's is constantly being adapted to become more "Gun Fighter" friendly and in many cases by its design of its actually body it comes close but not as good in many ways when adding optics and other NVG, mounting systems etc etc. Remember there torture test with the G36 rifle that set new standards, that the current HK416 series basically matches now, and the other new comers had to match in performance too.

The only draw backs with the early AR series rifles were more to do with operator error, bad armorers,defective magazines,companies cutting corners, and of course people going just plain old "Full Retard". Technology has increased and improved and it has shown in the new versions of AR or combat rifles in general, but many of these improvements are not really that big in leaps to justify dumping the rifle, also most of the New rifles still end up imitating the AR fire controls and various other features any ways.

There is nothing wrong with trying new systems or designs, but over all there is little benefit to most of these recommendations to just change over to something else. The way of real improvements has to do with optics,NVG/scopes,lasers,Thermal imagery,ammunition, and making the rifle lighter all while still matching performance.
 
Leibermuster said:
...optics,NVG/scopes,lasers,Thermal imagery,ammunition, and making the rifle lighter all while still matching performance.
Click to expand...
Doesn't help that most manuf of force-multipliers design and optimize their products around the M4 hardware and ergonomics.

Possessing the skillsets and training discipline to maintain and competently operate the weapon under battlefield conditions is key. But just in case, knowing how to operate an rusty dusty AK is a good idea too.

I don't have much experience using allies guns except for the french FAMAS, and compare to that...I'd take the M4/C8 whatever - same sh1t..
 
I would stick with the M4A1 until someone comes to the table with a revolutionary system.

Something like a 7mm CTA system (roughly the Brit .280 type performance design) it should give around 800m performance, be as light as a M4 and more accurate, more reliable, and longer life span on the parts.

The USG is BROKE, anyone expecting the Army to buy a new 5.56mm brass casing gun is smoking crack.

The M4A1 is a good gun, it just needs competent users, maintainers and the logistical support on both ends to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom