Colt Defense Granted $212M M4 Contract, Good Until 2020

If it's not broke don't fix it.

People used to say the same about the 1903 Springfield, the Pattern 14, the Garand, the M14...

Stagnation and hidebound thinking about small arms eventually leads to "the other team" leaping ahead. The M4 is essentially an upgraded m16, and is basically a 60 year old design. It's a good, proven design - more reliable than many would have you believe - but it is starting to show its age. While the US Army rests on the laurels of a 60+ year old design, other armies (both friendly and opposing) are continuing to innovate. Unless the US military starts fielding alternatives, at least in small numbers so they can get a sense of real world performance, sooner or later they'll end up in a conflict with a force that has gone through an independent development process and come up with something game changing that no-one else saw coming, and the troops will pay the price.

I'm not saying the M16/M4 platform is flawed, or needs replacing right now, but the US military needs to get more serious about looking into alternatives, lest they get caught flat footed.

And the M4 isn't perfect. It continues to have reliability issues in real world conflicts.

Even without those extenuating circumstances, however, there have been problems. A December 2006 survey external link, conducted on behalf of the Army by CNA Corp., conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty. The M4 received a number of strong requests from M-16 users, who liked its smaller profile. Among M4 users, however, 19% of said they experienced stoppages in combat – and almost 20% of those said they were “unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage.” The report adds that “Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached [including via official means like rail mounts].” Since “accessories” can include items like night sights, flashlights, etc., their use is not expected to go away any time soon.

US Army Ranger Capt. Nate Self, whose M4 jammed into uselessness during a 2002 firefight after their MH-47 Chinook was shot down in Afghanistan’s Shah-i-kot Mountains, offers another case. He won a Silver Star that day – with another soldier’s gun – and his comments in the Army Times article appear to agree that there is a problem with the current M4 design and specifications.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

It's a long article, but worth a read. Well balanced, pointing out both the strengths and weaknesses of the platform.
 
The M4 is essentially an upgraded m16, and is basically a 60 year old design. It's a good, proven design - more reliable than many would have you believe - but it is starting to show its age. While the US Army rests on the laurels of a 60+ year old design, other armies (both friendly and opposing) are continuing to innovate.

Small arms design has plateau'd. What has been settled on is a select fire, intermediate-caliber, magazine fed rifle - the "assault rifle." That's all a modern army needs.

The M4 fits that profile just fine.

These new designs, The ARX, the Tavor, the G36, the SCAR, etc, are all just playing around with minor features of the assault rifles, trying to tweak it. That's all well and good, but the mindor tweaks in infantry rifles don't decide battles.

The AR15 is a pretty ancient design at this point, but it still holds it's own because it's still the same category of rifle as all the newest models - and it's still usually lighter and more accurate than most of the newest offerings to boot.

There's just no reason to change it. Yet.
 
Small arms design has plateau'd. What has been settled on is a select fire, intermediate-caliber, magazine fed rifle - the "assault rifle." That's all a modern army needs.

The M4 fits that profile just fine.

These new designs, The ARX, the Tavor, the G36, the SCAR, etc, are all just playing around with minor features of the assault rifles, trying to tweak it. That's all well and good, but the mindor tweaks in infantry rifles don't decide battles.

The AR15 is a pretty ancient design at this point, but it still holds it's own because it's still the same category of rifle as all the newest models - and it's still usually lighter and more accurate than most of the newest offerings to boot.

There's just no reason to change it. Yet.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that got armies that stuck with bolt actions b!tchslapped by armies that moved to semi-autos in WWII, and armies that stuck with battle rifles to get taught a few lessons by armies that moved to intermediate caliber assault rifles in the 50's and 60's.

I'm not ragging on the AR platform. It's been the dominant small arm success story for the past 60 years.

But the US military, on an institutional level, is one of the few major militaries that isn't pro-actively tinkering with the formula looking for the next great thing. And that's an incredibly dangerous mindset.
 
But the US military, on an institutional level, is one of the few major militaries that isn't pro-actively tinkering with the formula looking for the next great thing. And that's an incredibly dangerous mindset.

There's a difference between tweaking existing rifle design, which is what everyone's doing and isn't that significant, and coming up with a game-changer, like the jump from bolt-actions to semiautomatics.

Things like semiautomatic rifle design didn't spring up overnight with the M1 Garand - The French had deployed Semi-automatic rifles in large numbers in the WWI. It was just a question of getting them to work right, and that took a few decades more. Most countries were actively working on their own designs when WW2 rudely inturrupted them.

The same can be said about the jump to metallic cartridges, breechloader to magazine-fed, and so on. It never appeared overnight. It was always a long time in the making.

What we might see in the short term is additional leaps in terms of optical systems for those rifles, but I'd bet you'd be able to clamp them on a 1913 rail when they arrive.
 
There's a difference between tweaking existing rifle design, which is what everyone's doing and isn't that significant, and coming up with a game-changer, like the jump from bolt-actions to semiautomatics.

Things like semiautomatic rifle design didn't spring up overnight with the M1 Garand - The French had deployed Semi-automatic rifles in large numbers in the WWI. It was just a question of getting them to work right, and that took a few decades more. Most countries were actively working on their own designs when WW2 rudely inturrupted them.

The same can be said about the jump to metallic cartridges, breechloader to magazine-fed, and so on. It never appeared overnight. It was always a long time in the making.

What we might see in the short term is additional leaps in terms of optical systems for those rifles, but I'd bet you'd be able to clamp them on a 1913 rail when they arrive.

Russia has the AN-94 Abakan and to say the least it is a revolutionary in operation although it fires a 5.45x39 cartridge the fact that it fires a second shot so fast that it is with in 2moa @100 m is surprising


Vickers tactical
 
Reliance on metallic cartridges is the primary limiting factor for small arms design today. Until careless ammunition technology is refined to the point of real world practicality (I'm not forgetting about the G11) most modern armies are facing the Laws of Diminishing Returns in that they will have to spend exponentially more on R&D for negligible improvement in lethality. The M4 may be an aging design, but it's good enough to get the job done, while none of its counterparts have offered that generational leap forward in small arms design necessary to justfy replacing it. I have to give the Russians props though. They seem committed to innovation in small arms.
 
They need to fix the c9 / Minimi /M249 first and lighten up the GPMG big time. The usmc fixed it with the hk416, but they should have kept the cased telescopic ammo LMG project alive.
 
One of the reasons people started shooting M4s at high rate in some of these AARs was that their SAW M249s quit first.

A lot of talks about the M4s, but if the M249 can keep pumping out rounds without completely stopping, then there is less chance the entire squad needs to use the M4 as SAW.
 
As a general rule, guns do not drive change, ammunition does. Look at the history of the US military since the adoption of metallic cased cartridges. I can only think of one instance, the switch from Springfield 1903 to M1 Garand, where the gun itself offered enough of an improvement that they changed the rifle without changing the ammunition. In all other cases they were looking to change the cartridge, the change in platform was just along for the ride.

Bottom line: there is no reason to move away from the AR-15 platform so long as the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge is the ammunition of choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom