PDA

View Full Version : Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4


Big_Dave
April 11th, 2007, 17:29
Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4
It's a debate that's gone on for years - and now it's finally coming to a head.

The compact M4 carbine - a shortened version of the M16 - that is now standard issue for most Army troops, some Marines and other specialized units is facing increased criticism because of its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements.

Some ground communities, including special operations forces, have begun to sideline the M4 in favor of newer, gas-piston operated variants such as the Heckler & Koch-manufactured 416 and the FNH-built Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR

In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another. The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.

Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."

The 416 is used by the Army's elite Delta Force, and a recent Army Times investigation showed the service's top equipment buyers ignored data from the spec ops community showing the M4 had fundamental flaws. Enamored by the development of futuristic weapons such as the XM29 and, later, XM8 - neither of which were ever fielded - the M4 stayed in the hands of Soldiers deploying to hot, dusty, austere environments like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army would prefer to wait for the development of a new rifle firing an airburst, round - essentially leaping ahead of today's technology. But that innovation has been hard to find in the right weight class.

An Army spokeswoman for Program Executive Office Soldier, based at Fort Belvoir, Va., said in a statement the Army isn't buying into SOF's argument.

"At this time PEO Soldier is not procuring and does not have plans to procure the 416," said Army spokeswoman, Erin Thomas, in an email statement.

But special operations forces sometimes work outside the "Big Army" procurement system, so they can grab the best gear quickly.

"The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained," the justification for the 416 assembly buy states. "There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

Army weapons experts have been tinkering with new weapons designs, such as the HK-built XM8. Its modular design, rugged construction and accuracy intrigued many in the Army - and other services. But in 2005, the Army abandoned the XM8 after spending $33 million - though the Natick Soldier Systems Center has been looking at a shortened version of the XM8 as a personal defense weapon for officers and armored vehicle crews.

So far, however, the Army is unwilling to buy what the special operations community believes is a clearly superior system and is still spending money looking for another technology while Soldiers use what many say is an inferior weapon in harsh combat conditions.

"The Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia is currently conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment to determine future Army needs," Thomas said in the statement, declining to elaborate.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html?ESRC=army.nl

Big_Dave
April 14th, 2007, 03:19
I asked this question on a firearms forum I belong to......
Never did understand why the army got rid of the M-14 as an issue weapon.

Here's some answers that I got in response.
One of John McNamara's brain farts. Each branch of the military was using different long guns. He decided to standardize the long gun in the military, and selected the Colt AR-15, which when adopted was called the M-16. Lighter, easier to carry, and with the reduction in caliber and weight of ammo, the grunt could pack more ammo for it than in the 7.62 NATO rounds.

Turned out to be a really bad Charlie Foxtrot. Tolerances were way too tight for the rifle to be used in the environment that they initially faced. Also, powder used in the cartridges was really "dirty" and when they finally jammed, the only way you could get it back in action was to tear it down and clean it. Not good in a fire fight.

But it saved us taxpayers some money by all forces having the same rifle and ammo. I wonder how many lives it cost us?

This has been a topic of great interest in our local community (at least some segments of it) since the mid-sixties. A strange and often overlooked, or ignored, fact is that the weapon had a much higher level of dependability and very much less fouling when used in conjunction with the ammo originally developed for this system. The original ammo was developed by Remington. I still have some of the very, very early ammo in the white Remington boxes.
The ammo specs were actually changed to allow the ammo to be loaded with a propellant produced by Winchester and the fouling problem became a very real issue with this propellant.
It is still my firm belief that what is essentially a varmint round is not what is needed as a primary combat round. The .30-06 or even the 7.62 NATO worked just fine when we still taught marksmanship and relied less on the "spray and pray" method. There may be a place for the M-4 and its relatives chambered for the 5.56 but very strong arguments can be made against it being our standard combat round.

Now, don't yell at me if I have some of this wrong, 'cause I'm old and sometimes suffer from CRS. I think I saw something on the History Channel's "Tales of the Gun" series where they explained the reasons for switching from the M-14 to the M-16. Part of that I have already posted, but the rest had to do with distances that battles were fought. The trench warfare of WWI where the 'lines' were several hundred yards apart made it necessary to have a rifle and round that could be 'accurately' placed made the 30-06 necessary. Later, the new battle rifle, the M-1 Garand was built to utilize this same cartridge. While long distances still separated the opposing forces, it was found that the distance was shortened while fighting both in Europe and in the Pacific.

In Korea, it was found that distance between opposing forces continued to decrease, therefore inherent accuracy and energy at longer distances wasn't "necessary" in order to kill the enemy.

In Vietnam, it was 'determined' that the longest distance between opposing forces had continued to shrink, and I THINK it was 300 yds or less. Therefore, the need for a "long range" capable round was diminished, and the introduction of the M-16 and the 5.56 cartridge became the main battle rifle of U.S. military forces.

Again, I THINK that is one, if not the biggest, factor for the M-16/M-4 type rifles that is being used today.

EVlLBOB
April 15th, 2007, 16:34
The Army may convert to the Barret M468. They would only have to buy the upper reciever since it is compatible with the existing M16. Here is were you can buy one for your AR-15 if you have one.http://www.tacticalcity.com/tacticalcity/product_details.asp?CatID=1&SubCatID=2&ProdID=85

king chicken the third
April 15th, 2007, 19:52
there were also reports from the viet-nam era of the M-14's barrel melting after a prolonged fire fight, so the M-16 was supposewdly an improvement in that aspect.

Bookworm
April 17th, 2007, 01:53
Never seen a M14 barrel melt but I seen many M16's jam

Dave