Army is looking to replace the M4 (again, maybe)

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-...eplacement.html

The M4 is the carbine version of the M16. Shorter and lighter, it's used when space is a premium. Vehicle crews carry them, but their smaller size also helps for room clearing and close-quarters combat. Unfortunately, it has it's downsides:

From Wikipedia:

An April 2002 presentation by the Natick Soldier Center presented by LTC Charlie Dean and SFC Sam Newland reported on lessons learned from M4 use in Afghanistan (such as use during Operation Anaconda):

* 34% of soldiers reported that their M4's handguards rattle and become excessively hot when firing.
* 15% reported that they had trouble zeroing the M68 reflex sight.
* 35% added barber brushes and 24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits.
* Soldiers reported the following malfunctions:
o 20% reported double-feeding.
o 15% reported feeding jams.
o 13% reported that feeding problems were due to magazines.
* 89% of soldiers reported confidence in the weapon.
* 20% were dissatisfied with its ease of maintenance.

Soldiers requested the following changes:

* 55% requested the firearm be made lighter
* 20% requested a larger magazine

2007 Dust Test

In the fall of 2007, the Army tested the M4 against three other carbines in "sandstorm conditions" at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: the Heckler & Koch XM8 rifle, FNH USA’s SOF Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the Heckler & Koch HK416. Ten of each type of rifle were used to fire 6,000 rounds each, for a total of 60,000 rounds per rifle type. The M4 suffered far more stoppages than its competitors: 882 stoppages, 19 requiring an armorer to fix. The XM8 had the fewest stoppages, 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones, followed by the FN SCAR with 226 stoppages and the HK416 with 233. The Army now has plans to improve the M4 with a new cold-hammer-forged barrel to give longer life and more reliable magazines to reduce the stoppages. Magazine failures caused 239 of the M4's 882 failures. Army officials said the new magazines could be combat-ready by spring if testing goes well.

There's been a lot of back-and-forth on this issue. The Army stated they wouldn't replace the M4 until there was a great leap in technology; they weren't going to go for an incremental change. Despite this stance, over the past few years, there's been a lot of talk, and even a test last year. Lately, I've been reading quite a bit saying that they're going to look at it again. I've even read that they're looking into new calibers.

Here's another high-tech toy they're working on, something to add as a squad weapon. You can run, but you can't hide!
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004440.html

DocJon wrote:http://www.military.com/news/article/army-...eplacement.html

The M4 is the carbine version of the M16. Shorter and lighter, it's used when space is a premium. Vehicle crews carry them, but their smaller size also helps for room clearing and close-quarters combat. Unfortunately, it has it's downsides:

From Wikipedia:


There's been a lot of back-and-forth on this issue. The Army stated they wouldn't replace the M4 until there was a great leap in technology; they weren't going to go for an incremental change. Despite this stance, over the past few years, there's been a lot of talk, and even a test last year. Lately, I've been reading quite a bit saying that they're going to look at it again. I've even read that they're looking into new calibers.

Here's another high-tech toy they're working on, something to add as a squad weapon. You can run, but you can't hide!

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004440.html

DAMN I wrote a full reply only to relaize it was a report no a reply.... MY bad Atomm.....


* 34% of soldiers reported that their M4's handguards rattle and become excessively hot when firing.

Fixed plastic and metal expand under strenuous firing and heating cycles, This has been fixed by installing aluminum free floating hand guards attached to the receiver not the front sight block.

* 15% reported that they had trouble zeroing the M68 reflex sight.

Aimpoint addressed this by rotating the mounting point 90 degrees allowing easyer access to the elevation knob. - not a weapon system related issue but a Electrical Combat Optical Sight Issue.


* 35% added barber brushes and 24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits.

Fixed in supply

* Soldiers reported the following malfunctions:


o 20% reported double-feeding.
o 15% reported feeding jams.

Both issues are directly related to each other, the fix was to mill feed ramps for the rounds in to the lower receiver, now commonly called M4 feed ramps.


o 13% reported that feeding problems were due to magazines.

Fixed by installing anti tilt ammunition followers - look at the magazine feed ramp, green are the new anti tilt gray are the old - jamming style.


* 89% of soldiers reported confidence in the weapon.
* 20% were dissatisfied with its ease of maintenance.


Keep in mind this was written in 2002 - thing change quickly. Scuttlebutt in the FNH SCAR Light and Heavy are in the running for the new replacement weapon, but the MagPul Masada Adaptive Combat Weapon System (ACWS) is also look on as a very favorable platform also....


Rumors run wild. .....

Duck wrote:DAMN I wrote a full reply only to relaize it was a report no a reply.... MY bad Atomm.....


* 34% of soldiers reported that their M4's handguards rattle and become excessively hot when firing.

Fixed plastic and metal expand under strenuous firing and heating cycles, This has been fixed by installing aluminum free floating hand guards attached to the receiver not the front sight block.

* 15% reported that they had trouble zeroing the M68 reflex sight.

Aimpoint addressed this by rotating the mounting point 90 degrees allowing easyer access to the elevation knob. - not a weapon system related issue but a Electrical Combat Optical Sight Issue.


* 35% added barber brushes and 24% added dental picks to their cleaning kits.

Fixed in supply

* Soldiers reported the following malfunctions:


o 20% reported double-feeding.
o 15% reported feeding jams.

Both issues are directly related to each other, the fix was to mill feed ramps for the rounds in to the lower receiver, now commonly called M4 feed ramps.


o 13% reported that feeding problems were due to magazines.

Fixed by installing anti tilt ammunition followers - look at the magazine feed ramp, green are the new anti tilt gray are the old - jamming style.


* 89% of soldiers reported confidence in the weapon.
* 20% were dissatisfied with its ease of maintenance.


Keep in mind this was written in 2002 - thing change quickly. Scuttlebutt in the FNH SCAR Light and Heavy are in the running for the new replacement weapon, but the MagPul Masada Adaptive Combat Weapon System (ACWS) is also look on as a very favorable platform also....


Rumors run wild. .....

Interesting stuff, Duck. Where'd you get the info? Wikipedia's usually up-to-date with stuff like this, since so many ppl like to argue the minutiae of popular small arms.

Another major downside to the m4 that I've read about is stopping power. The shorter barrel reduces velocity of the 5.56 round, making it less effective. I didn't mention it though, since from what I've read, the velocity change is only 300 fps. Given that the m4 is supposed to be used at close-range, it didn't seem to me that it should be such a big change in effectiveness. . .but as I look at it now, 300 fps is about a 10% difference.

I've long felt they should go to a bullpup for tank crews and such, since the design allows for a longer barrel in a shorter package, but realistically, I don't see that happening. It's too different from whatever main rifle they'll field. It would require too much extra training for use and maintenance, and virtually every part would be different as well, making for additional supply-line issues.

I've read about the Scars and the Masada (now called the Bushmaster ACR). I've also heard that the HK 416 was in the running.

The Bushmaster/Masada looks cool. It takes the best of the m4/m16, makes it truly ambidextrous, and improves upon the weaker aspects while making it easy to change out barrels, stocks and receivers. You wouldn't need an m4 AND an m16, you'd just switch out parts and you'd have a mission-specific weapon. As a bonus, troops are already familiar with the look and feel - it would require VERY LITTLE retraining. I think the Army will love this. Interchangeable parts for different weapons? A supply-line wet dream.

I've also heard that they're thinking about changing calibers to 6.5mm or 6.8mm as a compromise between the better stopping power of the 7.62mm and the lower recoil of the 5.56mm round. This seems unlikely, given the logistics of such a change - a changeover like this virtually guarantees that at some point we'll have 2 calibers in the supply-line for our main small arms.

Besides caliber, it seems like one of the big decisions to make would be whether to go with the gas-piston or direct impingement(like the current m16/m4). The current m4/m16 direct impingement system reduces parts, cost and would help with accuracy as it reduces the weight of moving parts at firing. . .but at the cost of increased fouling and reliability after a couple hundred shots. Also, the direct impingement system is more easily silenced, since a silencer doesn't work on heavy parts slamming back and forth, just on gas escaping the muzzle. Probably sounds like a loud sewing machine.

Here's a good read on the gas-piston vs direct impingement.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?n...le&sid=1081

I should probably disclose that I'm not a firearm owner. I don't currently feel the need for one, and the cost of one, plus the cost of ammo and paying for range-time are a factor. I just started reading up on them when I started playing FPS games and wanted to know the difference between the guns I'm using in-game. As I did, I got interested and kept reading.

I don't have much first-hand firearm experience. I've fired a few .22 rifles and a 9mm, and have 3 really nice pellet rifles, 2 of which I've built and/or modified (the third being a Korean War era Crosman 114 that was modified by a well-known airgunsmith, and I'm not effing with that). They're fun to shoot, even good ammo is cheap compared to bullets, and you can get away with shooting them in your backyard some places.

I also worked at the gun counter of a sporting goods store, but all we had was cheap production shotguns and a few cheap over-under imports, and the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22. . .so, full disclosure on all that. 😀

You've got a lot of it right Doc - good for you! Especially for not being a gun owner, and just wanting information. The shooting community needs A LOT more people like you that don't just accept the drivel dolled out by the anti-freedom crowd, we'd all be better off for it.

My information comes from 17 years in the U.S. Army, and being one of those "gun nuts" it's my number one way to relax. I started collecting WWII Rifles bolt action first, then small arms and now I am collecting bolt action sniper rifles.
Along with the WWII items I also have a small collection of modern day semi-automatic magazine fed rifles, and pistols and tree purpose driven revolvers.

So I guess you could say it runs in my blood, the information on the M4's are "user" common knowledge, about the feed ramp and anti-tilt followers.

Notice in the top 6 pictures are representing the barrel only looking in from the breach or feed of the magazine,notice on the right side M$ the feed ramps are deeper and remove more material from the barrel surround.

The bottom 6 pictures are M4 ramps either cut good, bad or just OK. A good ramp will line the barrel to the lower receiver as a soothe "ramp" to feed ammunition in to the barrel. The reason there are two ramps is that the magazine feeds from two positions (the M4 / 16 magazine is considered a staggered feed - double stack not straight single stack)

The first round presented could be Right or left on top of the mag, the next would be on the opposite side alternating left / right for the whole magazine.

As far as stopping power the standard 20" barrel M16 has a maximum effective range:
Area target: 2,624.8 feet (800 meters)
Point target: 1,804 feet (550 meters)
Muzzle velocity: 2,800 feet (853 meters) per second

By reducing to the 14" barrel you do lose approx 300 FPS but the maximum effective range is 250 - 300 meters for a point target, which is just fine when your in an urban environment like they are in "over there"

The latest bull pup presented is the FNH P90 (stargate fame) small, effective and zips along so fast that no know body armor is able to deter. (SS190 Ball AP - not available to civilians)
The gun is available to you and I as the FNH PS90 (to meet gov barrel length requirements) or as the P90 with the correct SBR (Short barrel rifle) tax stamp ($200.00))

But everything you say is correct, adopt a new rifle or a new PDW (Personal Defence Weapon) and the supply chain is disrupted.

If your interested in the latest alternative rounds Google 6.8mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge and the 6.5mm Grendel.

Both have there pluses and minuses over our standard issue 5.56x45 round now.

I'm all for gas piston design, while DI does "s*it where it eats" as long as they keep the weapon clean it runs fine, but take out the need of direct gas actuating the bolt and it just makes for a cleaner rifle. (AK47 - HK G3)


EDIT - P.S. My Avatar is the M4 bolt face cycling through a firing sequence looking from the ammunition round out to the bolt face - FYI.

Doc you may get a kick out of this great cut a way from Bushmaster.

http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp

It has many many different views and shows all the steps in cycling, don't forget to use the buttons on the bottom and left side also to ghost and cut away to see the internal workings.

Wow Duck, you da man. I have a fair collection of guns too. Love going to the range too. I had the mentality of I wanted one of each type of gun.

I have one WWII sniper retrofitted for hunting. There is little left of the original gun except for the barrel and serial number.

Thanks for the complement. I like to learn about new things, and I try to get my info from various sources, so as to not get only biased info.

You should tell us about your WW2 bolt-actions. They'd be great fun at the range, and it must be like holding a bit of history.

Great info, and it's cool to finally know what your avatar is about. So many times things like that come and go and I never know what it's about. Ephil is a good one for that - I only found out about his techno-viking avatar by accident.

That Bushmaster demo is kick-ass! The only way it could be better is if you could rotate around it.

The pics of the m4 feed ramp are great. Even a backyard airgunsmith like me can see why the bad feed ramp is bad 🙂

The P90 must have the most visibility of all bullpups right now, since they were all over Stargate SG1 and Atlantis these past years(I'm a fan). I've read good things about them, but not enough to know if there are dealbreaking issues/idiosyncrasies/problems. They seem like a pretty nifty PDW. . .but again, it's a major change. All new parts, soldiers have to be re-trained to shoot and maintain it, and ppl have to be trained to perform repairs. It has it's own caliber. If they stick with that, they'll have 2 different small-arms ammo to supply, in addition to sidearm ammo.

What's the deal with the p90's ammo? How is it so good against vests? It's only slightly bigger than the 5.56 NATO, and it's a few hundred fps slower than even the m4. . .(time passes). . .OK. I read the effing Google, and it says that the ammo is designed to be armor piercing. Seems to me there's nothing keeping the m4 (or any rifle) from using a similarly designed round.

Oh, also I read a bit about the NATO 5.56 round used in the m16 and m4, and I found out the knock against the m4's effectiveness. One of the things that make it an effective round is the way it tumbles thru flesh and fragments at 2700fps and higher. It's said that this is important in inflicting serious immediate damage. The m16 accomplishes this out to a fair distance, but since the m4 STARTS at 2700 fps, once you get much beyond room-clearing distance, the damage starts to drop off, and the enemy becomes capable of returning fire after a hit. . .or so the story goes.

I think some of the problems with the Bushmaster are also it's strengths: it's too similar to what's already in use. I think there would need to be a significant change to justify switching over to a new weapon. My guess is, there would have to be a minimum of two of the following to seal the deal, in addition to all the cool tweaks they made to the m16 design.

1. A new caliber.
2. Switching to a gas-piston design.
3. It would have to do much better in the dust tests than the m4/m16.

It's too much money, hassle, and political stock to make such a change capriciously.

It's fascinating how many factors combine to make up the characteristics of a firearm. It's really quite a balancing act. The fun thing about it is that 2 ppl will look at the same gun, one will go nuts over it, and the other will disparage it. There is no absolute right or wrong, just reliability, accuracy, and suitability for a given purpose.

Before I quit, I should pick your brain about the gas-piston. Given your practical experience, does it have a noticeable effect on accuracy? I've read that the piston slamming back and forth might throw off your aim on automatic or burst. Also, do you suppose they'd be much louder than direct-impingement when using a silencer?

As a teenager my mom was seeing this guy named Dick. Let's just say that it was an appropriate name. He did have one positive impact on my life, in that the guy had well over 100 books about WWII and I developed a strong interest in that war and the people fighting it reading the books on the campaigns, autobiographies, and other works. He also had a Kar98k and a Walther PP that he said his father had got in Berlin in the last days of the war. He let me shoot each of them and it was a very surreal experience to shoot weapons that possibly had shot at and killed allied soldiers.

Later on my father (who also should be named Dick but isn't) bought me a M1817 .30-06 Eddystone WWI issue rifle for hunting. That thing was a beast. Heavy as hell and kicked like a mule. I couldn't imagine carrying that all day every day. I really liked the flip up rear sights though which allowed you to adjust your range out to 600 yards iirc.

Sarge wrote:Later on my father (who also should be named Dick but isn't)

Hey, something else we have in common!

Ha!

A couple of semi-related links I've been meaning to add:

A look at possibly replacing the m249 SAW:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004458.html


New 25mm airburst weapon:
http://gizmodo.com/5055602/first-look-at-t...l-army-gun-ever
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004440.html

All this technology comes at a price, however. The US Army will have to pay $25,000 for each weapon, plus $25 for each programmable 25mm round. The rounds, however, will be absolutely free of charge for terrorists or anyone at the other side of the battlefield, bad guy or passerby.

🤘 🤣

DocJon wrote:A look at possibly replacing the m249 SAW:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004458.html

Why don't they just bring the BAR out of retirement? It would be cheap and reliable and it sounds like what they want.

Sarge wrote:Why don't they just bring the BAR out of retirement? It would be cheap and reliable and it sounds like what they want.

There you go again Sarge - Thinking with your head and not the tax payers purse strings..... how can we raise taxes if we bring back stuff we already have.

And if you make the guns too simple then repairs can be done in the field while in use by their users... Stupidity..

Bubbaspanky wrote:And if you make the guns too simple then repairs can be done in the field while in use by their users... Stupidity..

Bubba you don't know how true that is.
What I started working on the land based Basic TOW missile there was a single tool box with ~ 30 tools for the whole missile, guidance, tripod and electronics.

Improved TOW (ITOW)
Two tool boxes Mechanical and Electrical

Then came the TOW 2
Upper mechanical, Lower Mechanical and Missile electronics tool boxes

And then finally (for me) the TOW 2A
5 tool boxes 400 tools to account for, upper missile section mechanical. lower missile section mechanical, tripod mechanical, Missile tool box, missile electronics and guidance electronics tool box.

W.T.F. over. some boxes had the same damn tools over and over and over like a #2 Philips head screwdriver - but each box had to have one, so the tax payers had to buy 5 #2 screw drivers per technician, some parts had special design screw heads that could just as well been used as Philips (like in TOW1 and ITOW) but that would not have been lucrative to the manufacturer to reuse parts - when they can charge for specialty items.......
Yah the 80's and 90's wer fun times in the service.

I could repair a Bar with a toothpick and a rubberband... any problem that might occur. Insert joke about Duck having the lube here.

Bubbaspanky wrote:I could repair a Bar with a toothpick and a rubberband... any problem that might occur. Insert joke about Duck having the lube here.

Gay bar maybe.

Isn't that where I met you??

This is going to hell..... we better stop telling secrets, I hard the site admin is a jerk.... I'll pass you a note in gym class.

talk about a freudian slip, "I hard the site admin is a jerk"

"Joey, do you like to hang around gymnasiums? "

🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

Duck wrote:🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

Fruity-ass?

Sarge wrote:Why don't they just bring the BAR out of retirement? It would be cheap and reliable and it sounds like what they want.

I should've replied to this earlier.

I don't think they know what they want. I think if you asked ten different guys involved in this (the SAW replacement) they'll give you ten different answers. . .or they'll tell you they want the impossible. Lightweight with little kick, small & light easy-to-carry rounds that shoot thru buildings and hit hard a mile out, etc. I think the SAW replacement issue is just a continuation of the m4/m16 replacement debate.

I'm starting to see why some in the army take the stance that they're not going to replace anything until there's a real leap in technology. It gets to the point where you're just juggling the same old plus/minus attributes, and it's hard to say what you have is significantly worse than what they'll replace it with.