alamo
Member
This rifle has been in the news lately. This article appeared Friday in the Weekly Standard.
It's a bit long to post all of it so here's a bit of it and you can read the rest on the link. I'd be interested in seeing what folks have to say about the article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/023wngex.asp
Army Get Your Gun
Why our troops use an inferior rifle.
by Stuart Koehl
04/25/2008 12:00:00 AM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RECENTLY reported that several congressmen and senators are looking into the renewal of Colt Defense's sole-source contract for the manufacture of the M4 Carbine, the most widely-used personal weapon in the U.S. Army. Derived from the M16 assault rife, the M4 retains the same firing mechanism and uses the same 5.56 x 45mm cartridge as the M16, but has a much shorter barrel, making it lighter and easier to carry inside a Humvee or armored personnel carrier. On the other hand, the shorter barrel reduces the muzzle velocity, hence the range and lethality of the weapon. As we reported earlier, there have been complaints from the field going back as far as the 1991 "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu that the M4 lacks "stopping power"--the ability to bring down a man with something other than a hit to the head or the heart--particularly when the enemy is hopped up on drugs (as is frequently the case in places like Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan). In addition, the gun is somewhat more prone to jamming than similar weapons due to its direct gas injection action, and requires frequent and scrupulous cleaning (which can be a problem in dusty climates like Iraq). Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), usually a strong supporter of the military, is one of those who believes the Army is getting a raw deal: "What we have here is a fat contractor in Colt who has gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Coburn and other critics point to the age of the basic technology of the M4 (the M16 was first introduced in 1965), as well as its high unit cost ($1500 per carbine) relative to other military assault rifles. He thinks the Army can do better. The Army disagrees, pointing to good reviews from the field (do they read the same mail, one wonders?), as well as the fact that any alternative rifle would take time to test, validate, and procure in large numbers. Army officials argue that the costs of switching now would outweigh any marginal benefits. Col. John Radcliffe of the Army Infantry Center responded to Coburn's criticsm, noting, "There is not a weapon that is significantly better than the M4."
That's open to dispute, as gun nuts all over the country will attest. For some time, a number of experts have pointed out that the design of the M16 and all its derivatives, including the M4, is now quite dated. Looking at weapons used in other countries, such as the Austrian Styr AUG, the French FN-MAS, the British Enfield L85A2, and most recently the Chinese Type 95, all use what is called a "bullpup configuration," in which the receiver mechanism and magazine are built into the stock of the weapon, behind the trigger (as opposed to the more conventional layout, in which the receiver and magazine are in front of the trigger). This allows the use of a full-length barrel while keeping the overall length of the weapon short. Thus, the problems of range and lethality inherent in the M4 design are avoided.
Here's the rest of the article on p. 2:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/023wngex.asp?pg=2
It's a bit long to post all of it so here's a bit of it and you can read the rest on the link. I'd be interested in seeing what folks have to say about the article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/023wngex.asp
Army Get Your Gun
Why our troops use an inferior rifle.
by Stuart Koehl
04/25/2008 12:00:00 AM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RECENTLY reported that several congressmen and senators are looking into the renewal of Colt Defense's sole-source contract for the manufacture of the M4 Carbine, the most widely-used personal weapon in the U.S. Army. Derived from the M16 assault rife, the M4 retains the same firing mechanism and uses the same 5.56 x 45mm cartridge as the M16, but has a much shorter barrel, making it lighter and easier to carry inside a Humvee or armored personnel carrier. On the other hand, the shorter barrel reduces the muzzle velocity, hence the range and lethality of the weapon. As we reported earlier, there have been complaints from the field going back as far as the 1991 "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu that the M4 lacks "stopping power"--the ability to bring down a man with something other than a hit to the head or the heart--particularly when the enemy is hopped up on drugs (as is frequently the case in places like Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan). In addition, the gun is somewhat more prone to jamming than similar weapons due to its direct gas injection action, and requires frequent and scrupulous cleaning (which can be a problem in dusty climates like Iraq). Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), usually a strong supporter of the military, is one of those who believes the Army is getting a raw deal: "What we have here is a fat contractor in Colt who has gotten very rich off our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Coburn and other critics point to the age of the basic technology of the M4 (the M16 was first introduced in 1965), as well as its high unit cost ($1500 per carbine) relative to other military assault rifles. He thinks the Army can do better. The Army disagrees, pointing to good reviews from the field (do they read the same mail, one wonders?), as well as the fact that any alternative rifle would take time to test, validate, and procure in large numbers. Army officials argue that the costs of switching now would outweigh any marginal benefits. Col. John Radcliffe of the Army Infantry Center responded to Coburn's criticsm, noting, "There is not a weapon that is significantly better than the M4."
That's open to dispute, as gun nuts all over the country will attest. For some time, a number of experts have pointed out that the design of the M16 and all its derivatives, including the M4, is now quite dated. Looking at weapons used in other countries, such as the Austrian Styr AUG, the French FN-MAS, the British Enfield L85A2, and most recently the Chinese Type 95, all use what is called a "bullpup configuration," in which the receiver mechanism and magazine are built into the stock of the weapon, behind the trigger (as opposed to the more conventional layout, in which the receiver and magazine are in front of the trigger). This allows the use of a full-length barrel while keeping the overall length of the weapon short. Thus, the problems of range and lethality inherent in the M4 design are avoided.
Here's the rest of the article on p. 2:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/023wngex.asp?pg=2
