Marines choose standard-length M-16A4...

[Kenshin]

How's the choice looking four years from this decision?

 

[dm1333]

Why is it we have to be idiots?

"Haven't these idiots in the military ever heard of the 16" barrels? If some like the M4 and some like the M16, why not meet in the middle. If 16" is no good, make a 17" or 18" barrel. Why does it always have to be 20" or 14.5"?"

Seems to me like the 20 inch barrel is the best choice because the extra velocity gives more lethality to the round. From my brief interactions with the Corps they seem to know what they are doing.

 

[Nightcrawler]

How's the choice looking four years from this decision?

Another thread back from the Dead.

I think the Marines are finding the long A2 stock is more cumbersome than the longer barrel, actually.

My opinion has changed from four years ago. I love short barrels now. I didn't in the past.

Flip-flopping like John Kerry. I should run for congress!

 

[Frog48]

I think the Marines are finding the long A2 stock is more cumbersome than the longer barrel, actually.

I've always wondered why they dont make a version with the 20" barrel, but with a 6-position stock? Then the individual serviceman could set the length to better fit themself.

Sure, it would look goofy, but if it works, who cares?

 

[Oohrah]

Marines can't get hang of spray and pray. What is now almost
50 years when they ditched the M-14 for a system that still doesn't
work. No clue who talked the powers to be, into caliber 22 for anything
effective. Added stuff helped specialize to work, a little better, to
still substandard in caliber first, and platform second. Short range caliber
maybe but the further out it travels the less velocity and bullet energy
remains. Have no clue how many times they changed barrel twists and
bullet weights to at least get the bullet to halfway perform. The tumble
some speak of was due mainly to wt. vs twist and the bullet having a
yaw leaving the barrel so solid hits caused the bullet to tumble. Guess
what? Can't hit squat at any distance thus, spray and pray.
Gee, the reason behind the change to be able to lighten the load to
hump more ammo makes sense now!!! Let's see, we got an 8 to 10 pound
weapon with a no way near effective round. Talk a while back was for
Marines and Spec. Ops. to use the same platform and bump uppers to .28
cal. Somewhat the right direction. No matter what you think of 223,
it isn't a long range effective two legged stopper.
Wonder who will produce these wonder rifles. Last I heard, Colt lost the
contract and Berreta is in line. Also being considered is larger caliber
than 9mm for side arms. Why would these considerations be made if smaller
is better and adequate? Guess politics is a great thing when selling
weapons to the public, and spending some dollars! Does China still make
our Combat boots and Israel take up the slack of producing 223 ammo
because Federal can't keep up with running 24/7? Remember when we
used to kind of do our own thing once.
Semper Fi

 

[HorseSoldier]

I believe they've been buying a number of M4s in the meantime to supplement the M16s they decided to go with.

 

[George Hill]

So once again the replacement for the M-16 is another M-16. Neat.

 

[Kenshin]

I'd like to hear something from the Marines who lug around the standard length M16A4 for urban combat. Is it really as bothersome as the soldiers who now have M4's make it out to be?

 

[EvisceratorSrB]

My opinion of the M16A4 is that it is better than the M16A2. Also, the A4 is more suitable for mounting optics and such on it than the M4. It seems to me to be a little bit better balanced.

I lugged the M16A2 and A4 around. I have little experience with the M4, but enough to say that it jammed more than my A4. My personal opinion is that the A4 is the better performer. I have no idea why, but the A4 jams a lot less and deals a little better with carbon build up. They don't teach us why, they just tell us it kills better so we agree.

 

[Medusa]

How to soldier: Heckler & Koch’s HK416 upgrade tackles the M4 and M16.
Form Jane’s International Defence Review, Oct. 2005.

By Charles Q Cutshaw

It is fairly common knowledge that the special operations community has long had reservations about the M4A1 Carbine. Lethality problems first surfaced in 1993, when Somali gunmen who had been repeatedly shot by Delta Force soldiers were able to continue fighting.
But lower than expected lethality is not the only issue with the M4A1. According to a 2001 Special Operations Command study, changing the M16 to a short-barrelled car- bine configuration creates a mechanism that approaches or exceeds the weapon's limits. The study states that all M 16-derived car- bines are "fundamentally flawed" for a variety of reasons. Shortening the gas tube gives rise to several undesirable side-effects, including early timing, in which the bolt is unlocked and moving to the rear while the cartridge case is still adhering to the chamber wall under residual pressure from the fired round. This causes failures to eject, separated case heads and other malfunctions.
The M4A1 has generally required intensive maintenance by its Special Forces users to keep it operational. Such problems have not arisen in the more common M16 series rifles because the latest M16A2 versions fire three-round bursts, which limits stress on the rifle, and because problems that are inherent in the carbine do not exist in full-length rifles.
Quality control
The main users of carbines are special operations units; and the nature of the missions these elite units undertake often leads to their M4A1 carbines being used in ways that were not envisaged when they were designed. Special operations users frequently have to lay down heavy volumes of fire to break contact with larger enemy forces. They also often add relatively heavy accessories to their carbines under the Special Operations Peculiar Modification (SOPMOD)XModular Weapon System (MWS) Programmes. The addition of such accessories not only adds weight to the weapon, but can also reduce its reliability. According to the study, the M4Al's reliability has been further compromised by a decline in quality control.

Specific M4A1 deficiencies include problems with reliability, safety, accuracy and ergonomics. Reliability problems have included failure to extract, failure to eject, broken bolts, failure to function in extreme cold and severe malfunctions in over-the-beach operations. Safety-related issues have included frequent cookoffs, burst barrels and burst receivers when the M4A1 has been used in over-the-beach or riverine operations and the barrel has filled with water.
Accuracy problems have included barrels becoming loose or shot out after firing a relatively low number of rounds, rail systems not retaining zero and general difficulties controlling the M4A1 in full automatic.

From an ergonomic standpoint, problems have been identified with a poor cheek-weld area on the butt-stock, , lack of ambidextrous controls, poor pistol grip and vertical foregrip geometry, and "multiple ergonomic deficiencies in the SOPMOD/ MWS systems". The most serious problems have involved jamming and overheating. Ultimately, it was concluded that a complete redesign of the M4A1 would be necessary to resolve the inherent issues - a programme with an estimated cost of up to USD2 million. Although a carbine reliability parts set was developed to address the issues identified, it was no more than a 'band aid' on a system that SOCOM considered to be flawed.

Another fundamental problem with the basic AR (Armalite Rifle) design arises from Stoner's use of a gas system similar to that of the Swedish Ljungman. This blows fouling and gases back into the rifle's receiver: a major flaw that makes the rifle sensitive to ammunition certain types of ammunition, which can generate quantities of carbon fouling, causing serious problems.
The US Army learned this lesson early as it specified ball powder for 5.56x45mm military ammunition. This powder quickly fouled the receiver and, in combination with some other misunderstandings regarding the M16A1, resulted in the deaths in combat of soldiers and Marines whose rifles ceased to function due to fouling, earning the rifle a reputation for poor reliability.
The fouling problem was quickly rectified by switching powders, but the basic AR remains a 'dirty' gun that requires intensive cleaning and maintenance. An entire generation of US service personnel has grown accustomed to this as the norm, although older military hands recall the American Ml and M14, FAL/L1A1 and Heckler & Koch (H&K) G3, which did not need the the high level of maintenance required by theM16.

After that comes the hype of HK 416, but I think this should cover it, why the M4 could be less reliable than M16.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Lethality problems first surfaced in 1993, when Somali gunmen who had been repeatedly shot by Delta Force soldiers were able to continue fighting.
But lower than expected lethality is not the only issue with the M4A1.

Charles Cutshaw may have a pretty spiffy resume when it comes to writing about guns, but I'm not entirely clear on how he thinks he can include this claim in an article about the HK 416 without blushing.

Lethality problems . . . solved by purchasing a 5.56mm weapon with a couple inches less barrel than an M4A1? Hmmmmm. HK must have some really nice press junkets going on.

 

[texlurch]

"Spray and pray" + USMC = nope! We are taught to actually aim and hit what we are shooting at.

No accuracy? Qualified just fine at 500 meters with open sights, thanks much.

(wish my eyes were that good now-adays.. tough to see 100 now!)

They have more issues with the 16" gas system, but no appreciable difference in accuracy compared to a 20".. someone needs to introduce them to the mid-length gas system on a 16". A little better sight radius and reliability, and less weight.


Still think they made a good choice, between the available options to them; even though I am not a BB gun fan...

 

[Zach S]

As is, every 20" AR-15 produced now has a heavy barrel, causing it to weigh like eight and a half pounds empty....

Yeah, I dont see many 20" government profile or pencil bbl ARs on the shelves. Most of the ones I've picked up were HBARs, which is probably why I dont own one. One of my thompsons, when loaded, weighs about 15lbs or so, but its pretty well balanced since its heavy everywhere. A 20" HBAR is too front heavy for me, doesnt balance worth a crap. I did handle one that was pretty well balanced, but with the HBAR up front and the lead weight in the stock, it was just too heavy for an AR.

I've always wondered why they dont make a version with the 20" barrel, but with a 6-position stock? Then the individual serviceman could set the length to better fit themself.

Sure, it would look goofy, but if it works, who cares?

I'm planning on a goofly looking rilfe like that one after I get my 16" put together.

 

[Onmilo]

To answer one question here,
'Why doesn't the military use the 16" barrel instead of 14.5" and 20" barrels?'

Because the issue bayonet will not fit on a 16" barrel unless you move the gas block/front sight assembly 1 1/2" forward and that will affect reliability even worse than the short barrel guns are now experiencing.
There is no ballistic advantage to increasing the barrel length from 14.5" to 16" either.

Since that article was written about the Marine decision new modifications have been implemented to improve the M4A1 rifles.
Namely the addition of chrome silicone extractor spring, a polymer 'donut' and black buffer and a slight re dimensioning of the extractor edge angle along with clearance cuts in the receiver.

New magazines with improved follower designs have also improved reliability of all M16 weapon systems.

Heavy barrels are advantageous to full automatic M4 carbines and National Match rifles.
They offer no advantages to the 3 shot burst fire M16A2 rifles which cannot be made to fire fast enough to cause the weapon barrel to overheat to the point it reaches a bursting tempurature.

When you add a heavy barrel to an M4 rifle the 14,5" barrelled weapon reaches the same weight as the full size M16A4 hence the Marine decision to stay with the longer barrel platform.

The biggest problem with the current collapsing stock on any of the M16 rifle systems is the fact that it just isn't all that durable in actual combat situations.
The stocks can and do fail.
This is why MagPul Company and others are designing newer collapsing stock designs that are now being field tested.
Hopefully an adequate and durable collapsing stock design will come out of the field test and this stock may then be applied to all M16 weapon systems being issued.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Doesn't the A4 have M4 feedramps?

 

[Zach S]

Because the issue bayonet will not fit on a 16" barrel unless you move the gas block/front sight assembly 1 1/2" forward and that will affect reliability even worse than the short barrel guns are now experiencing.

So, basicly a 16" M4 with a mid-length gas system is going to be less reliable?

 

[texlurch]

So, basicly a 16" M4 with a mid-length gas system is going to be less reliable?

My understanding is that the whole reason for the mid-length is to help cure some of the shorty gas problems, plus give you a little longer sight radius.

 

[Oohrah]

Hey Badger, They trust them... only Marines for the most, pretty
much are not taught to rely on spray and pray. Don't be surprised
if the future caliber adapted will be a 28 caliber, and handguns go to
40 or original 45. Bullet energy is swinging back to meaningful
distance results.

 

[chieftain]

Several points on the issues brought up in this thread.

When listing the AR/M16 type rifles issued, folks forget the E1 models we were issued in Vietnam when we turned in our M14's.

As to the Corps still pushing accuracy vs full auto. In Fallujah they began an investigation because they thought the Marines were executing Ragheads because of all the head shots.

They figured out that with the new optics, that todays Leathernecks are blessed with, they were just able to shoot that much better. I agree.....GET SOME!

Repeatedly in the last 40 years I have heard various folks insist that the Corps was wasting time and money with the very heavy emphasis on marksmanship. I don't. When all else fails it sure helps when most of the folks in your unit can hit what they aim at........UNDERFIRE.

Darn, that means the Marines still don't trust their grunts with a full-auto M-16.

Nope, it means the Corps understands that folks on full Auto in combat will hit anything. I have never fired a rifle with burst capability on a range or in combat, but I can tell you that when you go to final protective fire, that ole' trigger finger gets pretty automatic even on a semi auto weapon.

except for guns, I believe full auto is a waste of perfectly good ammo. But it sure is fun. Something like the M4, cool but not as effective or reliable.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Onmilo]

I have never said an 18" barrel with a mid length gas system is going to be less reliable.
I said moving the gas system 1 1/2 " forward on a 16" barrel AR is going to be less reliable.

I think the 18" mid length was incorporated after folks tried building 16" barrel rifles with full length gas systems and found out that this doesn't work well at all.
I really can't bring anything to the table about 18" barrel systems because I have not worked with them.

Close quarter battle and machine guns are two things I can think of that form a place for full automatic fire capability.
A Marine squad generally incorporates two SAW gunners and two grenadiers in the mix and Marine squads are taught to keep these weapons in the fight even if the designated gunner goes down.
Shotguns form a solid basis in Marine CQB teams too.
Lots of firepower there even if the weapons are not all full auto and the SAW gunners and shotgunners get a lot of CQB time.

 

[Zach S]

I have never said an 18" barrel with a mid length gas system is going to be less reliable.
I said moving the gas system 1 1/2 " forward on a 16" barrel AR is going to be less reliable.

I never said anything about an 18" bbl.

I dont see how moving the 1.5" forward is going to be less reliable, since most think that the middys are more reliable, and the gas system for it is just a CAR that's been moved 2 inches forward.

 

[full metal]

m-16

Stoping power more reliability more accuracy.give our boys overseases a real rifle the old m-14 in 308 better then the m-16 22's get rid of those damn 9mm pistol's give them back those good all 1911's in 45 who cares about high cap when they dont go down right away or stay down,the same goes for the m-16 just my opinion.

 

[chieftain]

Close quarter battle and machine guns are two things I can think of that form a place for full automatic fire capability.
A Marine squad generally incorporates two SAW gunners and two grenadiers in the mix and Marine squads are taught to keep these weapons in the fight even if the designated gunner goes down.
Shotguns form a solid basis in Marine CQB teams too.
Lots of firepower there even if the weapons are not all full auto and the SAW gunners and shotgunners get a lot of CQB time.

According to T/O the Marine rifle squad has 13 men.

Squad leader and 3 fireteams.

Each fire team has a SAW. There are 3 SAW's in each squad, and 3 grenadiers. Again one in each fireteam.

You are right about keeping the SAW's in action.

But I stand by my statement, that I see no need for full auto on the rifles. Again, I never did fight with a burst type weapon. I fought mainly with the M14, with a selector that I rarely placed on full Auto. Later near the end of my second tour with the 3rd Marine Division I was "forced" to finally turn in my M14 and get an M16. It was an E1 model. Replaced the buffer and spring with one from an Army A1 model that I liberated for parts.

Inside 100/150 yards the "stopping" power of the 5.56 NATO 55gr was actually pretty good. As long as the gook was in the open. At least as good as the 7.62 NATO. With any decent cover or range, the 7.62 was what got the job done.

As to house to house. I only did that for about 2-3 weeks in Hue. We didn't have the uber cool conga line tactics. We just threw in a few M26A1 fragmentation grenades and charged in willy nilly shooting everything to pieces. The tactics are vastly superior today.

In my day usually the squad leader would be humping the shotgun if we had one.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Doggieman]

the question is: why 3 times the failure rate in the M4?

.223 is better than .30 for one thing and one thing alone: shoulder-fired full-auto.

 

[jeff-10]

Would be interesting if the M4 ended up taking over the M1 Carbine job...a short and lightweight carbine for REMFs, cannon cockers, and mortar luggers.

When I was in, 1993-1996, the M-4 was just starting to be used by line units towards the end of my commitment. At that time the mortars, spotters, AGs and drivers in the infantry all used the M-4s. All rifleman used the M16A2. I didn't realize that it had changed until after we invaded Afganistan. I started to see all these soldiers with M-4s and I could hardly believe it.

Someone asked why is one more reliable than the other. Probably a combination of the gas system and that one fires a 3 round burst and the other is full auto.