The M4/.223 debate continues
Aviation Week reports that last week the U.S. Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier, Brig. Gen. Mark Brown weighed in on the M4/.223 issue:
“I don’t think we need an unhealthy, discordant debate over the current carbine because I don’t think the current carbine is a long-lived solution anyway. However, the M4 carbine has been continuously improved. It has 68 substantial engineering design changes and about 380 total engineering design changes, so it’s become a modular system. It’s very accurate, it’s the most accurate of the carbines, it’s the lightest of the carbines, and it’s the shortest of the carbines. We’re very pleased with it, and we expect it to be the Army’s carbine of record, for a little while.”
Hi, welcome to my blog! This blog is dedicated to all things firearms related. I hope you enjoy it.
[...] Johnson over at The Firearm Blog (”Firearms not Politics”) notices the following report in Aviation [...]
“it’s the most accurate of the carbines, it’s the lightest of the carbines, and it’s the shortest of the carbines”
What he meant to add to that was “that we currently issue”.
By way of comparison, the SA80 has an overall length of 30″ with a 20″ barrel. The M4 with a 14.5″ barrel is 33″. And I know which one is the more accurate.
Wow. I like the way too that he brings up all the minor engineering changes to the platform as if these, in any way, can make up for the primary failing of the weapon- it’s calibre. No mention either of swapping over to a piston system- a simple change which would dramatically improve performance. Another of the weapon’s major failings.
Great way to keep issuing an outmoded weapon to the troops at the tip of the spear.
You are right. I think when Colt’s contract expires (2009?) they will suddenly introduce a “revolutionary” piston system.
I used an M4 in Afghanistan and Iraq and an HK 416 upper on an M4 lower in Iraq.
I had one malfunction with the M4 when I opted to go very, very light on the oil. I had no other problems with it.
I only fired a little over four magazines out of the HK, aside from zeroing etc., and it never malfunctioned.
I can’t compare accuracy because the HK barrel was a little over 10″. They carried about the same. It is easier to take apart an M4 because you don’t need any tools. You need a screwdriver for the HK, but I can’t believe that can’t be fixed.
The M4 got a heck of lot dirtier in the upper receiver where it counted. So, while I didn’t have any problems, I am sure the HK would be more reliable.
I’d go with the HK.
@ Morgan:
Thanks for your comment. Its good to hear the experiences of someone in the field.