More reports on M4 limitations. Do the Marines have the right idea?
A leaked US Army report about the Battle of Wanat criticizes the reliability of the M4. On July 13, 2008 200 Taliban fighters attacked 48 US and 24 Afghan troops. Outnumbered 2.7 to 1 the M4 Carbines, which the troops were carrying, could not function reliably under the sustained fire they were required to put downrange. Fox News reports:
The platoon-sized unit of U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Afghan troops was shooting back with such intensity the barrels on their weapons turned white hot. The high rate of fire appears to have put a number of weapons out of commission, even though the guns are tested and built to operate in extreme conditions.
...
"My weapon was overheating,” McKaig said, according to Cubbison’s report. "I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn’t charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down."
Snowflakes In Hell, via Michael Bane's blog, correctly points out that assault rifles are not machine guns:
No assault rifle is going to stand up to sustained automatic fire. They aren’t machine guns, and even a machine gun needs to have its barrel changed out if it’s been firing a lot.
The M4 has a very short 14.5" barrel and a relatively lightweight barrel profile. This allows the barrel to heat up much faster than a longer and heavier rifle or machine gun barrel. When the barrel of a closed-bolt gun gets very hot, cook-offs,when a round is ignited from the heat in the chamber, become a significant problem ... not to mention the fact that a soldier cannot fire a gun that is to hot to hold!
The Marines have been criticized by many for their plans to introduce an Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) into the mix of weapons issued to their troops. The IAR is not intended to replace the SAW but would be deployed alongside it, giving some riflemen a light weight weapon that can sustain automatic fire.
The Army would do well to look into the concept.
At the end of last year the Marines announced they were awarding contracts for the development of IAR prototypes to Colt, H&K and FN. Since then I have heard nothing about the IAR.
There are discussions about the M4 failure at Wanat over at Snowflakes In Hell, via Michael Bane's blog and SaysUncle.
Many thanks to Jerry, Caedis, Lee and Lance for emailing me links about this story.
Check out Michael Yon’s comments on the efficacy of the M4 on Twitter too-
http://twitter.com/Michael_Yon
Michael Bane’s link goes to sayuncle.
Matt, thanks. I have fixed the link.
Isnt this kind of old news?
Is the AR system less that robust and picky about maintenance? Yes.
Is it made worse by a short barrel? Yes.
Is the 223 a marginal stopper? Yes.
Is it made worse by a short barrel? Yes.
Everybody who pays attention knows this.
Maybe the M4/223 makes sense for foot-patrols in the mountains, but there’s no reason a trooper at a fixed base shouldn’t have access to a M-14 or or a Garand or some other robust reliable battle rifle.
This is why I have long advocated for side arm to be issued to every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine. Having an M9 to transition to when your weapon gets too hot to shoot or has a malfunction keeps you in the fight, albeit in a defensive fashion. It works a lot better than a bayonet. traditionally, it’s when you’re in a defensive position that you put the most rounds down range.
And don’t tell me it costs too much. If the military would allow service members to carry their own 9mm pistol that met certain specifications as many police agencies do, then there wouldn’t be a problem.
The whole entire report is BS.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=939798
I just read Michael Yon Twitter. Anyone that faced a drug out terrorist will know the only thing that can stop him is two bullet in the head. No 50 cal no 30 cal in COM. Those won’t stop him nor the smaller 5.56. Two bullet not one and if he is moving put another one in.
Here is an interview with a Marine that went house to house clearing drugged terrorists. It doesn’t matter what you throw at them, drugged out terrorists will keep going until their brain stop functioning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EUYOQ_34Ws&feature=player_embedded#
How many more lives is it going to take for the Army to adapt a piston weapon with the 6.8mm round. The 6.8mm round is designed for a 16″ barrel or shorter, the 5.56 is NOT. Even the 7.62 NATO round is no more powerful than the 7.62×39 when shot out of a short barrel.
I am no expert but I can read data.
Also, I was in the Army and carried the POS M-16…..M203 and even at that time an archaic M-60 which did not even have a quick change barrel. I liked my M-3 grease gun better and the 45 was a great side arm.
I will also say the Army has no weapon flexibility and does not readily give small units extra firepower, the bean counters are in full force. They have not adapted the M-32 and did not adapt a fine piece of weaponry that Barrett came up with, the XM-109. The Marines went back to using the inexpensive yet effective M-72 law which counters the RPG very well in small unit encounters.
I saw many people put down the Milkor 20mm Neopup as not having a place in the infantry unit. It does not do anything special or necessary. Yeah maybe except hold back a larger unit from over running your position. Do you think that if those guys had a few of the weapons I mentioned including the MK48 7.62 NATO lightweight GPMG things would have been different? Or even how about those lightweight 50mm Israeli commando mortars. Something other than an M-4 and the POS M249 which now also has a short barrel making it a pea sprayer instead of a pea shooter.
The story never changes with the army, time and time again we read the same reports coming from war zones since Vietnam about the inadequate weapons of the U.S. Army. The Marines get it and do their best with limited funds to arm their troops correctly. They even broke out their old M-79’s because the M-203 could not be fired from the cupolas of the Hummer.
The 5.56 needs an 18″ or more barrel to work. The modern 5.56mm NATO round is inferior to the original 5.56mm round in it’s killing ability although it’s more accurate, that was the trade-off. The 6.8mm round does both better with a 16″ barrel.
Every combat troop should also carry a sidearm in case their weapon does overheat or malfunction, you need SOMETHING to shoot back with especially if you are carrying the M-4 or M-249. Or do we revert back to bayonet charges?
One or two less of the not even in service F-35 would pay for a complete overhaul of the infantry arms of both the Army and Marines. Does the SCAR work? Well good if it does make it in 6.8mm and get it to everybody. If the soldiers are not combat soldiers and are in the rear, give them a UMP in .40 cal along with some SCARs. Also make the sidearm .40 like most agencies with enough funding have already done. Adapt the Ulimax 100 or FN IAR in 6.8mm to supplement the M-240. Who cares what NATO does they never back us up in a fight anyway.
That Neopup in 25mm looks like a good idea with special fusing to go off over head. The stuff is out there on the market why doesn’t the U.S. Army buy it? They spend billions on stuff that doesn’t work. Just like the idiotic idea that one cammo design will be good anywhere in the world…..duh, never happen. The Israeli army found out cammo does not even work and never bothered to use it. Now those guys know a thing or two on how to make the most with the least.
The M-4 is a good weapon BUT in the way of the M-1 Carbine somthing for cooks clerks and NCO use. It was never ment to be a standard issue infatry rifle. That was alway suposed to be a M-16A2 or M-16A4. the Marines and Navy (Seabees) know this and have used M-16s and have had NO problums with them in combat. The Corps has stated that they will use the M-16 for at least the next 10 years and has a Marine favor rate well over 80%. I see the Air Force useing M-4 for its APs since they dont get into front line infantry engagements often. So I think the Army should just buy M-16A4s and issue them to the grunts on the ground.
As for the IAR I hope the Colt design wins and it seems Colt has a good shot at it.
In a note to Steve can you add the pics of the colt design also to this intsead of the FN SCAR “P.O.C.” since the rumor is that the Marines like the AR style pattern IARs anyway. Just asking!
The US military needs to adopt the LWRCI M6A2 in 6.8, and Glock 22 in .40. We’d have less failures. I like the AR-15 platform. But it’s not meant to be used, abused, used, and abused again. Piston guns are (quality ones like the M6 rifles.) meant for that. Give Colt the IAR contract and LWRCI the infantry rifle contract. Or LWRCI both M6A2 and M6A4 IAR. Give Glock a military contract too while their at it.
I’d agree with Lance. The M4 is basically the modern equivalent of the M1 carbine. It’s better than the M1 carbine considering ballistics and shared ammo with M16. The M1 was supposed to be a weapon of utility. Better than a pistol, lighter than a rifle. The M4 isn’t a poor weapon but they need to use the right tool for the right job. The army switching to the M4 exclusively is baffling, the Marines have it right. A heavy barrel is against the design of it, it’s supposed to be light. I love the IAR concept. IARs and M16A4s for riflemen, M4s for guys with special equipment. Good grief, is it really that hard for the Army to figure out? :S
It seems to me that if you want as much bang (barrel length, velocity) as possible in a compact weapon (compactness is the point of the M4 over the M16, right?), you should choose a bullpup weapon.
The AR15 will not go white hot for one simple reason, the gas tube will melt long before it get to that point. If the gas tube melt your AR15 will be single shot.
IIRC 150 rounds per minute is where the cook off start to appear.
Let assume that the guy magazines is loaded 30 rounds. The max in standard GI mag.
12 x 30 = 360 max possible rounds.
360 rounds /30 minutes = 12 minute per round. That’s nowhere near the cooking point of the M4. I think a lot of you shoot more rounds then 12 per minute at your local out door range.
It is absolute piss poor reporting.
Steve,
I doubt Big Army will go for IAR. Military traditions plus Marine and Army are different in how they wage warfare.
doh, I mean 12 rounds per minute. I fail at poof read. I blame it on my English teachers, all of them.
For those people that aren’t going to read through the ten page of AR15.com thread.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=939798
On page four, Merrell pointed out how bad the journalism is. They could have gotten away with this 15 years ago but not today with the free flow of information. Unfortunately you got dumb ass now thinking that they are expert on firearms repeating this kind of non-sense.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=939798&page=4
In a nut shell the author of that piss poor article copy another report and replace the SAW with the M4 and added a lot thing that wasn’t there.
BTW Steve, I didn’t mean you as a dumb ass. Just pointing out that a lot of people will now repeat the piss poor report on internet forum.
Here is the original article that these so called journalists copied.
http://www.battlefieldtourist.com/content/battle-of-wanat-historical-analysis-rough-draft-release/
jdun1911, thanks for the links.
jdun1911, awesome I had been looking for the report and could not find it.
I knew exacly what you mean’t. I was not offended. Anyway, as I said in my post- if a weapon is abused, it aint going to function!
jdun1911, I will post a link to that report as a separate blog post.
Like I posted, the AR will cook off at around 150 rounds per minute IIRC. If you press the issue the gas tube will melt shutting the the semi/auto feature and turning the rifle into single shot.
AR15 will never get white hot. The hottest color it will go will be red (cherry red) before it stop functioning.
On page three Merrell posted that white hot is 1400C 2552F. At 2600F 4150 steel will melt.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=939798&page=3
http://www.7now.com/tempering_steel.htm
Cook off means that the rifle will keep on shooting without pressing the trigger due to heat for those that don’t know.
jdun1911, LOL, that is funny. Puts the white hot rumor to rest for good
I will mention that in the post.
Around 140 rounds per minute is the cook off for the AR. So I was kind a close. Indefinite length of time at 12 to 15 rounds per minute without overheating.
Yeah it bug me that I forgotten the cook off for the AR.
——–
GROUND PRECAUTIONARY MESSAGE
ACALA #97-03
DATE: R 051413Z NOV 96
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED (1nn)
SUBJECT: GROUND PRECAUTIONARY MESSAGE (GPM), 97-03 5.56MM M4A1 CARBINE
1. DISTRIBUTION: {MENU} THIS IS A GROUND PRECAUTIONARY MESSAGE THAT HAS NOT BEEN TRANSMITTED TO SUBORDINATE UNITS. SOCOM COMMANDERS WILL IMMEDIATELY RETRANSMIT THIS MESSAGE TO ALL SUBORDINATE UNITS, ACTIVITIES
OR ELEMENTS AFFECTED OR CONCERNED. RETRANSMITTAL SHALL REFERENCE THIS MESSAGE. SOCOM COMMANDERS WILL VERIFY RECEIPT WHEN RETRANSMITTING THIS MESSAGE BY SENDING AN INFO COPY OF THE RETRANSMITTAL TO DIRECTOR,
TACOM-ACALA, AMSTA-AC-ASIR, ROCK ISLAND, IL.
2. PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. SUMMARY OF PROBLEM: SEVERAL INCIDENTS OF COOK-OFFS, IN AND OUT OF BATTERY, AS WELL AS BURST BARRELS, HAVE OCCURRED WITH THE 5.56MM M4A1 CARBINE. THESE INCIDENTS HAVE RESULTED IN INJURIES TO WEAPON USERS. THESE INCIDENTS RESULT FROM FIRING NUMEROUS ROUNDS WITHIN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME WITHOUT ADEQUATE COOLING.
(1) COOK-OFFS OCCUR WHEN A LIVE ROUND IS LEFT IN THE CHAMBER OR IN CONTACT WITH THE CHAMBER OF A HOT WEAPON AND HEATS TO THE POINT THAT THE PROPELLANT IS IGNITED.
(A) SUSTAINED FIRING OF THE M16 SERIES RIFLES OR M4 SERIES CARBINES WILL RAPIDLY RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BARREL TO A CRITICAL POINT.
(B) FIRING 140 ROUNDS, RAPIDLY AND CONTINUOUSLY, WILL RAISE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE BARREL TO THE COOK-OFF POINT. AT THIS TEMPERATURE, ANY LIVE ROUND REMAINING IN THE CHAMBER FOR ANY REASON MAY COOK-OFF (DETONATE) IN AS SHORT A PERIOD AS 10 SECONDS.
(C) WHEN THE WEAPON HAS REACHED THE COOK-OFF POINT (OR TEMPERATURE) A ROUND SHOULD NOT BE LEFT IN THE CHAMBER FOR ANY LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME. THE WEAPON SHOULD BE CLEARED AND THE BOLT LOCKED TO THE REAR TO ALLOW COOL
DOWN.
(D) SUSTAINED RATE OF FIRE FOR THE M16 SERIES RIFLES AND M4 SERIES CARBINES IS 12-15 ROUNDS PER MINUTE. THIS IS THE ACTUAL RATE OF FIRE THAT A WEAPON CAN CONTINUE TO BE FIRED FOR AN Indefinite LENGTH OF TIME WITHOUT SERIOUS OVERHEATING.
(E) THE SUSTAINED RATE OF FIRE SHOULD NEVER BE EXCEEDED EXCEPT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF EXTREME URGENCY. (NOTE: A HOT WEAPON TAKES APPROXIMATELY 30 MINUTES TO COOL TO AMBIENT TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS).
(F) THE USER’S MANUAL (TM 9-1005-319-10) FOR THE M16 SERIES RIFLE AND M4/M4A1 CARBINE STATES, “THAT IF A MISFIRE OCCURS IN A HOT WEAPON, REMOVE THE ROUND FAST (WITHIN TEN SECONDS). IF THE ROUND CANNOT BE REMOVED
WITHIN TEN SECONDS, REMOVE THE MAGAZINE FROM THE WEAPON, POINT THE WEAPON IN A SAFE DIRECTION AND WAIT FOR 15 MINUTES.”
(G) CAUTION SHOULD BE TAKEN BY THE USERS TO KEEP THEIR FACE AWAY FROM THE EJECTION PORT WHILE CLEARING A HOT WEAPON.
(2) COOK-OFFS OUT OF BATTERY RESULT FROM A ROUND WHICH COOKS OFF WHEN THE BOLT IS NOT LOCKED OR A ROUND WHICH COOKS OFF AS THE USER IS TRYING TO CLEAR THE WEAPON.
(3) BURST BARRELS RESULT WHEN THE WEAPONS ARE FIRED UNDER VERY EXTREME FIRING SCHEDULES AND THE BARREL TEMPERATURE EXCEEDS 1360 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. WHEN THE BARREL REACHES THESE EXTREME TEMPERATURES, THE BARREL STEEL WEAKENS TO THE POINT THAT THE HIGH PRESSURE GASES BURST THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE BARREL APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES IN FRONT OF THE CHAMBER. THIS CONDITION CAN RESULT IN SERIOUS INJURY.
B. PARTS, ASSEMBLY, OR COMPONENTS TO BE INSPECTED: NA
3. USER ACTIONS. {MENU}
A. TASK OR INSPECTION SUSPENSE DATE (IF APPLICABLE): N/A
B. REPORTING COMPLIANCE SUSPENSE DATE: N/A
C. INSPECTION PROCEDURES: N/A
D. CORRECTION PROCEDURES: RANGE PERSONNEL AND USERS SHOULD AVOID EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM AND SUSTAINED RATES OF FIRE DESCRIBED IN THE USER’S MANUAL FOR THE M16 SERIES RIFLES AND M4 SERIES CARBINE. USERS SHOULD BE TRAINED ON
THE CAUSES AND HAZARDS OF COOK-OFF. BETWEEN FIRING SCHEDULES, ADEQUATE WEAPON COOLING TIME SHOULD BE ALLOWED
jdun1911 has a really good point. This new report seems to be twisted and got the facts wrong.
I think theres a two pronged agenda here. First the liberal media is always trying to make the US military and US weapons makers look bad. Like in the 1980s the media quoted that the US M1A1 Abrams tank was a gas gussler which had a short range and was out of place in modern war. And the 120mm gun it had was was still was too small compaired to the Soviet T-72s and T-80s 125mm. However when the Gulf War came the M1A1 proved itself as the best tanks in the world and had no problum destorying T-72s which proved to be a inferiour tank to all US tanks. The media never spoke poorly of the M1 ever again.
The M-4 carbine has 90% approval by US troops and ive talked with many Solders and they speek highly of the carbine. Like I said before its not being used as it was made for and has since had a few mishapes. This is not new. My father served in the US Army in the late 50s and the M-1 was still the standerd issue rifle. He and others told me they had a heck of a time with them to get them to work in basic training. They were either worn out or had a bad part. Years later via 2001 he bought a like new M-1 and has never had a problum with it. Sometime its the indivual rifle which can malfunction or have a company armorer who dosnt do a good job. The case is the same for the M-4… Theres alot of them in service and not al of them are taken care of properly and or armorerd right and they malfuntion. The media dosnt look into this they just see another way to smear part of the Military and US defence companies. The same as with Dragons Skin Armor vs Penatrator Armor which the media preferince for Dragons Skin went no where. Penatrator armer is still used and has no real complants (becides weight , but every armer vest is just as heavy) about it it was a media smear.
The other prong is pure POLITICS! There are poloticans like via Senator Tom Colburn who get money from european firearms makers like FN and SIG. To say thank you they push to make contracts and to make money for these guns they make. Colburn gets money from FN. So he pushes for the plastic FN SCAR to be abopted and makes FN to be a sole provideder of guns for the US Armed Forces. The SCAR he champoins has its own issues like a weak but stock which brakes easily and poor lower wich is light but not strong. And which many Spc Ops groups still dont use it much. Theres more but thats another issue. SO every time a report or a man who dosnt like AR based weapons wrights a article he’ll have a press confrence and make a BIG stink about how Colt M-4s are bad. He never reads that 90% of troops like the weapon, only the 7-10% who dont like it. And every gun has its haters every gun! Notice the report only has one sentence on how the M-249 has alot of problums and never mentions that FN is the sole maker of the M-249.
Theres always flaws with every firearm. But I look at the fact almost every military man ive ment has a M-4 or M-16 they like. I think many look into the new articls a bit too much.
Based on the numbers alone, the Muj had the greater than 3 to 1 classic ratio to displace the Army force (with ANA “sepoy” support)…marginal cyclical rate of 7.62×39, firing from above, and getting some critical hits with RPG…there still had to be something else at play here…poor securing of ammo cache…what else was to be expected, short of trying to get to transport, buttoning up and high tailing it out of the position?
M4 @ Wanat/Kamdesh, Nuristan = Martini-Henry @ Isandlwana?
4 to 1 odds, Khyber Pass Copy-equipped AK force, plus ubiquitous bushel basket fulls of RPG-7s?
Formula for disaster, not barring CAS or overwatch support.
I absolutley agree with Bobby about a transition to LWRCI M6A2s and M6A4s in 6.8mm SPC. However, I don’t think a transition to a .40 would solve the M9s short comings, because if 9mm is the equivalent of .38 then .40 wouldn’t make that much of a difference. I would propose the USP45.
Thanks Jay. Where does that memo come from?
Oh, and here’s one for Steve. There are a number of weapons you can send to hell and back that won’t ever let you down. Unfortunately, for the fighting men and women of our armed forces, none of those are among the ranks of direct impingement ARs. Our soldiers deserve the best, the best is available, but they’re just not getting it. I’m won’t make any remarks as to who is to blame (General Mark Brown), but “good enough” just doesn’t cut it these days.
I really should proof read my posts BEFORE I submit them.
I disagree with Casy. Theres no real 5.56 rifle thats so much better than a M-16. The German and British force have had there G-36 and L-85 weapons jam on them. Ive read about Soviet troops dureing the Soviet war have there Ak-74s jam in combat as well theres no clear gun which wont jam in the dust of afghanistain. A piston AR could help a bit but a European gun which some people here lover so much like a G36 or Sig552 have had problums with dust as well. The marines have had few if no complantes about 20inch M-16A4s. There is no perfect gun which will never jam. Anyone who thinks a gun is perfect in anyway is selling you beach front property in Arizona.
Agree Steve?
Steve,
I did a google search on AR15.com. From time to time that information pop up on forums.
swisshegemonist,
There was a guy on the AR15.com thread that was nearby and was listening to the radio when the SHTF. Those guys did have close air support (CAS) and all the air assets that was require for the entire fight. What they didn’t have was more men.
Casey,
No weapons send to hell and back will work. It’s isn’t my opinion it is a fact. If the weapon is abuse enough it will fail. Period. There is no better rifle in the battlefield then the AR. If there is I would be all over it.
Lance,
I agree. There are a lot of people that do not understand how the AR works or why the US military is in love with it. They all think the US military high command has some grand sinister plan and hence do not want to replace the AR. The US military is in love with it because it is the best rifle in the world.
Another thing people do not understand is that small arms has more or less reach it mechanical limits. All those new weapons on the block are recycle from older weapon system design. New body old soul.
Small arms design may very well have reached certain limits; but no one has put all the good ideas together yet. There cannot be a ‘perfect’ rifle; each has its compromises. However, we can do a lot better than some of the broken-by-design items we see widely touted by people who don’t compare the mechanics and failure modes of the designs.
I have better things to do than argue on the Internet these days, so I’m going to restrain myself from doing so. I’m going to go out this weekend (like I do on most weekends) and teach people to shoot. I challenge everyone else to do the same. Go take your chosen rifle to an Appleseed Shoot, put 800-1200 rounds through it in a weekend, and see where and if it fails. This is nowhere as bad as a battlefield; but if you act conscienciously you’ll learn from the experience anyway.
The thing that really bugs me about the article (apart from the hyperbole and technical inaccuracy) is the figure that ‘90% of the troops think their rifle is good’.
90% of the population probably think their car is a good design. Doesn’t mean that it is. 9% of the deployed soldiers probably couldn’t diagram a single reason why an AK47 is more reliable than an M16 (as opposed to repeating hearsay). As such, asking them if they’re satisfied with their rifle is somewhat dubious.
It is a common mistake for people to think that just because someone uses a tool, that they understand that tool and can make meaningful comparisons between it and similar tools. Secretaries use computers, but aren’t often computer geeks. Doctors use knives, but aren’t usually bladesmiths. Police and soldiers use guns; but this is far from making them gun experts.
typo above. should be “99% of the deployed soldiers probably couldn’t diagram a single reason why an AK47 is more reliable than an M1″
This is not to impugn their abilities as soldiers or even shooters; just saying that being a soldier does not make you a gun geek.
Feel free to prove me wrong; I want to be proud of our soldiers. Just remember, the plural of anecdote is not data; and the sort of people who read this blog are not even 1% of the population.
I just updated the post with clarification about the rate of fire:
I just want to clarify a point mentioned by commenters below. If the solider fired his 12 magazines evenly over a 30 minute period he should have had no overheating problems (assuming the Army GPM info is correct). What we do not know is the period of continuous fire. As Bram, who has seen combat, said “Time moves very differently while under fire. It’s impossible to judge how fast those soldiers were actually firing.”.
Lance, I agree with you.
Michael Bane put it well “As is far too often the case, the wars were fighting refuse to pay any attention to the specs.”. The issue is not “Is the M4 the best weapon”, but “can any 14″ carbine stand up to that kind of abuse?”.
I fully support the troops have the best weapon possible. I think the real issue is deciding what a replacement, if any, should be capable of doing. For example, sustained rate of fire, mean time between failure (in hot, desert, snow, arctic, tropical etc conditions).
Remember, the Army is running a comparison of the M4 vs. many other possible replacements: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/list-of-possible-m4-replacements/
As I said nearly 11 months ago, the event hosted by the Army last year was just a “show and tell” session, not a formal submission for testing. A formal Operational Requirements Document (ORD) has not been approved yet for any M4 carbine replacement. Until there is an approved ORD, there will be no solicitation. Until there is a solicitation, there will be no trials.
Daniel, thanks for the correction. Now that you mention it, I do remember you saying it (my memory is not great).
For Lance, I would like to make it clear that I did not propose a replacement rifle in 5.56mm for the M16/M4. I proposed a 6.8mm, and yes you have a point. Any weapon can jam, but for Lance and jdun1911, my post about “hell” is relative to the amount of abuse other weapons (including ARs) can take compared to the M16/M4. For jdun1911, I would agree that the AR design has the potential to become the best on the battlefield. The AR is certainly the most versitile and accurate assault weapon on the battlefield, but the reliability issues apparent with the direct impingement gas system used in and the lack of kinetic energy delivered by the 5.56mm round has to be addressed. There are American companys that have addressed and solved both of these issues, and have taken the AR design to the next level of its evolutionary process.
“direct impingement gas system used in (the M16/M4 family of rifles)”
I only notice these things after the fact.
”I absolutley agree with Bobby about a transition to LWRCI M6A2s and M6A4s in 6.8mm SPC. However, I don’t think a transition to a .40 would solve the M9s short comings, because if 9mm is the equivalent of .38 then .40 wouldn’t make that much of a difference. I would propose the USP45.”
If you propose a .45 then lets go back to 1911s (Springfield Armory Operator) or Glock 21.
I stress Glock. Here’s why:
High magazine capacity.
Cheap.
The most reliable and durable pistol ever. IMO.
Accurate.
Super ergonomic.
More accessories.
Light.
Easy to maintain.
USP design is great but not the best.
My main gripes:
Too heavy.
Not enough rounds in magazine.
Not enough assessories.
Expensive as hell.
More bulky than even a Glock.
Also…
In my honest opinion I think the AR-15 DI platform isn’t the best in the world. It is just the stepping stone for the best Assault Rifle platform.
Piston AR-15s in higher calibers are the best IMO.
I’ve put my M6A2 through a carbine course multiple times.
No failure with quality parts and ammunition.
I’ve two words for the piston pushers: carrier tilt.
I’ve put about 100 rounds out of a 7.62 HK G3 in about a minute. It got pretty hot but it still worked okay!
Carrier tilt wont happen with LWRC, Ruger, or Adam Arms Systems. Granted you need a different carrier.
Umm, when it comes to fighting and the tools for fighting, the only time I can think the Marines were even close to wrong was when they initially didn’t want the M-1 Garand at Guadalcanal. And there was a strong argument for the Marine’s postion at the time.
The M16/M4 is not the best assault rifle in the world. The reason why the US military hasn’t replaced it is because they are waiting for a significant improvement in technology (whatever that means). In my opinion, the G36 is a fine rifle and those supposed “jamming problems” experienced in afghanistan are just blog BS with no verification whatsoever. Similar to the SIG rifle series.
do weapons jam? absolutely. Is the M16/M4 some wonder weapon that is the best in the world? no. Are there better replacements out there? yes.