Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Wants Upgrades to Improve M4A1 Carbine's Performance, Accuracy
Military.com new ^ | 03-18-2015 | Matthew Cox

Posted on 03/24/2015 6:35:39 PM PDT by Redcitizen

The U.S. Army is considering several upgrades to the M4A1 Carbine that could improve its accuracy and performance and change the weapon's appearance.

Army weapons and contracting officials recently launched a market survey to see what the small-arms industry has to offer as far as better rails, triggers, charging handles and sights for the M4A1.

"The government is seeking to procure M4A1-Plus (abbreviated as M4A1+) components as non-development items ... for improvements to the M4A1 Carbine," according to the March 13 document posted on FedBizOpps.gov. "It is anticipated that the M4A1+ components will be evaluated as a system. The system must then install on/interface with stock M4A1 Carbines."

The Army decided to replace the standard M4 with the M4A1 in 2013 after the service abandoned a five-year effort to replace the M4 with a brand-new carbine.

(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ar15; banglist; m16; m4; m4a1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: doorgunner69

You are exactly right. It has been a long time ago but I remember reading about how the FN- FAL design dates to before WWII and they were going to use the British .280 (7mm).

When NATO adopted the 7.62, FN was able to use the same platform for it but anything bigger and it wouldn’t have worked.


21 posted on 03/24/2015 7:55:32 PM PDT by yarddog (Romans 8:38-39, For I am persuaded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen; blueyon; KitJ; T Minus Four; xzins; CMS; The Sailor; ab01; txradioguy; Jet Jaguar; ...

Active Duty ping.


22 posted on 03/24/2015 7:58:05 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

I suggest they return to .30 caliber weapons.


23 posted on 03/24/2015 8:01:23 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

My father says they need to bring back the M1 Garand or at least the M-14. Even so, I always thought if they had to go to a sub .30 caliber round, I always thought they should have used the .270 Winchester or the .243 Winchester or something similar.


24 posted on 03/24/2015 8:20:07 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Mom I miss you! (8-20-1938 to 11-18-2013) Cancer sucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen

The M4 is basically an up to date CAR-15.


25 posted on 03/24/2015 8:20:48 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Mom I miss you! (8-20-1938 to 11-18-2013) Cancer sucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

The Tsarist Russians made a selective fire “assault rifle” around 1915 or so that used 6.5 Jap. I think it was called the “Avtomat.”


26 posted on 03/24/2015 8:22:22 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (Mom I miss you! (8-20-1938 to 11-18-2013) Cancer sucks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

That is interesting.


27 posted on 03/24/2015 8:25:42 PM PDT by yarddog (Romans 8:38-39, For I am persuaded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean
The first step would be to move up to a caliber that ends a fight with one hit.I gave up on 5.56 as a serious caliber years ago,give me a 7.62x51.

IIRC, the deal with the 5.56 was to wound the enemy and cause a couple other soldiers to haul him out of the fight, thus reducing the fighting capabilities of the enemy, plus pound for pound, you couple pack 3X the ammo in the field carrying 5.56 v. .308 or 30-06. Both have their advantages/disadvantages.

28 posted on 03/24/2015 8:31:26 PM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat Lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Doomonyou

Does anyone remember the Beltway sniper?

They used an AR in 5.56. They killed people far more often than injuring them. The round is deadly against people but using the long heavy for caliber bullets with a really fast spin results in a .223 sized hole. They will really penetrate but that is also the problem. They penetrate too easily.


29 posted on 03/24/2015 8:37:50 PM PDT by yarddog (Romans 8:38-39, For I am persuaded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

What’s not to like? Costs of barrel replacements, if the loads push bullets as fast as the civilian ones. ;-)


30 posted on 03/24/2015 8:47:28 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

.243 is lovable, BTW.


31 posted on 03/24/2015 8:48:53 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
Anything - as long as they keep the field proven direct impingement system and don’t put any of those new-fangled gas pistons in there.

"Field proven?" When has direct impingement been "field proven" where the forces using it did not have mastery of the battlespace?

Furthermore, gas piston is the older of the two systems and IS field proven, from the Sturmgewehr to the new bullpup "spaceguns." It just hasn't been used on the AR platform until recently.

32 posted on 03/24/2015 8:49:25 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

Ooooooo....Now that DOES make my little heart patter ;)


33 posted on 03/24/2015 8:51:28 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

Please disregard my earlier ignorant comment about burning speed. A .243/6mm about 85-90 gr. could probably do really well with a military barrel at a reasonable speed.


34 posted on 03/24/2015 8:59:51 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Please disregard my earlier ignorant comment about burning speed. A .243/6mm about 85-90 gr. could probably do really well with a military barrel at a reasonable speed.

What the hell is wrong with you? Isn't current FR protocol to reach up your a$$ to the elbow and pull out some tangential bit of esoterica to preserve the viability of your original statement?

Geez, you remind me of the old days when people around here knew how to argue, and more importantly, when to concede!

I think I'll report you to the mods ;)

35 posted on 03/24/2015 9:09:55 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

My same recollection. The 5.56 round was smaller but tended to “rotate” and “disintegrate” once it entered the target, causing an astonishing amount of internal “soft tissue” damage to the target. I believe I read at one point that the 5.56 round was actually being touted as a round that caused “excessive” damage to a target due to the way it acted once it entered said “soft” target.


36 posted on 03/24/2015 9:14:27 PM PDT by Pox (Good Night. I expect more respect tomorrow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: familyop

Over All Length OAL of the .243 is between 2.6 and 2.7 is gonna put the rifle in a 7.62 x 51 mag well size lower which holds the nato round OAL around 2.75..... So think SR-25 or AR-10 size rifle.....Mk 11 Hk series. More than a just a barrel swap sadly. The 243 with a 105gr ball round runs around 2900 fps...... love the load. Plus....as we’re not in a fight with a uniformed enemy go to a boat tail hollow point to use on ISIS style enemies.

Stay Safe !


37 posted on 03/24/2015 9:28:18 PM PDT by Squantos ( Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

:o)


38 posted on 03/24/2015 9:29:31 PM PDT by Squantos ( Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: yarddog

Oh its a powerful round in 160gr ball..... 240 rounds basic combat load would be heavier than ...... ;o)


39 posted on 03/24/2015 9:32:44 PM PDT by Squantos ( Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Redcitizen
The Army could do two things that would increase both the lethality and reliability of its legacy 5.56 NATO weapons.

1. Standardize the 6.8 SPC (6.8 Remington) as a replacement for the 5.56 NATO. [The 6.8 SPC was specifically designed to work in weapons designed for the 5.56 NATO cartridge.]

2. Standardize a gas piston drive upper receiver like the HK416 and that will cure the carbine's reliability problems.

3. All legacy weapons in inventory could be easily converted to the new caliber by changing barrels, bolt assemblies (and carriers), magazines, and modifying the M27 links to 6.8 SPC for the M219/Mk 46 SAW. Change over would cost far less than a new rifle and training and logistics would hardly be affected.

Either that or start issuing the .30 caliber M1 carbines issued as control weapons for the last M5 carbine tests that the troops preferred over the M4! The US Army has been a total cluster flock when it has tried to replace the M4 carbines.

40 posted on 03/24/2015 10:15:32 PM PDT by MasterGunner01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson