Posted on 10/23/2002 2:39:06 PM PDT by SlickWillard
The Marine Corps chose a new infantry rifle, and it’s not the short assault rifle with which the Army equipped soldiers in the Afghan campaigns.
Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., announced last week it would buy 65,463 of the M-16A4 service rifles for infantry Marines between now and 2007.
The new rifle resembles the M-16A2 service rifle in use now but allows for add-on parts as emerging technology warrants.
After head-to-head comparison tests, the Marines rejected the M-4, the shorter rifle the Army issued to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.
“The ground board chose the M-16A4 over the M-4 because it had a lesser frequency of malfunctions,” said Marine Corps officials from Headquarters Marine Corps in a prepared statement. “The initial units will be fielded to Ground Combat Elements.”
The M-4 received sharp criticism from soldiers who fought the Taliban in Afghanistan earlier this year in Operation Anaconda and Mountain Lion. Some soldiers complained bullets used in the rifle lacked stopping power, according to a survey Army officials conducted. They also noted that heat shields in the hand guards often rattled, prompting soldiers to remove them, only to burn their hands from overheating hand guards.
Marine support units will continue to use the M-16A2 rifles.
The old rifles were nearing the end of their life cycles and needed replacement, according to the Marine Corps statement. But Corps officials also wanted to be able to integrate attachments Marines could need for different missions, such as flashlights, laser sights and a rail system for interchangeable sights and scopes.
In a head-to-head performance comparison between the M-16A4 and the M-4, a shorter carbine version with a collapsible stock, Marine officials found few similarities.
“Both weapons have flat-top receivers with the 1913 Military Standard rails for mounting optics, as well as forward rail hand guards,” said Marine Capt. John Douglas, project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command.
The new rifle can handle standard rifle sights plus night vision options and scopes. The rifle also can be fitted with a vertical forward handgrip.
But that’s where comparisons end. The M-4 is 10 inches shorter and one pound lighter than the current M-16A2.
Marine officials found some deficiencies in the M-4. In tests and surveys conducted last July at Camp Lejeune, N.C., most Marines preferred the M-4 over the longer M-16A4 for most combat situations, but the M-4 had more malfunctions, they said. The comparisons were based on Infantry Training Standards and reviewed by Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity.
“Though the number was very low for each weapon, the M-4 was found to have three times the number of weapons malfunctions as the M-16A4,” the statement read. There was no significant difference in accuracy between the two rifles.
Several Marine units already use the M-4, including Force Reconnaissance platoons, Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security teams and Military Police Special Response teams. Those units will continue to use the M-4, and the Marines still may purchase more in the future after corrections are made to reduce malfunctions, said the Marine Corps statement.
5.56mm
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
The Court can not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia; and therefore can not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon
-- United States vs Miller et al. May 15, 1939
Sure sounds to me that the only weapons the 2nd Amendment applies to are weapons that are related to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. If the infantry soldier is using it...
What did I do? I'm only being a good citizen/militia member. ;)
So9
Hey, if you've got a Colt, that's great - seriously. I'm just told by those supposed to be "in the know" that FN got the contract on the new carbines. That's coming from several different contacts in the Army, and in USAF CATM.
Mine is an FN contract M4, as are many I have seen on FTXs and on the range... I have no problem with the functioning of the Colts coming out of the factory today - I'm just seeing better machining on the FNs. The same quality is showing up on the FN manufactured M249s and the newer M240s...
Regards,
Raven6
Agreed - hense my statement: "While I appreciate the fact that the Corp wants to maintain its own image...
Stay armed,
Raven6
Using the 1 in 9 twist rate that stabilizes the 62 grain round now in use:
0.61 turns
Stay armed,
Raven6
The A4 is exactly the same weapon as an A2, except the carrying handle is removable, revealing a track that is flush with the rest of the weapon. On this track you can various accessories (optics of varying sorts). Can't say I agree with the Marines' choice in this case, though. The M4 is a great weapon, and if there were problems discovered in the field, then the M4 should be corrected accordingly, then acquired by the Marines. Just my two cents...
Outside of very slight variations (usually within the tolerances of manufacturing) you are correct that the lower receiver, as well as the upper receiver are the same. The differences between the two lie in the overall barrel length and the "receiver extension" a/k/a the tube in which the recoil spring rides inside the full stock (and acts, in a way, as part of the stock on the collapsible stocked carbine.) The receiver extension on the carbine is shorter.
The gas pressure would not be bleeding off more quickly on the M4 versus the M16A4 due to the following: The pressure is not passed back through the gas tube until the bullet passes the gas port, located in the barrel, under (hidden by) the front sight tower (which in itself acts to transmit the gas into the gas tube and on into the key on top of the bolt carrier.) The distance from the gas port to the muzzle is the same for the M4 with a 14.5" barrel as it is for the M16A4 with the 20" barrel. As the bullets would be traveling at the same speed, the time allowed (over distance) for gas pressure to build would be the same. The same bayonet fits both weapons, distance being the same. The difference in the barrel length lies between the front sight tower and the front of the upper receiver.
In regard to anything intrinsic to the design that could be sited... Well, when the original Colt Commando came out with its 10.5" barrel, it was equipped with a short 4.5" flash/sound suppressor. Soldiers (on more than one occasion that I know of) got the wild idea that removing the 4.5" suppressor would give them an even shorter, more handy weapon... "Who needs a sound suppressor in the middle of a fire fight? Right?" They took off the sound suppressor and replaced it with a standard "bird cage" flash suppressor - and then found themselves with a very cool looking single shot carbine. This occurred because of the lack of gas pressure. Once the bullet passed the gas port, it was only in the barrel for about 1.5 inches - not enough time to allow sufficient pressure to build and cycle the action of the weapon. There are companies out there that offer 10.5" barrels for "registered short barreled rifles and class III weapons" (taxed and registered), but without the original 4.5" flash/sound suppressor (another taxed and registered item), there are function problems with the weapon. Other companies offer 11.5" barrels that seem to function without the suppressor, but I wouldn't want my life to depend upon them. These carbines get more fouled as they are fired. Because of this, they require more gas pressure the dirtier they get in order to cycle the action. 11.5" barrels might work fine on a freshly cleaned weapon, but might cause a failure to cycle in the midst of a firefight when the weapon is fouled.
Sorry for the long winded reply, but I wanted to answer your questions properly. My company teaches the "armorer" aspect of the M4, as well as the "operator" aspect - so I can sometimes get a little passionate about the subject.
Stay armed,
Raven6
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.