Marines choose M-16A4 as infantry rifle

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.

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.

I find the statement of more malfunctions with the M4 carbine completely unbelievable.

The shorter gas system in the carbine length rifles is supposedly at fault for the M4 being statistically less reliable than the 20" gun in Army service. The Army recently completed a series of upgrades and modifications to the M4 to enhance reliability, minor changes to the gas system, buffer and magazines. M4's tend to get dirtier, faster and are more vulnerable to fouling than 20" rifles.

As to the Corp's selection of the full length rifle, they should be commended. The short gun has it's place in specific scenarios, as you mentioned, but the 20" rifle exhibits superior penetration and range at enagement ranges past 100yd. A combination of short/long guns provides the optimal solution, rather than completely abandoning the capability to effectively range targets past 500m.

The scoped 20" AR rules IPSC rifle competition, where many consider it to point slightly better, with lighter recoil, than the carbine.

Note that the information comes from Armalite - the company that did not get the contract for the M4s (even though they bid on it aggressively, and were going to build the same weapon had they won it.)

What he names as the chief problem with the reliability of the M4 results from the fact that the bolt carrier assembly is moving at a much higher velocity than that of the rifle, this due to the higher (doubled) pressure - a product of the gas being tapped earlier. Notice that no where in the "tech note" does he mention that the velocity of the carrier, and thus the motion of the bolt itself (and its extractor) was slowed with the new M4 buffer assembly, identified by the letter "H" (heavy) stamped on its face. The "H" buffer brings the cyclic rate down to approximately that of the standard rifle.

The other problems that he mentions, such as cartridge case relationship to chamber, barrel overheating and resulting molecular changes, etc. are all a direct result of a lack of heat dissipation due to the high rate of fire allowed with the standard (not the "H") buffer. Again, slow down the rate of fire to that of the rifle and you have lowered the reliability problems to approximately the same percentage of those found on the rifle (at least in the areas of malfunction relating to cyclic rate and heat disipation that Mr. Westrom discusses.)

I am surprised that he didn't bring up the possibility of rounds "cooking off" in the chamber after sustained full automatic fire (or continous cycling of the "burst" mode.) This can happen too - on carbine or the rifle. But to do so would not have added his argument against the M4 and for the rifle. I monitored the results of the testing on the M4 closely and remember the problem of high cyclic rate and its ugly symptoms. It was merely a problem of slowing down the machinery so that it didn't destroy itself (and its operator.)

Armalite builds a good weapon - I'm not trying to tear them down as a company. But to me, posting something like this as a "technical note" is something akin to those little advertisements that appear in the newspaper disguised as an actual news article - the ones that the newspaper is kind enough to mark "paid advertisement" in small letters up at the top of the ad for us. There are some facts missing that have a very heavy impact on the story here. And if those facts had been included the story would not have been a story at all. I will tell you that I am disappointed to see what could be called a "high engineering technology" hit piece on the M4 being distributed by Armalite. It was written on such a level so as to leave the average reader with the idea: "I'm not sure what all this means, but it doesn't sound good - hope I don't ever have to rely on an M4."

The M4 has had the hell tested out of it and it works well. As with any new piece of machinery, there are always some flaws that have to work themselves to the surface over time before they can be corrected. That is how the M16 became M16A1 became the M16A2 and so on. I have relied on the M4 while under fire, and will continue to recommend and instruct the operation of it.

Stay armed,
Raven6

The M4 has had the hell tested out of it and it works well

Absolutely - it's rapidly becoming the LE/SRT long arm of choice for it's ease of handling, slew of accessory choices, and proven design. For those same reasons, it also makes perfect sense for SOF, aviation, armor and combat support soldiers.

For the infantry rifleman, though, the long gun has specific advantages regarding it's ability to deliver faster transitions, more lethality, and enhanced penetration at extended range. For those reasons alone, I was pleased with the USMC decision.

The A4 offers all the modularity, and then some, of the M4 MWS/SOPMOD and additional velocity, accuracy (arguably) and lethality with a negligible tradeoff in weight and maneuver given the typical infantry mission.

They are giving up some utility in the CQB environment - but they also have the new M1014 combat sgn, it's a bit longer than the M4 but for military CQB ops it offers tremendous firepower and high hit probability.

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.