From today's Stars and Stripes website

May be old news, but this was released today:
BAMBERG, Germany — Calling it “the biggest overhaul of service rifles in nearly 50 years,” the Army soon will send soldiers to Afghanistan with new M4A1 carbines.

Upgrades to the M4 include a more resilient barrel, ambidextrous controls and a full-automatic setting. Add better ammunition, and soldiers will have a more lethal weapon to fight insurgents, according to Program Executive Office Soldier, which introduced the improvements.

The new carbines are expected to be integrated into the force starting next year.

Soldiers in Afghanistan expressed enthusiasm about the improvements, especially the ability to shoot on fully automatic.

“That would be sweet. You could definitely get more lead downrange,” said Sgt. Aaron Billington of the 10th Mountain Division at Kandahar Air Field.

Billington, 26, of Syracuse, N.Y. — who is on his first deployment to Afghanistan, but also served in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad in 2004 — wasn’t even worried about the extra 5 ounces of weight that comes with the more resilient barrel. The new barrel was needed to sustain the higher rate of fire when the weapon is used in fully automatic mode.

He said the heavier barrel could improve accuracy and give the weapon better stability.

“What we have found with soldiers is that when you give them that capability, they are OK with adding a little bit of weight,” said Col. Douglas Tamilio, the PEO Soldier project manager for weapons.
Advertisement

Spc. Jake Barnhill thinks soldiers will have to carry more ammo as a result.

Going fully automatic would definitely give each soldier more firepower, Barnhill said. But being in a firefight will also use ammunition more quickly.

Today’s soldiers carry 210 rounds into combat. That’s a problem easily solved, said Barnhill, another 10th Mountain soldier.

“Just up the size of our basic load,” he said.

Not everyone is convinced that the upgrades are necessary.

Adding full-automatic fire mode to the M4 is a huge mistake, said Staff Sgt. Lincoln Dockery, a combat engineer stationed in Bamberg.

“The whole purpose of having riflemen is to accurately engage the enemy,” Dockery said. “With full auto, soldiers will stop aiming and just point, shoot and hope, like the enemy does.”

Tamilio, an infantry officer, said it’s up to leaders on the ground to ensure soldiers are trained on when to use the full-auto option.

And Army officials said the ability to fire on full-automatic is less about a higher rate of fire than providing a consistent trigger pull in both the semi-automatic and fully automatic modes — something soldiers had requested.

Better bullets

The upgrades to the carbine are not the only thing making the M4A1 more effective.

In July, the Army began issuing new ammunition because soldiers complained that the old M855 round was not effective at close range. Enemies often would endure several bullet strikes before falling.

But the M855A1 has been designed with more stopping power, no matter the enemy’s distance, Tamilio said.

“The problem with the [old] M855 round was that it was yaw dependent,” he said, meaning the bullet flew in a straight path at close range, lowering its efficacy. If the round is tilted when it strikes the target, it causes the round to break up more quickly, making it more lethal.

“You need the round to fragment to create a large wound cavity when exiting the body,” Tamilio said.

The M855A1 fragments more consistently than the old round, Tamilio said.

The improvement of the more than 500,000 M4s in the Army’s inventory will be broken down into three phases and will take four or five years, Tamilio said.

Most of the troops who will receive the initial push of M4A1s will be in units preparing to deploy, Tamilio said. But the weapons and upgrade kits can be sent to Afghanistan for soldiers if need be, he said.

blottenbergerd@estripes.osd.mil

So changing to a slightly heavier barrel is a bigger overhaul than going from a Fixed stock 20 inch Rifle with iron sights to a 16 inch Carbine with a RDS and collapsible stock?

Sorry just amused by the wording in the article.

Naturally, increasing buffer weight (to an H2) to increase FA controllability and decrease ROF is omitted from the ‘upgrade’.

KAC, DD, BCM, SIG, and multiple other European gun/barrel companies have already demonstrated that cold hammer forging can produce barrels that are tougher AND lighter. I think the heavier profile is an un-necessary addition. I think it would be akin, in the car world, to just adding engine displacement instead of using variable valve timing, direct injection, and variable volume intake plenums.

Shouldn’t the focus be on innovation? The last thing we need is a 10 pound M4 shooting M855-ish (or worse) ammo. What’s next…a 12lb Ruger 10-22 shooting 24gr lead round nose .22lr? It seems we’re moving backward here. I’m not an engineer…just my layman’s humble opinion. :rolleyes:

It would also seem to indicate that there won’t be a new main battle rifle fielded for the Army in the next 5 years either.

The M4 is aircooled. Adding material to the barrel improves it’s durability and it’s cooling capacity. The barrel will be able to handle more heat (BTUs) while keeping the temperatures lower. That reduces throat erosion and improves barrel life even if you don’t shoot full auto or do mag dumps

I guess my point is that cold hammer forging allows a barrel of equivalent toughness to be thinner and lighter, or a barrel of greater durability to be the same weight and profile. Using the same process and just adding material the least efficient option. Using a better barrel making process would have been more innovative, of more benefit to the soldier, and more efficient (both with weight and longevity). If we’re buying 500,000 new barrels, the .MIL might as well get as much improvement for their dollar as possible. This is not occurring with the current procurement of 500,000 heavier barrels of button-rifle manufacture.

So… the Army reacts to poor marksmanship and longer engagement ranges by giving barely trained soldiers full-auto and a heavier weapon?

Nice. That’ll work.

This will get interesting quick… 6mags goes way too fast anyway. I can’t imagine being able to get focused in on something and just holding the trigger down. Interesting…

How dumb.

At least the USMC will still have people that can shoot accurately at longer ranges.

Why just issue everyone a SAW if they think full auto is the way to kill people.

“Now we can send more lead down range!”…:rolleyes:

Haha… the Marine Corps is issuing a replacement for the SAW…

full auto is an ok thing to have but, I know for a fact I’ll never use it for anything besides novelty. the heavier barrel is nice, being able to put more accurate rounds downrange with less accuracy loss will be nice. not to mention going away from the 203 notch. and if the new M855A1 performs better than the normal M855, more power to it.

the fact that the weapon is heavier makes no real difference to me, with all the crap that’s already on it, it easily weighs over 12lbs with the 203 notch. whats another pound and a half?

The only thing that bothers me is, now that there will be no 203 notch, what are we gonna do with the current inventory of 203’s? and how long will it be before we get the new rail attached ones?

just my observations and notes
:big_boss:

The M4A1 barrel still has the M203 notch. Its just heavier under the handguards.

oh ok. i thought they went with a totally heavier profile barrel. makes sense.

Most soldiers dont use burst, just as most wont use the full auto. In my eyes there isnt a difference there, I can shoot a weapon on burst nearly as fast as if it was auto.

In Nam we would shoot one magazine full auto gain fire superiority then move gradually towards enemy who would jump in a tunnel system that we could not find. But atleast that would make them run and hide without further WIA’s incurred on our front.

Unless you’re using a grenade launcher, I don’t know why your carbine would weigh so much…

Now if it were an M-16, ok, but for an M-4? With a KAC rail, PEQ-2, Aimpoint, and loaded magazine, it should be right around 9 lbs. It should be more than 12 lbs if you’re using a grenade launcher on top of everything else.

Hmm. I just reread that article…it didn’t mention reacting to poor marksmanship once.

The problems ARE poor marksmanship, poor maintenance, and all the alternatives to the M4 are heavy bitches.

I don’t care what the article says, those are the real problems the Army faces.

No-one, nowhere is asking the jackasses who replace/upgrade our Army’s individual weapons to give the soldier full-auto capability. It has no real purpose.

My point is that out of all the things they could give the soldier, the very, very, very last thing he/she really needs is full-auto capability in a personal arm.

It’s as if the Army was a man who struggles across the desert without water, and just before thirsting to death, PEO gives him a fucking ham sandwich, and writes a press release trumpeting that fact.

Which is just not true of heavier barrels.

not to mention going away from the 203 notch. and if the new M855A1 performs better than the normal M855, more power to it.

M855A1 really isn’t better than the alternatives.

the fact that the weapon is heavier makes no real difference to me, with all the crap that’s already on it, it easily weighs over 12lbs with the 203 notch. whats another pound and a half?

First time ever I’ve heard of someone not caring if their weapon is heavier. Especially out on the barrel, where it effects how quickly one can swing the barrel round at close-quarters.

Quoted for emphasis because I think a lot of people do not comprehend that these are serious issues.