http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_d5178284-f2f4-11e1-8aa5-0019bb2963f4.html
Looks like Bastogne is putting full auto capability in the rifleman’s hands for their next rendezvous with destiny…
Other then being full auto with a milled forearm and being manufactured by Remington what else is different from the standard M4 rifle?
From The Fort Campbell Courier:
"Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”
Makes sense to me.
Ah… heavier barrel and better trigger… a wash
Nice to see a PFC and 1st SGT competing for most ignorant quotes.
for your reading pleasure…
Soldiers of Company B, 1st Special Troops Battalion, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, went to the range Tuesday to test out the new M4A1 Carbine, 5.56mm rifles issued to the unit last week.
“We are preparing our Soldiers with more capabilities with continuous rounds to return fire with the enemy by training and qualifying with our new weapons for our upcoming deployment to Afghanistan,” said Capt. Marci Hanson, the commander of Bravo Company, 1st STB.
The newly upgraded M4A1 rifles will replace the M4 and M16A2 rifles for the Soldiers deploying over the next few months.
In April 2012, the Army announced that they would begin purchasing 120,000 M4A1 rifles for front line units deploying to Afghanistan. The contract runs through 2014 with the first 24,000 of these rifles being manufactured by the Remington Arms Company.
“The three round burst option on the old rifles no longer exists and was replaced with what is now an automatic option,” said Sgt. 1st Class James Stanley, Co. B, 1st STB, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the fielding for the M4A1 range.
“The point of impact will be more effective for the Soldiers deployed and that has been heavily anticipated for many Soldiers returning for another deployment with the new features,” said Stanley.
“I think the new M4A1’s automatic feature was excellent and I can definitely feel the difference against my shoulder when firing from three rounds to a continuous effect of ammunition being released,” said Pfc. Bryan Chapman, Co. B, 1st STB.
Chapman said that it is understandable not to use weapons such as the M4A1 during training and peacetime because of the possible waste of ammunition, but for down range it is different.
Chapman says that, “Down range, in combat situations, you are not going to want to just ‘squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger, squeeze trigger’ in order to return fire on an enemy that will have an automatic weapon firing back at you. There is no point in an enemy being more capable of firing at us when we have the number one power in the world and the capability to fire back.”
The M4A1 provides the individual Soldier operating in close quarters the capability to engage enemies at extended range with accurate, lethal fire.
“It is important that we get the training needed with these weapons before deployment because there is definitely a difference between the three round burst and shooting a weapon in an automatic setting,” said Chapman.
Hanson said that she can hear the difference and see the excitement with her Soldiers but also looks forward to using the M4A1 rifle as well.
Fully automatic fire is, aside from very specific instances, a complete waste of ammo.
“Squeze, squeeze, squeeze”, ie making accurate and effective hits is what works. 1 bullet snapping past a guys head is infinately more effective than 10 rounds whizzing by 3-4 meters above their heads.
Burst and auto are only there for certain situations. If that need arises I’d rather have full auto.
If this has been asked before, forgive as it’s a fairly vague set of keywords in a search…
Has anyone every designed or thought of adding both burst and full auto to the M16 FOW? Kind of like the FN FNC has.
I mean besides the lowers having to be remarked, is that even possible with the way an AR action works?
unless its belt fed and on a mount or tripod, full auto is a complete and udder waste. The army needs to retool it s firearms training completely but it will probably never happen.
Auto triggers have fewer parts and a single pull weight. It’s better than burst though I see little need for auto.
A bigger improvement would be ordering the Block II.
Part in green is facepalm worthy. Part in red is what I call effective fire.
I think the auto trigger is a huge upgrade over a burst trigger though, proper trigger pull that is the same every time will increase accuracy and be a huge upgrade over having three different trigger pulls.
why do people think firing in automatic will be more effective than semi? because someone shooting at you does it?
Block II is a SOCOM thing, I doubt the Army would ever see it. They are working on getting a FF rail issued though, as we speak testing is taking place on the entrants. I think I read middle of 2013 will be the selection of them?
I mean is this really what is being trained? shoot at the enemy at cyclic rates?
I hope that is sarcasm?
No burst trigger and a FF rail are GTG in my book. FA and heavy barrel, I could take it or leave it. None of it will improve qual scores or general marksmanship, that would take actual time and ammo…
I have completely mixed feelings on the issue, but I’m leaning towards “Bad Idea.”
If more volume is truly needed, they should be incorporating more SAWs into patrols.
Look for this to turn into more black-on-ammo KIAs, which will turn into dudes (willfully or not) carrying a completely retarded number of mags with them.
Funny that it’s the STB too… I wonder if they practice their “Death Blossom” in garrison? 
The Marine Corps experience with the M27 and qualification has shown that either we were giving our M27 to all the best shooters in the Battalions or the increase in accuracy potential actually was showing increase in average scores.
For the record, the US Army Marksmanship Unit formally recommended the Army adopt the standard M16A1 trigger (full auto) or the 2-stage Geiselle Super Select Fire trigger, along with the Daniel Defense Omega free-float rail (no permanent alterations to the base gun required).
The A1 trigger is still in production, it has fewer moving parts than the A2/A4 trigger, and it has a single break rather than three distinctly different creepy pulls. Full-auto was NOT the defining capability (as all of USSOCOM’s weapons have been full-auto since day 1 of M4A1 delivery).
Is the M16A1 trigger the same as the M4A1 trigger?
From that perspective the change to an FA group makes sense. It seemed the article focused more on the supposed increase in soldier effectiveness with a fully automatic gun.
Yes, it is. The civilian who shoots a standard AR trigger has essentially the same thing without full-auto or all the three-round burst crap (a cam, two disconnectors, etc.).
How about the SSF? As someone who has used both the standard A1 on auto and the SSF on auto whats the difference, is it really that much better? Or the main benefit of the SSF in the semi-auto pull? Ive got an SSA and the difference between it and the mil-spec trigger is night and day.
Some of you guys need to realize exactly who is being quoted in this article. They’re not talking to SOF guys, switched on combat arms guys, etc. Of course they’re saying face palm worthy stuff.
M4A1 is a good thing, regardless of who is getting them.