I came across these two articles via Military.com, relating to the use of M4 carbines. It’s a fair amount of reading, but should give insight to the service’s differing perspective of infantry rifles.
http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/09/marine-corps-passes-on-army-carbine-updates-091110w/ Corps to pass on Army upgrades to M4
‘With its shorter barrel, a carbine has limited range and takedown power on targets beyond 200 yards. It’s “more an extension of the pistol than it is an adjustment to the rifle,” the commandant said. Most of the Corps’ infantry uses the M16A4.’
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/army-seeks-better-carbine-082810w/ Army wants soldiers to have improved carbine
’ For soldiers “consistently using that M4 and satisfied with that M4, to know the Army is going out there to get you something better … that’s pretty damn exciting,” Tamilio said. “And that’s only going to make you more effective on the battlefield.” ’
Interesting. I agree the free float rail and maybe a good BCG coating would be a great improvement. Switching to Pmags, or something like that, would make a huge difference.
My brother in law was a Marine grunt in Fallujah in 2004. He told me they put the ACOGs on the few M4s in their platoon because they fealt it needed more accurate shot placement to be effective than the M16.
I dont agree with that logic but it does show how the Corps feels about the M4.
Huh, well that is interesting. I wonder what exactly this upgrade kit is going to entail? The article mentions:
“…a heavier, more durable barrel…” Well that kind of sucks. The M4A1 barrel is a big step backwards IMO. I wish they would look into a 14.5" lightweight profile barrel with a mid-length gas system. I just think this is the “sweet spot” with the carbine sized AR platform, especially is you are going to be feeding it a diet of nothing but 5.56 NATO ammunition.
“…strengthened site rails…” We can only hope they mean the DD M4 RIS-II. I hope so, that would be a step in the right direction. The 7" rail just isn’t enough for all of the crap they expect you to mount to one of these carbines anymore. A 12" rail would be the heat.
“…a piston-charged operating system…” Oh HELL no. If that is true that REALLY sucks. I guess someone was able to make the .gov buy into their snake oil. I wonder which one? Must be the magic one made out of unobtanium that doesn’t reduce accuracy, doesn’t increase recoil, doesn’t eventually crack the receiver and wear out the buffer tube, and actually works as advertised. :rolleyes: I’ll believe it when I see it.
“…the ability to fire in full automatic mode…” OK on this point I will say…HELL YES! I would have given just about anything to have my issued M4 be capable of FA fire. Many situations where I could have used this, and I always felt 3 round burst is completely useless.
Maybe with the new mags the gov will see a remarkable improvement in the M4 and not go with the pistons after all. It says in the article that the piston wont come for a while after the other improvements.
Both show in different ways how far from reality the people making these equipment decisions are.
You can’t tell the enemy not to fight in an urban area because we want to fight them at 500m.
The ability to butt stroke is not a more important feature on a modern combat weapon that the ability to engage the enemy with accurate rifle fire while wearing body armor.
The M4 is not an open bolt machine gun. It should not be used as such. Being able to fire a few more mags after cookoff temps but before the barrel bursts is not a realistic performance gain, it’s an admission of poor tactics. Why not just move a few ounces of the extra material forward of the FSB to the failure point?
Changing barrels and considering a free float rail, why not consider going to a Middy 14.5"-16"?
I’ll try and read those article tonight, when I have more time. I may have read them already.
What’s a really good read, though, is a paper written in the early 80’s by a US Army Major I think. Its on officialy letter head, so I believe its some kind of official report.
Its basically why the Army didn’t want the M16a2. It goes into the differences in Army and USMC doctrine, and how the A2 supports Marine doctrin not Army doctrin.
It continues into modifications it would like to see, in the M16a1PIP. This included night sights, a flat top, shorter or even better adjustable stock, a free float type forarm, ambi controls.
Excellent read, I believe it was posted over at LF, and its been talked about here before, but I have no link.
It would appear, knucklehead spokesman aside, the Army is finally getting what it really wanted all along.
Honestly Frens take it from me a former 101st Light Infantryman, the days of the bayonet are over. Not to mention purely from a technical aspect the RIS-II will preclude the use of a bayonet anyway. I think if anything they may come out with some fangled rail mounted bayonet if the need arises.
Also the HK M320 40mm launcher is rail mounted and is slated to replace the M203 (thank god!).
Honestly even a 16" middy would be great, but the 14.5" would be handier for CQB type work. It is sadly a pipe dream at this point though.
I will reserve judgment until I see the end result. Since this is a few years out, I probably wont get to touch one of these new and improved M4’s till I deploy anyway.
The Marines are not the Army, and they should have as much autonomy they need to handle their mission and purpose in a fashion they see fit.
We’re still going to be reliant on their supply chain much too often, so I can understand why the DoD has to rein in our autonomy. Same reason the IAR will probably have a very limited lifetime.
Mk318 seems to be the largest step in the right direction for small arms over the last year, and the Army still can’t get behind it.
The same way I was mystified that instead of upgrading M16A2’s we bought new weapons to move to A4, we’ll probably do the same thing with adding EMOD stocks and having to buy new 20" rifles for the same reason. I agree that telescoping stocks are an absolute requirement (5’ Marines wearing MTV’s literally can’t reach the trigger - problem).
Once we’re evaluating the purchase of a partially new weapon system, I agree that a 16" middy with free float rail needs to be on the table, in addition to lowers that integrate ambidextrous function. Alternate 12.5"/11.5" uppers need to be on the table, and those should accomplish most of what the PDW contracts were seeking, and just keep buying up Mk12 uppers whenever precision 5.56 is required.
This could probably all be done for the price of a couple C17’s (don’t get me started how much TARP funds could be used).
Still, in all parts of the DOD, these decisions are being made by those too far removed from use, and not by armorers and infantrymen. I look forward to more weapons that reflect the DoD’s recent procurement trend.
I too, am a former 101st Light Infantryman, albeit a bit before your time, but I believe there is still a place for the bayonet. I particularly like the Marine Corps idea of a bayonet/fighting knife. We still train in pugil sticks, but teach combatives with an emphasis on ground fighting:confused:. If I’m on the ground, then things have gone terribly wrong. With a rifle mounted bayonet, then I can most probably prevent that ground scenario. Bayonet not mounted? Guess I better know how to use a knife because if I’m on the ground wearing 50-60lbs of shit, then I’m in a deep world of doo doo. Don’t misunderstand me, I do believe there’s a place for combatives, but don’t believe it should focus so much on Brazilian Ju-Jitsu ground fighting. I think we would be better served teaching something a little more practical and easier to learn. Krav Maga maybe?
True. Time and time again in military history, we have seen the lesson reiterated that the infantryman is the backbone of modern warfare, all propaganda from the Airforce aside. There is still a place for the bayonet. Particularly in defensive situations at night, like the battle of Wanut in Afghanistan, the bayonet has still had a role.
Nonetheless, the PRIMARY reason the Marine Corps and other units still train pugil sticks, etc. is not because of the likelihood of bayonet encounters, but rather for the psychological training reason of promoting agressivness in its warriors. IMHO, they should indeed teach such things, but also start emphasizing proper weapon manipulation drills and tactical reloads, etc. even more.
