I find it interesting that they quote some doctor that says it’s the gun. He states that the M4 has a 14.5" barrel… ~measures the barrel of his M4~ Huh, maybe my ruler is off.
I also have trouble with the idea of CQB with an M14, even a shortened one.
My buddy, just back from Iraq hates 5.56, but he used to be a M60 gunner so I know how partial he is to 7.62.
Plenty of experienced operators still swear by the M4, though they may use different rounds for different missions.
And I have definitely seen bad guys “shake off” 30 cal. hits too.
I think too many people have this Hollywood image of getting touched by a bullet and dying. The common statistic I have heard is that gunshots are only 5% lethal. Compare that to the 35% lethality of knifings…
I know that there are an infinite number of variables when we talk about trauma that cannot be quantified, nor reduced to bullet size.
That “some doctor” you mentioned is COL Martin Fackler, former director of the Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory and founder of the IWBA. Dr. Fackler is a very experienced combat surgeon and the progenitor of modern wound ballistic research–he DEFINITELY knows what he is discussing–with 5.56 mm FMJ, it is all about velocity. Oh, BTW, the M4 and M4A1 have 14.5" barrels…
Just to be clear, I am a big fan of 5.56NATO Hornady 75gr TAP and BH MK262 Mod 1 and 2. That said, for lack of a better term, it isn’t “hardened” combat ammunition in the same way the M855 is. Both lack primer and neck sealant, and as Doc GKR said, some of the earlier powder had pressure spikes in heat or after high temp storage. I have seen dozens of blown primers from 1 particular lot of USGI MK262.
Interestingly, the more recent lots of MK 262 I’ve shot have not been as accurate as the lots I shot in 01-02.
Another interesting side note is that the original user of Hornady 5.56NATO TAP had some reliability issues with that round also—apparently some guns would run fine with it and some would not. The guns were standard Colt M4A1s.
On the flip side, I’ve also seen numerous M4A1s shot with Federals 62gr Bonded Tactical load. This load frequently set bullets back into the case so far that they were completely unseated and you could pour powder out of the “loaded” round. I saw this at least a half dozen times out of a small sampling.
M855 has all sorts of issues such as (comparatively to, say, MK262) mediocre terminal performance and mediocre accuracy but it certainly goes “bang” every time.
I am not that good at remembering all the numbers, but what little I know about the M4 velocities says that the 16" barrel of the M4 produces a velocity capable of tumbling the bullet on two inches of penentration. From what I have read, this tumbling is what earned the M16 the nickname “Evil Black Gun” by the Vietnamese. I have seen the horrific wounds that it causes and am satisfied with the trauma that it induces, even on “skinny”, unarmored bad-guys. I also like that it doesn’t penetrate too far, like 7.62, and lowers the risk of hitting security and support guys outside the building.
In the service I used what I was issued, M855 62 grain. Contracting, I used 55grain, usually M193 surplus. I used to swear by the 55-grain, but I have been told by the instructors at Blackwater that heavier bullets have a higher velocity, thus tumble more reliably.
Don’t get me wrong, I like 7.62. Give me those long guns on overwatch or three M60s on tripods in support anyday. I like watching them perforate their targets: trucks, huts, bunkers, mobile homes…
So much of combat is based on dramatic experience, it’s easy to get strong opinions based on exceptional incidents. For a long time I hated using a collapsable stock because I had seen one shatter which led to some really tense moments on a room entry.
I think training is still the biggest issue, especially in the Army, but I could rant on that for pages.
THE M4/M4A1 has a 14.5" barrel - end full stop.
Civilian guns typically have 16" barrels to avoid the NFA issues.
I had a lot of Hornady TAP where the brass was not properly annealed and it split at the neck and flame cut thru the brass and marred some chambers. Circa 1999-2000 time frame.
I have (touch wood) no setback issues with the Mk262 Mod1 so far – the 0 was having problems similar to the 69gr GM that State issued briefly here.
The issue is M855 is not a great barrier round either – its vaunted semi/light armor piercing capabilities dont really do a lot. Mk262 does a reasonable job messing up an auto, but M995 does it better – and frankly I dont like any 5.56mm round for trying to “tear shit up”.
In the wrung what you brung world here there are still a lot of systems out there that are capable of defeating obstacles and barriers.
I think in the interim a better 5.56mm round needs to be found and quickly fielded.
However I think the priority must be better training and more of it.
After that we can look at fielding a better system - a la Hk418 (IIRC that is the 416 in 6.8 right?) or Mk17 in that 7mmMurray or whatever.
One problem with annecdoatal troop info from my own experiences – I once shot a guy @ 400m with a Mk18, I also burned a car (Bongo Van) with 1 x round of Mk262 Mod1 (who knew a single round into the engine could sever a fuel line and somehow cause a fire – BigRed was there and laughing too hard). I’ve shot a guy [who drove off later] with 4 rounds from an Ak does that mean 7.62x39 is worthless ( I think so, but that is another story). Individual results need to be taken in context – what about the many people I may have missed with a Mk18? Failure with other things? People, and myself included, tend to fixate on one or two events and as such the objectivity and the whole picutre is lost.
The M4/M4A1 is an excellent weapon system, and M855 is an okay performer. that said I beleive that the American fighting man deserves the best equipment to find fix and destroy the enemy that can be provided, and I do not think that either of the above are the best for that task anymore.
As far as NATO standards go, I would be more interested in the ABCA countries - as other than the Dutch in Afghanistan no one else is shoulder any of the combat in Iraq or Afghanistan – do we really care what the French or Germans use when drinking a Latte in Kabul?
Huh, maybe I have been using modified M4s too much… I am not that good at remembering numbers, that is for sure.
Amen! Too many units that I have been in sacrificed training for recruitment/retention and new office furniture.
I definitely suffer from this, but is there a reliable way to draw a “bigger picture”?
It’s funny that most units that can choose their own weapon systems, choose M4 variants as their default weapon. I have played with a lot of different countries weapons and the best “Assault Rifle” is the M4, for many different, and biased, reasons.
Just to help me. I know the Germans and French governments are wussies when it comes to that, but Canada, and I believe Denmark, as well as Australia have guys actually fighting in Afghanistan?
Dude, I have been out of the loop for a bit, to be sure. The M16A2 was the standard back when I was in the green line, and I remember when we were first issued them. “White-Elephant hunting” I used M4 variants. ~shrugs~ I had repeatedly heard that it had a 16" barrel. I was down at Blackwater and distinctly remember them talking about the characteristics of the 16" barrel on the M4. I have now been told by several of you that the issued M4 does not have a 16" barrel. I have friends in the green line and their weapons don’t look any different than the one I had, but maybe it was an inch and a half shorter. ~shrugs~ Numbers aside, I was happy with that weapon’s performance.
I am familiar with the 416, it was coming in as I was going out. Firing one convinced me to invest in a POF for my personal work-gun. I may be a fossil (yeah, still carry .45…), but I see it as another M4 variant. Granted, it’s a nice weapon using a great idea, but still just a variant in my mind. But then again, as seen by many, I could be wrong…
Shouting in a Hitler voice with saliva spewing from the mouth:
“The 6920 is de stanardt!”
A real M4 doesn’t have a 16inch barrel. So like you said the M4geries as they are called, feature a 14.5inch barrel with a permanently attached muzzle device. This in my opinion is a civilian version of the M4.
The 6920 is not, in my opinion, an M4gery. It’s more of a rifle that pretends to be a carbine, but really it’s too long. Kind of like the fat chick who thinks she is still hot. Yea, that’s the Colt 6920.
But, you have so many people who jump on the 6920 bandwagon, that they mistakenly believe that it’s pretty close to an actual M4.
Well I’ll tell ya a story. I speak to a lot of returning Vets. Pro door kickers. Some in special ops, and all that were hated the 5.56. The army gave them all kinds of versions from different makers for field tests. I heard comments like ‘cool toy’, neat trick gizmos on some and the like. The one thing all agreed on was a bigger more powerful round. The unit finally tossed all the ‘cool toys’ and grabbed up AK’s. “The Ak had more ass”. “The sbr’s we were given were good in CQB but we had to fire more rounds to put Haji down, so we tossed’em and grabbed up some AK’s, mounted some Aimpoints and went back to work.” The AK’s stayed. A few even requested Thompsons or the .45 H&K. I smiled. I had snagged a Thompson in 72 and loved it. It never left my side. My M-16 failed me so many times, I didn’t trust it. I just had to keep it around. At range it was superb, but up close the .45 was God.
Me I’m just an old Ranger who listens to the young ones, but in the 70’s hidin behind a tree for cover didnt mean crap. The AK would rip right thru. I still got the scars. I feel what the new crew says. And I gotta agree. Seems now a days there are so many rules, some good some freakin stupid. All to be “fair”.
Fuck fair, this is a war. Id shoot a LAWS into a sniper in a big tree soon as look at him and sleep good that night knowing no one would ever say anything. We were alive but in the same breath we wouldn’t think of harming a hair on a dog unless it was armed. Go figure.
We need ‘choice’. Use what the job requires.
The new PC Army has its head up it’s ass sometimes, and this is a bad time.
M2cents. Take it for what it’s worth. And if you happen to break a rule and beat that Haji butterfly with a bat, think of me and smile, it’s ok, your still alive.
(and tell that liberal to quit hissing at me!)
Peace y’all!
Interesting story. And they even went through trees big enough to conceal your body, did they?
Tell us, how did you mount an Aimpoint on an older AK back then?
Also what, other than poor shot placement, would lead you to believe that an M16 was inferior to the AK in CQB? I know a bigger round can be beneficial, don’t get me wrong. But, in this particular case maybe you can elaborate…
And is it unfair for our troops to use a better round when it comes to accuracy and velocity? How specifically are we being cheated by utilizing the round in that regard?
Lastly, since “Haji” is a modern term relating to muslims, how did that apply back in your day?
First I see discreopencies with barrel statistics, but it’s an inch and half so maybe it’s just me and my powers of observation.
And next there are the plethora of the “War Stories”, some of which I have told myself, and some of them are even true.
There are the stories about the “Evil-Black Guns.” There are the stories about the killing power of 30 cal. And there are the stories that contradict all of it.
Are there reliable statistics? Is there non-biased data? There are facts out there. I go back to the idea that inflicting wound trauma cannot be simplified to velocities and bullet sizes.
And if there is one area the Army needs to focus time and money on, it’s better marksmanship training.
That’s interesting. I’m wondering why units would be asking for Thompsons in this day and age because it has not been available in the system or laying around in over 35 years at least.
i’m also wondering how they just mounted the Aimpoints they had to the Aks since it requires specialized mounts that replace various parts of the gun. This isn’t something that you just have with you.
There is no discrepancy with barrel lengths–the M4 and M4A1 have 14.5" barrels. Period. Many civilian & LE AR15’s that are similar in looks to the M4, like the Colt 6920, use 16" barrels.
There are “unbiased” sources of wound ballistic info, for example the old IWBA data, the FBI BRF, and the recent USMC ammo study. The raw data from the JSWB-IPT is also solid, although the public summary released by the Army is highly redacted and misleading.
I was down at Blackwater and distinctly remember them talking about the characteristics of the 16" barrel on the M4. I have now been told by several of you that the issued M4 does not have a 16" barrel.
I used to swear by the 55-grain, but I have been told by the instructors at Blackwater that heavier bullets have a higher velocity, thus tumble more reliably.
Hluill, The guys down there know what an M4 is and that it has a 14.5" barrel.
They also know more about ballistics than the statement above. Besides, the statement is so vague since no particular loading is mentioned. As a general rule, as the bullet gets heavier, the velocity gets lower, otherwise pressures will be to great.
If factual data cannot be referenced, please leave it off the site.
