Posted on Apr 27, 2015
Army seeks gun industry help on M4 carbine...your thoughts?
54.8K
374
232
11
11
0
The Army is asking the gun industry to build new components for its soldiers’ primary weapon — the M4 carbine — a move that experts say is a tacit admission that the service has been supplying a flawed rifle that lacks the precision of commercially available guns.
At a recent Capitol Hill hearing, an Army general acknowledged that the M4’s magazine has been responsible for the gun jamming during firefights.
On the federal government’s FedBizOpps.gov website, the Army announced a “market survey” for gunmakers to produce a set of enhancements to essentially create a new model — the “M4A1+.” It would include a modular trigger, a new type of rail fitted around a “free floating” barrel and other parts. The upgrade is supposed to improve the rifle’s accuracy and reliability.
I've been saying for quite a while that it's a great platform that needs to be produced with higher quality parts...the parts are out there. I know this because the ones I build are hands-down better quality than what the government is buying....let me know what you think.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/26/army-seeks-gun-industry-help-on-m4-carbine-in-taci/#ixzz3YXFKucxX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
At a recent Capitol Hill hearing, an Army general acknowledged that the M4’s magazine has been responsible for the gun jamming during firefights.
On the federal government’s FedBizOpps.gov website, the Army announced a “market survey” for gunmakers to produce a set of enhancements to essentially create a new model — the “M4A1+.” It would include a modular trigger, a new type of rail fitted around a “free floating” barrel and other parts. The upgrade is supposed to improve the rifle’s accuracy and reliability.
I've been saying for quite a while that it's a great platform that needs to be produced with higher quality parts...the parts are out there. I know this because the ones I build are hands-down better quality than what the government is buying....let me know what you think.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/26/army-seeks-gun-industry-help-on-m4-carbine-in-taci/#ixzz3YXFKucxX
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Weapons
Government Contracts
Equipment
Army
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 55
Stay with the M4 platform, upgrade with known products, let the manufactures try more current tech materials, designs and manufacturing tech at the pieces and parts and let's see what they come up with.
I know for a fact the M4 works as designed.... I know for a fact it can be handled by a wide range of service members well, learned to a moderate skill level quickly and mastered by most if the training and motivation is there.
I know for a fact the M4 works as designed.... I know for a fact it can be handled by a wide range of service members well, learned to a moderate skill level quickly and mastered by most if the training and motivation is there.
(19)
(0)
12
12
0
I am a Professional in the Firearms Industry. I suggest that the Army do these things:
1) Add a Piston Drive Operating system like found on the LWRCI M6. It takes cleaning time from hours to minutes, runs 90-100 degrees cooler.
2) Coat bolt and bolt carrier parts with Nickle Boron, reducing the amount of oil based lubrication needed.
3) Stop trying to turn it into the Swiss Army Rifle. Loading it down with stuff affects accuracy and is just heavy. Remember, if you want a 9 pound rifle, issue an M-14 it has longer range and more stopping power.
4) Go to a FRANGIBLE round. It is not Open tip nor expanding so it does not violate the Hague Convention, but it knocks bad guys on their asses.
5) Teach Soldiers how to Clean a rifle WITHOUT Ruining it! Getting all the carbon off a weapon at the cost of damaging the finish is just plain STUPID. If you use a steel screw driver as part of your normal cleaning kit, you are a Chicken Noodle Sandwich. Leave a little Carbon (A Little does not mean caked on) on the rifle will not hurt a thing.
and Lastly...
6) Issue most of the Army...RIFLES, not M-4 carbines, 20 inch, longer range, full size rifles. Issuing M-4s to everyone is like when General Keene said one reason they were giving away berets was so Soldiers would "Feel Good about themselves" (I am not kidding and it is just as sad today as it was when he said it). Some troopers need a carbine, but not as many as are carrying it right now.
'Nuff said about that, don't get me started on that milled out spot on the barrel that just machined in a weakness in the barrel rather than using a new mounting clamp for the M-203...But then a 203 gunner is a prime example of a dude that NEEDS a R-I-F-L-E.
1) Add a Piston Drive Operating system like found on the LWRCI M6. It takes cleaning time from hours to minutes, runs 90-100 degrees cooler.
2) Coat bolt and bolt carrier parts with Nickle Boron, reducing the amount of oil based lubrication needed.
3) Stop trying to turn it into the Swiss Army Rifle. Loading it down with stuff affects accuracy and is just heavy. Remember, if you want a 9 pound rifle, issue an M-14 it has longer range and more stopping power.
4) Go to a FRANGIBLE round. It is not Open tip nor expanding so it does not violate the Hague Convention, but it knocks bad guys on their asses.
5) Teach Soldiers how to Clean a rifle WITHOUT Ruining it! Getting all the carbon off a weapon at the cost of damaging the finish is just plain STUPID. If you use a steel screw driver as part of your normal cleaning kit, you are a Chicken Noodle Sandwich. Leave a little Carbon (A Little does not mean caked on) on the rifle will not hurt a thing.
and Lastly...
6) Issue most of the Army...RIFLES, not M-4 carbines, 20 inch, longer range, full size rifles. Issuing M-4s to everyone is like when General Keene said one reason they were giving away berets was so Soldiers would "Feel Good about themselves" (I am not kidding and it is just as sad today as it was when he said it). Some troopers need a carbine, but not as many as are carrying it right now.
'Nuff said about that, don't get me started on that milled out spot on the barrel that just machined in a weakness in the barrel rather than using a new mounting clamp for the M-203...But then a 203 gunner is a prime example of a dude that NEEDS a R-I-F-L-E.
(12)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
Gentlemen, I love this! Being in this industry, I am surrounded on a daily basis by firearms and ammunition and the stuff that goes with it. Conversations like this stimulate the mind and make you think outside the box.
What is the increase in MV in the M855A2 if it is a hotter load? Just a really really ancillary question, BUT, if the MV and ballistic performance of the M855A1 is not the same as the M855 it is replacing, that will toss out a whole bunch of ACOG Sights. As it is that the reticle of the ACOG is based upon the M855 and it's ballistic performance, this means that the TA01 thru the TA31 series, in the 5.56mm will have a BDC that is not correct.
What is the increase in MV in the M855A2 if it is a hotter load? Just a really really ancillary question, BUT, if the MV and ballistic performance of the M855A1 is not the same as the M855 it is replacing, that will toss out a whole bunch of ACOG Sights. As it is that the reticle of the ACOG is based upon the M855 and it's ballistic performance, this means that the TA01 thru the TA31 series, in the 5.56mm will have a BDC that is not correct.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
SSG Roger Ayscue I've attached an article I found discussing the M855A1 and some slides from the PAO brief.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/5/21/testing-the-army-s-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge/
From the article and slides, the flight ballistics of the two rounds are nearly identical but the article states that there was some variation of POI between the two. MV is "boosted" but cannot find a specific number. Chamber and port pressure are also increased which is what is leading to increased wear. Now we all know that MilSpec doesn't necessarily mean "best quality". Improved quality of part can offset the increased wear.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/5/21/testing-the-army-s-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge/
From the article and slides, the flight ballistics of the two rounds are nearly identical but the article states that there was some variation of POI between the two. MV is "boosted" but cannot find a specific number. Chamber and port pressure are also increased which is what is leading to increased wear. Now we all know that MilSpec doesn't necessarily mean "best quality". Improved quality of part can offset the increased wear.
Testing The Army’s M855A1 Standard Ball Cartridge
Spanning a decade-and-a-half, the process of adopting the lead-free 5.56x45 mm NATO M855A1 ball cartridge was hardly transparent. In the end, however, testing indicates that our troops ended up with a better combat round.
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
The M16/M4 Lower is a great modular platform. It is easily configured into a variety of set-ups.
However... Like our M40 short/long action sniper rifles, it's all the other pieces that we add onto it that really matter.
A good "AR" runs $1200~. The government buys theirs for about $600-700.00. Sure, I could put together lot's better guns that the Army/USMC than they could. They would cost 2x-4x as much too.
For what it is, and what it costs, the M4 is amazingly nice. It really is. It's inexpensive, shoots straight, can be field repaired by darn near anyone, and has readily available parts. Are there nicer guns? Yep. Does it make sense to swap to something else? Nope. Does it make sense to do limited "up-gunning" on an as-needed basis? Sure. That's why this modular gun is so great.
Swap out the triggers. Swap out the upper receivers. Then the barrels. Piece by piece until it's practically a new gun.
However... Like our M40 short/long action sniper rifles, it's all the other pieces that we add onto it that really matter.
A good "AR" runs $1200~. The government buys theirs for about $600-700.00. Sure, I could put together lot's better guns that the Army/USMC than they could. They would cost 2x-4x as much too.
For what it is, and what it costs, the M4 is amazingly nice. It really is. It's inexpensive, shoots straight, can be field repaired by darn near anyone, and has readily available parts. Are there nicer guns? Yep. Does it make sense to swap to something else? Nope. Does it make sense to do limited "up-gunning" on an as-needed basis? Sure. That's why this modular gun is so great.
Swap out the triggers. Swap out the upper receivers. Then the barrels. Piece by piece until it's practically a new gun.
(12)
(0)
CW3 Kevin Storm
I think some simple mods like a the Smith and Wesson 5R barrel instead of a NATO 1:9 barrel would be a huge improvement. Mag pull mags work, ditch the tried and failed aluminum ones. Lets not try to turn the M4/M16 into the ultimate rail attachment device. I have seen every damn thing mounted on a rifle shy of an espresso machine. and for what purpose? I like the "keep it simple stupid approach" It should be tough, jam resistant, shoot a bizzilion tons of cruddy ammo without needing 10 hours to clean it. I find the accuracy of the rifle has never been a major issue, its the ammo which is ungodly cruddy. The Army's insistence that it be cleaned with CLP, which in todays day and age of superior synthetics is not the answer. Troops have far too much to do with the little time available to them.
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
CW3 Kevin Storm 1:9 cannot stabilize the long (but light for it's length)M856 tracer rounds, which is the very reason why they adopted 1:7 barrels in the first place. Since civilians don't typically shoot tracer rounds, 1:9 has become an acceptable alternative.
BTW I agree that the military goes a bit too far with cleaning. There is functional clean and then there is white glove inspection clean. The issue is that most want the latter, then the former is all the weapon needs to be reliable.
BTW I agree that the military goes a bit too far with cleaning. There is functional clean and then there is white glove inspection clean. The issue is that most want the latter, then the former is all the weapon needs to be reliable.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Frank Caneja
Changing simple things like the bolt, front and rear site , and a better barrel would make such good improvements. Granted changing all three would be the cost of the rifle its self, I think just changing the bolt for smoother operation, and sights for better sight acquisition would be a great way to go.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google