Army seeks gun industry help on M4 carbine...your thoughts?

2015-04-27T14:26:26-04:00

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

Army seeks gun industry help on M4 carbine in tacit admission of rifle’s flaws

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 27 at 2015 2:36 PM

2015-04-27T14:36:04-04:00

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.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 2:37 PM

2015-04-27T14:37:17-04:00

I have another suggestion:

The CMMG Mk47 - The Mutant. They're built right down the road from where I live. I will have to start saving so I can hoard one...LOL

Gun Review: CMMG Mk47 “Mutant” AR-15 in 7.6239 - The Truth About Guns

It’s a shame that the 7.6239 cartridge is so under-utilized in the United States. Sure everyone and their brother has an AK-47 sitting in the back of the closet, but (at least for me) the only time it gets takenRead More

Response by TSgt Joshua Copeland made Apr 27 at 2015 3:01 PM

2015-04-27T15:01:39-04:00

The M-4 is a great platform. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! What it has going for it is that it is modular, upgradable, accurate, and easy to us. Just look at the 1911.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 3:04 PM

2015-04-27T15:04:42-04:00

Only real change I could see would be a better trigger. Other than that I dont see any issues with what we have.

Maybe a little more time doing PMI and "trigger" time on the range more than once or twice a year would help immensely.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 3:28 PM

2015-04-27T15:28:12-04:00

It reminds me of the old M-16 in Vietnam. It was the worst weapon invented by Colt. You can't have a weapon your worried about jamming. If you're in a firefight, you can't take time to try and clear it, you'll be dead before you know what happened. Until a quality weapon is made specifically for combat, issue "old faithful", the M-14. Dirt and mud doesn't affect it and it's a great quality weapon. It's a little heavy but no more than the M 1911.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Apr 27 at 2015 3:43 PM

2015-04-27T15:43:18-04:00

Either option is viable option and either could be the answer going forward. Using quality parts to get better performance with what we train with now seems to make a lot of sense BUT I think we do need to be continually looking forward and make sure we remain in the front going forward too.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Apr 27 at 2015 3:44 PM

2015-04-27T15:44:35-04:00

Go back to the 7.62! more stopping power!

Response by SSG John Erny made Apr 27 at 2015 4:10 PM

2015-04-27T16:10:16-04:00

We need to dump the 5.56 and get a round that is harder hitting round, the 5.56/.223 is not legal to hunt deer with in many states. The .250 Savage would be a very good choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.250-3000_Savage

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 27 at 2015 4:10 PM

2015-04-27T16:10:46-04:00

Well....yeah...

Response by SGT James Elphick made Apr 27 at 2015 4:14 PM

2015-04-27T16:14:32-04:00

I think the M4 is a good weapon, had no complaints when it came time to use it on the 2-way live fire either. However, I think the real issue is that we are overly reliant on this one rifle when we have found that on the modern battlefield we need many options to effectively engage our enemy. What we really need to spend time and money on is improving the other weapons in our inventory. We need more 7.62 options and likely more options that include explosions (the XM25 comes to mind).

With all of that being said, I think upgrading to the M4A1 is a great start and finding ways to improve upon it is even better. I think in the article there is too much criticism of the weapon as most people I know are quite happy with the M4. So I say keep it but improve on it as the Army is looking to do.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Apr 27 at 2015 4:23 PM

2015-04-27T16:23:51-04:00

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.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 4:39 PM

2015-04-27T16:39:24-04:00

Cost savings will keep the M-4 around.

Response by A1C Jared Gonzalez made Apr 27 at 2015 5:11 PM

2015-04-27T17:11:30-04:00

Do a field study on the M-4 involving various environmental and tactical conditions. test with multiple mags, make the necessary changes.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Apr 27 at 2015 5:14 PM

2015-04-27T17:14:32-04:00

Never particularly cared for the M-4. IMHO the barrel isn't conducive to long range accuracy with any reliability. I would have preferred to stick with the M-16, even though it is pretty much the same as the M-4 it was definitely more reliable and accurate at ranges exceeding 350 yards. From what I read the magazine is what appears to be causing the issues with the current soldiers life saver, so maybe the only thing that needs an upgrade is the magazine itself. So much for my .02.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 5:37 PM

2015-04-27T17:37:48-04:00

It is time to look for something else. The M4 has been in service for far too long. I could go out and buy a superior Rifle. It is basically the same thing from the beginning. It did it's part. We are just adding this and adding that to it. Just look at our Special Operators. They don't use it. I really don't know why we still have it and the M9. It is more to do with contracts than getting the best product.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 5:42 PM

2015-04-27T17:42:55-04:00

off the top of my head some of the things that would improve it greatly.
-free floating barrel, US Army Marksmanship program already does this, why isn't it service standard?
-harder punch, not going to refight AK vs M16 of damage vs accuracy
-ambidextrous controls, US Army has stopped issuing right hand only soldiers
-better butt stock, anybody else have theirs rattle? or not lock in position completely?

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Apr 27 at 2015 5:48 PM

2015-04-27T17:48:51-04:00

Again, my answer to a poll is "Neither of the above".

I know I'm a contrarian, but why is everybody treating the M4/M4A1 -- a less-lethal variant of the M16An rifles -- as if it should be our primary infantry weapon?

Really, why are we pouring so much time and attention and money into improving a carbine while pretending the M16-series rifles don't matter? Aside from reliability issues which arise from the shorter barrel (and the commensurate reduction in terminal ballistics), what issues affect the M4-series carbines but not the M16-series rifles?

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Apr 27 at 2015 6:01 PM

2015-04-27T18:01:52-04:00

I would look for something different, UNLESS they military can change the caliber..... I am not a big fan of 5.56.... 6.5mm or 7.62 with good components would be a step in the right direction!

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Apr 27 at 2015 6:04 PM

2015-04-27T18:04:13-04:00

The issue here is going to be cost. Yes we could make the AR series rifle MUCH better than it already is now....but it's going to cost you. Heavy barrels, modified operating systems, new metal coatings etc will make an already good system better. But it's gonna cost you.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 6:28 PM

2015-04-27T18:28:11-04:00

I am just going to say that the M4 is the ACU of military weapons. There are better choices out there. Some people are cool enough to get other uniforms but the Army somehow says they did their best and some how the ACU won out.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 27 at 2015 7:53 PM

2015-04-27T19:53:08-04:00

The M16 in all its variations has served the US Military well. I think its time to start with a new weapons system. After a while how much money can you throw into it to keep upgrading an old weapon.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Apr 27 at 2015 8:35 PM

2015-04-27T20:35:28-04:00

Even though I thoroughly hated the M16, (I transitioned from M14 to the original "bad" M16s in RVN) the system has come a long way. Most of the improvements, other than returning to Armalite specs, were probably due in one way or another from veteran ideas/mfg. in the market place. Brilliant idea to tap that growing source of new veteran expertise to up gun the existing platform. I believe I would also like to see some serious govt. testing on the .300 BLK (or any other .30 round that would function with only a barrel change to the system). I am very impressed with my BLK.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 9:52 PM

2015-04-27T21:52:19-04:00

If the M4 can be improved upon for a price tag that is cheaper than refitting the entire force with a new weapon, then it would seem that at first glance, the obvious choice would be to retain the M4 and improve it.

The second question is, CAN it be improved enough to justify the expense?

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Apr 27 at 2015 11:41 PM

2015-04-27T23:41:55-04:00

I'm not a gun expert but thus sounds more like some retired officer working for a gun manfacturer who is seeking a government contract. You can always improve most anything in the military inventory, so look for fixes and let's not waste millions on R&D on another weapon that won't see the light of day for years and will go over budget in its first few days.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 12:00 AM

2015-04-28T00:00:09-04:00

I see a lot of uneducated banter being tossed around by people who are discussing things they have little or no first hand knowledge of.

First off, the M4A1 used by SOF today has been tweaked and improved so much that the rifle is leaps and bounds ahead of the first M4s introduced into the service in the early 90's and might as well be a ray gun when compared to the CAR-15s of the Vietnam War era. There have been over 80 improvements to the design, most of which would be missed by the casual observer. The M4A1 of today handles heat stress extremely well. You can easily fire 500 rounds between cleanings before having to worry about stoppages. Even then, a few drops of oil will get you back into action for a few hundred more rounds before you have to shotgun the rifle and wipe the bolt and run a bore snake through the barrel. It can reliably hit targets out to 500 meters with both the 14.5 and 10.3 inch barrels and the new flash hiders and Geissle triggers have also significantly improved the M4A1's performance. The Army as a whole is moving to the SOF version of the M4A1 and the transition has already begun with some conventional units.

The vast majority of those who say we should go back to a 7.62mm rifle have not carried a 7.62mm rifle in combat with a basic load or run through Combat Marksmanship (CMMS) drills with one. Does having a few 7.62mm rifles in a platoon make sense? Absolutely, but it makes zero sense to transition back to a 7.62mm basic service rifle for the entire military. Yes, SOF uses the SCAR-H. However, just like the wide range of other rifles in these units, the SCAR-H has its purpose and is not the rifle of choice for everyday use, the M4A1 is. Even those SOF Soldiers who have extensive experience with firing foreign weapons still prefer the M4A1 over other service rifles.

People complain about the stopping power of the 5.56mm round but very few of those people are actually trained to kill a man. They are trained to shoot center mass because center mass is the easiest thing to hit and is the easiest thing to teach to tens of thousands of trainees a year in basic training. It isn't, however, necessarily the best place to instantly incapacitate or kill a man. To achieve the best results, shooters need to know basic human anatomy and know proper shot placement and proper hold over/under at the proper ranges.

In the hands of the average Soldier in the Army, having a 7.62mm rifle over a 5.56mm rifle will ultimately have minimal impact because they don't receive the advanced shooting skills to properly employ either rifle to their maximum potential. Even the addition of things like monolithic uppers or pistons as opposed a gas operating system is negligible as most Soldiers, even your basic Infantryman, will not fire enough rounds in a day to matter (even in combat) and most Soldiers struggle to hit a 300 meter target let alone a 500 meter target.

Let's look at improving marksmanship training before we discuss changing the basic service rifle because a rifle is ultimately only as good the shooter.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 28 at 2015 10:43 AM

2015-04-28T10:43:20-04:00

It's a good weapon, but I agree that they need to make some modifications. Jamming is a HUGE problem. Huge.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Apr 28 at 2015 11:20 AM

2015-04-28T11:20:14-04:00

The new battlefield is looks like it is going to remain an urban setting. The M-4/M-16 is a long rifle. I think that a bullpup design would be more effective in the urban setting. Having a weapn that is more compact and in to the body will make it easier to control when moving room to room and door to door.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Apr 28 at 2015 3:38 PM

2015-04-28T15:38:34-04:00

I see it more as that Congress seeks help and not the ARMY, majority of weapons and issued items are because of politics, just have to follow the connections to see who benefits.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Apr 28 at 2015 4:38 PM

2015-04-28T16:38:15-04:00

I like the weapon as a easy to transition weapon from soldier to soldier, if you take care of the weapon it will honestly take care of you. I know it sounds cliche but it is true. I cleaned my weapon quite often and never had a failure other then due to the cheap magazines or magazines being ancient. For the price we pay and the options to upgrade it being pretty limitless I dont see a problem.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Apr 28 at 2015 5:00 PM

2015-04-28T17:00:53-04:00

The SSG in the pix has so much stuff on that carbine that he is losing the advantage of having a carbine over a rifle. Carbine supposed to give a soldier a bit more reach than
a pistol for a soldier that does not need a rifle for his/her duties and needs something light and not cumbersome. I enjoyed the days that I carried a M-1 or M-2 carbine.

Response by CPO Greg Frazho made Apr 28 at 2015 5:01 PM

2015-04-28T17:01:37-04:00

Try the AK. It doesn't suck.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 10:40 PM

2015-04-29T22:40:57-04:00

Seeing the already-existing easily adaptable platform, a seemingly infinite amount of add-ons, accessories, etc. Go for a piston-driven operation.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Apr 30 at 2015 12:11 AM

2015-04-30T00:11:11-04:00

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.

Response by SFC James Barnes made Apr 30 at 2015 12:56 AM

2015-04-30T00:56:14-04:00

The M4 with a few improvements such as the trigger, Barrel, Magazines, and ambi controls it would be perfectly acceptable. Now as far as bullpups as an option I like the Tavor due to ease of use and still being able to reach out to medium range. I personally went a different route on my own AR and went with an ARAK21 mainly due to the charging handle location, ease of barrel and caliber changes, and its long stroke piston system.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 8:55 AM

2015-04-30T08:55:52-04:00

All the upgrades are available but, to be honest there are very few who really require an upgraded version. There is nothing wrong with the M-4s fielded to 99% of the force it just requires proper maintenance like any other platform does.

Response by SPC Donald Moore made Apr 30 at 2015 9:00 AM

2015-04-30T09:00:42-04:00

When I was in, we had the M16A2 and it was an acceptable rifle for the mission but there was room for improvement. The carbine length M4 is the result of some of those improvements.
I think that there is still room for improvement, and probably always will be.
I do not think that changing to a different weapon platform is a smart idea.
Just my two cents.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 10:27 AM

2015-04-30T10:27:47-04:00

The military grade M4 is plenty good enough for 90% of shooters. Yes there are a few guys out there who are better than the weapon can shoot but for most Soldiers the limiting factor is the shooter not the weapon. A better magazine would be nice though, the green follower mags were horrible, the tan follower mags are better but still well below the industry standard. I'm not advocating MAGPULs for everyone or anything like that but there are much better inexpensive magazines out there. Fix the cheap and easy stuff first, then worry about other things.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 11:43 AM

2015-04-30T11:43:51-04:00

It's such a modular platform so they should stick with it, but I feel that they should be going from the DI gas system to the piston system. They are easier to maintain, cleaner, and more reliable.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 30 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-04-30T12:39:35-04:00

It's likely the majority of members here grew up with the M-16 and subsequent variants. I'm a bit jaded with my M-14. Looking at the current issue M-4 makes me wonder if we're approaching the limits of that platform design. Free float the barrel? Duh! Should have happened 30 years ago. Getting away from gas pistons created headaches. Way too many small parts. Hint; if you need 10 different things to fully clean a weapon, it's poorly designed by definition.

I'm a systems person and see design fix efforts that tend to be pushing us into a corner. I'd say use the 20-80 Rule one more time to tide us over while we seriously get R&D going on the next generation.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 6:08 PM

2015-04-30T18:08:09-04:00

When it comes to shooting accurately there is only one thing that will help you: practice. While I haven't been in the Army long I still find it incredible that I have had single days in the civilian world when I have fired more rounds than in my entire time in the military. Other than practice the only cost effective change I would make to the M4/M16 platform would be to improve the triggers. I can't stand the creeping 7+ pound triggers on the things.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 6:17 PM

2015-04-30T18:17:27-04:00

Keep the M-4, but upgrade the parts. Also stop making us put so many useless gadgets on it. It drastically degrades the accuracy and performance of the shooter. The Army needs to focus on improving it's magazines too. I have had so many junk magazines just randomly fall out of my weapon, and cause my weapon to jam. Even when I would tighten the magazine release. I started buying the Magpul P-Mags. Never had an issue with those. I heard the Army was going use them a while back, but for some reason decided not to.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2015 6:56 PM

2015-04-30T18:56:21-04:00

Personally the best military rifle I have had the pleasure of shooting is the German G36 Rifle. It is much lighter than the M4, and anyone can pick up the weapon and fire. German version of the ACOG is standard on it.

Response by MSG Morgan Fiszel, CPCM, CFCM made Apr 30 at 2015 8:44 PM

2015-04-30T20:44:39-04:00

Continuous improvement is good. Even great things can be made better. I almost never saw a "stock" weapon when deployed. Industry is light years ahead of the government when it comes to technology and innovation.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 1:45 PM

2015-05-01T13:45:04-04:00

The M4 is a great weapon, but it has some inherent limitations. Aside from the whole DGI vs. Piston argument and 5.56 vs. .30+ cal issues, I'm a big fan of bullpup designs. We've already begun to transition from SMG's firing pistol rounds to PSD's that fire rifle rounds. The Steyr AUG, FAMAS, L85, and most recently the Tavor and Chinese Type 95 are all examples of what foreign militaries have been using, some for over 30 years.

The USA has been behind other countries in more than one respect. We were later to adopt combat optics for quite a while. We've stayed with a traditional rifle configuration instead of going to bullpup. We were the 1st to go to a 5.56 round in favor of a .30 round and now are starting to rediscover the benefits of larger calibers.

If I could design a weapon platform, it would essentially be a modular multi-caliber bullpup system allowing for use from CQB/Tanker/Pilot use to general infantry, to DMR/SPR missions. I feel 5.56 is still valid with the more effective versions of ammo being introduced, however, a larger 6.5/6.8 caliber could have a compelling story.

The defense budget/allocation is always one of the biggest issues so trying to make the most of the M4/M16 platform is understandable. Retraining is another, but at some point, clean-sheet may be the best longer-term solution.

Just my 2 cents.

Response by Cpl Brett Wagner made May 2 at 2015 12:48 PM

2015-05-02T12:48:46-04:00

I cannot express how happy this news makes me. Give our troops the best, a good caliber and proven performance. Armed with an M14A and a 1911 45 acp and we will give them what they deserve good tools to do the job.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 12:27 AM

2015-05-11T00:27:51-04:00

The M4 is the De Facto platform for just about all of the Killers across the board. Take a look at what the Aussies and Brits turn to.

It could be designed better though. Abandon the Blow-back design and go to a Piston design. Stoner started something great, but there are way we can improve it.

Response by SSG(P) Auston Terry made May 20 at 2015 11:45 AM

2015-05-20T11:45:22-04:00

The survey only gives two choices and I picked Stick with the M-4 but:
I would like to see the Army put out a real RFP and a competition rather than an evaluation. Force the M4 to compete to stay rather than just be kept around because it's OK and we already have it.

One of the main improvements I'd like to see is going to full auto to create consistent trigger pull. the M4A1 already does that. I'd still like a better trigger module too.
Going to a piston alleviates the main issue with the M4, the piston system was simply shortened not re engineered and a lot of the "improvements" that help the M4 cycle reliably are brute force solutions. I.E the extractor and buffer assembly. The M4/416 piston systems answer this issue.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made May 20 at 2015 2:35 PM

2015-05-20T14:35:19-04:00

First, send out 600,000 free samples for our members to assess. Members already utilizing the piston upgrade will take free ammo instead. Next, make the piston system mandatory in all platforms heading into those dirty, nasty, dusty places we deploy to. I hear it gets hot and dusty in the desert. I still love the M14 and will gladly carry the extra weight. We grows em big in PA.

Response by SGT Jimmy Carpenter made May 21 at 2015 4:35 AM

2015-05-21T04:35:22-04:00

I like mine

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 1:37 PM

2015-05-22T13:37:07-04:00

The M-16/M-4 weapon is great, and very accurate. Of the 17 some years I have been using them in the USMC (instructor and shooting team), I can hardly think of 3 times I had an issue with one. If the locking lugs or chamber get dirty or you get dirt in the extractor you might have issues, otherwise, you keep it clean and you should be fine. The Marines are already upgrading to free floating barrels amongst other improvement and have already issued improved magazines. A lover of iron sights, the RCO is not a bad tool though I would rather have the option for an Eotech.

Response by PO1 Aaron Baltosser made May 28 at 2015 1:41 PM

2015-05-28T13:41:39-04:00

The M4 and it's predecessor has the same design flaw. It does not like a dutsy or moist environment. Having spent a year plus in Iraq, I was disgusted how often it had to be cleaned to be reliable. An AK rifle however could keep right on working. That was embarrassing. In addition the demonstration video showing an AK-47 round punching right through a cinder block wall, while the M4 took 4 rounds to do the same showed it isn't the right weapons system for a middle east fight. I have long arms, and the stock does not fully extend to what I need to get a good cheek weld, and effectively employ it. It felt like I was holding a short barrel rifle even with the stock all e way out.

Response by SFC Siva Williams made May 29 at 2015 6:30 PM

2015-05-29T18:30:57-04:00

The M16 FOW (family of weapons) is extremely flexible and reliable (when the user does there part). Can you make the system better? Possible. All test data has only shown slight increases of abilities to this FOW. I say stick with this FOW and make sure Soldiers are better trained on the platform. I believe every Soldier should be able to build a M16/M4 from parts and stripped upper and lower receivers. The M16/M4 FOWs have been called the Barbie dolls for men. There are to many configurations to mention them all. Soldiers should be able to their weapon to handle any mission they face and this FOWs is the one with that capability. Here is a sample of what you get with this platform. A MK18 clone and a 9mm subgun with suppressors based on the M16/M4/AR15 platform.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2017 11:46 AM

2017-02-04T11:46:18-05:00

Change the gas impingement system, not the most reliable and only cause the receiver to get more dirty from the carbon bold up. The M4 is already accurate and trusted so that my only opinion

Response by LTC Ken Bowers made Mar 3 at 2017 12:44 PM

2017-03-03T12:44:02-05:00

I would like to add to SSG Ayscue's thoughts. I like the idea of a piston drive for the same reasons. I also think The army should consider a side charging handle. Bear Creek Arsenal in Sanford, NC produces the modified upper receiver and bolt carrier. I also like the M855A1 round that LTC Labrador discusses. In regard to accessories an optical sight and an aiming light really enhance an individuals marksmanship. These products continue to improve in capability, size, and weight. Having those on board is worth the weight. Thanks for posting!

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Jul 20 at 2018 9:27 PM

2018-07-20T21:27:56-04:00

Great idea, but it always goes to the lowest bidder!