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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Go back to the 7.62! more stopping power!

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.

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?

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.

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.