Posted on Apr 27, 2015
Army seeks gun industry help on M4 carbine...your thoughts?
56.1K
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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 55
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
SGT (Join to see), Colt bought the license of the AR15/M16 from Armalite when the company went under. Colt was merely the manufacturer. Current M16s are stamped with FNH markings.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
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
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
(2)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
I'm not much of a fan of the 7.62x39 for any distance, but CMMG definitely makes some quality stuff.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
On the 3rd point, It's been a while since I've handled an AK, but I think I remember the stock being even shorter.
(1)
(0)
PO1 Aaron Baltosser
It may be, but the heavier stock felt right in my hands when doing foreign weapons training. I shot very well with the AK, only average with the M4. I remember a Marine SSGT telling me not to worry, he had my back. Another cracked on him instantly commenting on how it was the other way around considering the damage on my target. That makes a Sailor proud.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
I was not aware that the Corps was upgrading to the free-float barrels and better mags. Give those babies a better trigger group and you'll be all set!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
I guess for your first part, for the purposes of this survey, that would fall under "look for something different...even if different ended up being the M-4 in a newly rolled-out version.
For the second part, I have very limited experience with pistons, and it was when they were pretty new, but at the time, I wasn't impressed. I would really need to try an improved version and give it a fair look to have that opinion changed. Absolutely agree with your comments on Extractors and triggers!
For the second part, I have very limited experience with pistons, and it was when they were pretty new, but at the time, I wasn't impressed. I would really need to try an improved version and give it a fair look to have that opinion changed. Absolutely agree with your comments on Extractors and triggers!
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) Auston Terry
The USMC adopted a majority of what I would desire in the M27. It's fully automatic and piston driven.
I just want the battle rifle of the 21st century to have an open field of competition and win on its own merits; not by default.
I just want the battle rifle of the 21st century to have an open field of competition and win on its own merits; not by default.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google