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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.