PDA

View Full Version : The Army’s M-4 Carbine: Background and Issues for Congress



selil
06-12-2008, 11:12 PM
Courtesy of Secrecy News at FAS

Article (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22888.pdf)

I think this is a pretty good commentary and look at the weapons system.


In December 2006, the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) published a survey and study at the request of the Army’s Project Manager-Soldier Weapons of 2,600 soldiers who had returned from Iraq and Afghanistan and who had engaged in a firefight using a variety of small arms. Some of the M-4-specific observations were as follows:

Over 50% of soldiers using the M-4 and M-16 reported that they never experienced a stoppage [malfunction] while in theater, to include during training firing of the weapons (p. 2).

Frequency of disassembled cleaning had no effect on the occurrences of stoppages. Variations in lubrication practices, such as the type of lubrication used and the amount of lubrication applied, also had little effect on stoppages. Using a dry lubricant decreased reports for stoppages only for M-4 users (p. 3).

Of soldiers surveyed who used the M-4, 89% reported being satisfied with their weapon (p. 11).

Of M-4 users, 20% recommended a larger bullet for the M-4 to increase lethality (p. 30).

Regarding M-16s and M-4s,many soldiers and experts in theater commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue fighting (p. 29).






A 2002 Marine Corps Systems Command test was said to have concluded that the M-4 malfunctioned three times more often that the M-16A4, as the M-4 failed 186 times for a variety of reasons over the course of 69,000 rounds fired, while the M-16A4 failed 61 times. In a test conducted by the Army between October 2005 and April 2006, 10 new M-16s and 10 new M-4s were fired in a 35,000-round test under laboratory conditions, with both weapons firing approximately 5,000 rounds between stoppages.

Schmedlap
06-13-2008, 02:44 AM
Or, instead of a "larger" bullet, just use the hollow-tipped 72-grain round that was fielded for use in SDM rifles, but works great in the M4 and M16A4. When I was XO, I ordered, begged, bartered (but did not borrow or steal) as many of those rounds as I could get my hands on because every Soldier in my company noticed a significant difference in stopping power. The regular ball and tracer just created blood trails unless you hit a guy in the head or CT region. With the 72-grain, even if you got the guy in the leg or shoulder, he was down and crying like a little girl.

I love happy endings.

William F. Owen
06-13-2008, 09:34 AM
Of soldiers surveyed who used the M-4, 89% reported being satisfied with their weapon (p. 11).

As I have said many time before, the alleged problems of the M4 are a US specific phenomena. They simply occur no where else in the world with the same frequency, or visibility.

Personally, I think the AR-15 derived designs are overly complex and actually not that well designed, but for their weight and cost, they work pretty damn good. The weapons I know of with measurably better performance are all heavier and more expensive.

MattC86
06-13-2008, 01:30 PM
Anyone else notice the concept of a year-long combat study, equipping units with the various rifles (including the XM-8, which folks here and elsewhere have said had numerous issues) and studying them? Is this too risky to do in a combat theater, or necessary experimenting?

Additionally, the study mentioned both the caliber debate, and the potential to increase lethality of the M4 /M16A4 through different rounds (something Ken has repeatedly argued), but didn't go into either, which I think is a bit of a disservice; the more I hear about something like the Barrett M468, the more intrigued I am. . .

Regards,

Matt

William F. Owen
06-13-2008, 02:16 PM
Anyone else notice the concept of a year-long combat study, equipping units with the various rifles (including the XM-8, which folks here and elsewhere have said had numerous issues) and studying them? Is this too risky to do in a combat theater, or necessary experimenting?


Excellent point but the science of comparative weapons testing is pretty well understood. Objective testing is cheap, easy to do and generally gives you the right answer to the useful question - eg: Which weapons should we buy?

The problem is that almost of the criteria used for the testing is subjective and arbitrary. You may have a very reliable weapon, but it may cost too much or be too heavy? What is an acceptable level of reliability and how do you measure it against, cost, weight, accuracy etc.

Ken White
06-13-2008, 03:06 PM
Wilf said:
As I have said many time before, the alleged problems of the M4 are a US specific phenomena. They simply occur no where else in the world with the same frequency, or visibility.No one else in the world has anywhere near as many people using the M4 at this time in combat; more usage = more flaws. No one else makes as much noise about "government failure" in an essentially anti-military media to the extent and in the peculiar way the US does. I agree with the rest of your comment.

MattC86 said:
Additionally, the study mentioned both the caliber debate, and the potential to increase lethality of the M4 /M16A4 through different rounds (something Ken has repeatedly argued), but didn't go into either, which I think is a bit of a disservice; the more I hear about something like the Barrett M468, the more intrigued I am. . .Not a real problem to switch weapons in wartime; we did it in WW I, WW II and Viet Nam -- but it's a good excuse to say "No." As Schmedlap points out, there are plenty of Ammo options out there. Big overly bureaucratic Armies in Democracies are just awfully slow to adapt and our current bureaucracy is far larger and more pervasive than it was during any of those earlier wars (it's also stodgier and more risk averse but that's another thread). New and better ammo is slowly being fielded; LINK (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1130).

Then Wilf said:
Excellent point but the science of comparative weapons testing is pretty well understood. Objective testing is cheap, easy to do and generally gives you the right answer to the useful question - eg: Which weapons should we buy?

The problem is that almost of the criteria used for the testing is subjective and arbitrary. You may have a very reliable weapon, but it may cost too much or be too heavy? What is an acceptable level of reliability and how do you measure it against, cost, weight, accuracy etc.Politics. You left out politics, both service and legislative...

That's the issue and the problem.

MattC86
06-13-2008, 06:23 PM
No one else makes as much noise about "government failure" in an essentially anti-military media to the extent and in the peculiar way the US does.

True, but I think in the long run this is a good thing. Keeping government accountable is a full-time job.


Not a real problem to switch weapons in wartime; we did it in WW I, WW II and Viet Nam -- but it's a good excuse to say "No." As Schmedlap points out, there are plenty of Ammo options out there. Big overly bureaucratic Armies in Democracies are just awfully slow to adapt and our current bureaucracy is far larger and more pervasive than it was during any of those earlier wars (it's also stodgier and more risk averse but that's another thread). New and better ammo is slowly being fielded;

Thanks for the link. My concern isn't over switching guns in wartime - though any change in caliber (people advocating any form of 7.62 or 6.8 as a compromise) would I think play hell with logistics and procurement for a while - but with doing something like this; namely, putting companies into action with separate rifles (one of which is still experimental and many claim it to have major issues) for a "comprehensive study," as though it were as simple as issuing a new toy to some guys out on the range. Regardless of whose fault the infamous M16 screwups in Vietnam were, I think its imperative that lessons not be learned about rifles by finding them jammed and field stripped among dead US troops.

If we determine a different rifle or cartridge is better suited for US use - including Wilf's other considerations which I initially ignored - then by all means, let's move heaven and earth to get them there. I understand the parochialism and service politics (the Corps shunning the Garand in WWII or the Army refusing to adopt the M16A2 until the mid '80s when it's Vietnam-leftover A1s were on their last legs) makes that harder, but it can be done given effort and time.

But am I wrong in thinking that battlefields aren't the best place for a technology demonstration or rifle competition?

Regards,

Matt

Ken White
06-13-2008, 06:56 PM
True, but I think in the long run this is a good thing. Keeping government accountable is a full-time job.No question, but kindergarten level competence at the job would be an asset -- and different. You cannot keep the monster accountable if you do not understand it...
...I think its imperative that lessons not be learned about rifles by finding them jammed and field stripped among dead US troops.That's vastly overstated and over hyped by revisionists. It's not a myth but it was rare and didn't happen at all in good units. Training is important; good units don't forget that even in combat.
If we determine a different rifle or cartridge is better suited for US use - including Wilf's other considerations which I initially ignored - then by all means, let's move heaven and earth to get them there.Not the American way. :(
I understand the parochialism and service politics (the Corps shunning the Garand in WWII or the Army refusing to adopt the M16A2 until the mid '80s when it's Vietnam-leftover A1s were on their last legs) makes that harder, but it can be done given effort and time.More to both those stories than just that. The politics also involve Congress and other weapons manufacturers -- and did in the transitions you cite.
But am I wrong in thinking that battlefields aren't the best place for a technology demonstration or rifle competition?No, you're right but sometimes the palyers don't do what's right -- not by design, by accident. SOCOM wants the weapons that will work for their people and has an accelerated procurement process. Nothing wrong with that, more power to them for doing what's right. However, in doing that, they inadvertantly created the battlefield competition and the US Army is nothing if far from graceful about anything not invented by the Army...

In fact, one could say they get really stupid about it.

In this case, though, you've got problems that transcend service parochialism -- quantities on hand, stuff ordered long ago that's in the pipeline and a lot of real impactors.

Blame McNamara; he's the Dude that insisted on the M16 over the nays of the Army and the Marines. The fact that the then current M14 contractor TRW had contributed to Nixon's campaign while Colt, the M16 contractor had contributed to Kennedy's I'm sure had no bearing on his decision...:rolleyes:

Rifleman
06-14-2008, 12:34 AM
I always thought it was maintenance intensive: you could go through a lot of pipe cleaners and Q-tips on the bolt carrier and lower receiver, beyond that, no real complaints.

I've read in different sources - War Story by Jim Morris and The New Legions by Donald Duncan come to mind - that many in SF loved it in the early days of Vietnam. And that was before many of the improvements.

Ken White
06-14-2008, 01:14 AM
babying but it is light and handy, easy to shoot and one who is dumb can carry a whole lot of ammo for it. My BG in the Eighty Twice ran the troop test on it in 63 and one of the no-gos was on the maintenance required (another was on stopping power). We had it in the 1/101 in '66 as did most everyone else in country. It worked in the hoonglay. Not great but okay and you had to clean it more than daily -- but the light and handy made up for a lot... :D

SF got a lot of the really short barrel CAR 15 mods. Talk about no stopping power...

But it was lighter and handier and far more high speed than weapons of other units...

Did I mention that it was light and handy?

Infantrymen do weight...

William F. Owen
06-14-2008, 08:20 AM
SF got a lot of the really short barrel CAR 15 mods. Talk about no stopping power...


In terms of muzzle energy, I concur, and yet, when I was interviewing all the SOGs Squirrels for Blackfoot, I asked everyone of them what they thought of the CAR-15. All loved with the exception of one who liked the AK, only because he ran on RT California (IRRC) and that was an NVA look-a-like team.

The only other weapon more prized was the Cut-down RPD. - which would still cut it today IMO!

Ken White
06-14-2008, 04:07 PM
MV isn't that big an issue...:D

MattC86
06-14-2008, 08:49 PM
As I have said many time before, the alleged problems of the M4 are a US specific phenomena. They simply occur no where else in the world with the same frequency, or visibility.

I assume you're referring to not seeing the problems with the M4 elsewhere in the world - to which I would echo Ken's comment that more usage = more failures.

But what about other rifles, not just other possible rifles but other service rifles? The SA80's original iterations had numerous reliability issues; what about the G36 or the new Israeli TAR-21? Or even countries using licensed or other M16/M4 variants (Canada, for instance)

If we're taking other considerations into account (not just buying the most reliable rifle, cost and other considerations be damned), then wouldn't comparative reliability with other in-service rifles be a decent benchmark, at least?

Regards,

Matt

William F. Owen
06-14-2008, 09:23 PM
But what about other rifles, not just other possible rifles but other service rifles? The SA80's original iterations had numerous reliability issues; what about the G36 or the new Israeli TAR-21? Or even countries using licensed or other M16/M4 variants (Canada, for instance)

If we're taking other considerations into account (not just buying the most reliable rifle, cost and other considerations be damned), then wouldn't comparative reliability with other in-service rifles be a decent benchmark, at least?


SA-80 is just the most poorly engineered rifle in existence. The UK has only very rarely made/designed/engineered good weapons, so no surprise.

Tavor is now in service, and talking to a guy at a bus stop the other day, he told me he liked it. I've handled one and it's very impressive if you like bull-pups, which I don't. I'll probably get to fire it later this year so I'll let you know.

....but yes comparative reliability is a good start, except the most reliable 5.56mm weapon currently in service is SA-80, - and it's also the heaviest!!

selil
06-14-2008, 10:45 PM
and talking to a guy at a bus stop the other day, he told me he liked it.

Must be one heck of a bus stop....

Ken White
06-15-2008, 12:05 AM
leaves and passes included LINK (Scroll down) (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/775000/images/_776016_soldier150.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/776016.stm&h=200&w=150&sz=7&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=ylhsHHQyJU_2OM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Bfemale%2BIsraeli%2Bsoldiers%26um%3 D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN). Bad neighborhood... ;)

selil
06-15-2008, 03:10 AM
leaves and passes included LINK (Scroll down) (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/775000/images/_776016_soldier150.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/776016.stm&h=200&w=150&sz=7&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=ylhsHHQyJU_2OM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2Bfemale%2BIsraeli%2Bsoldiers%26um%3 D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN). Bad neighborhood... ;)

Not bad. I'd have trouble listening to their opinion. I'd be distracted.

Ken White
06-15-2008, 03:40 AM
...................:o

selil
06-15-2008, 03:59 AM
I think it was the IDF that had hot chicks in the Army or some such as a recruiting effort.

Stan
06-15-2008, 05:20 AM
I think it was the IDF that had hot chicks in the Army or some such as a recruiting effort.

Looks like a terrorist version of Bay Watch :eek:

Sweet link and jpeg, Ken :p

William F. Owen
06-15-2008, 06:31 AM
I think it was the IDF that had hot chicks in the Army or some such as a recruiting effort.


They don't need to.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/mideast/idfgirl.jpg

Seriously, this is is normal everyday fair, on the streets where I live. I just tell my wife, I'm looking at the guns... and she says that's sadder than me looking at the girls!! :o

Kiwigrunt
06-15-2008, 09:12 AM
I was in the wrong army:confused:.......or maybe I did just look at the guns:confused:.....sad bastard:mad:

jcustis
06-16-2008, 04:20 PM
I love the M4 and M16, and think they are fine. It has become increasingly difficult to find basic truth in the variety of tests and analyses conducted these days on the weapon systems fronts. Couple that with the plethora of gun rag authors who recycle the same argument: AK vs M16; run it dry or run it wet; 28 rds or 25rds per mag; optics vs iron sights; piston vs. gas key, and you get a lot of hot air but too often little critical thought.

Quite a few folks on the gun porn boards get thmselves all lathered up when discussing the merits of either side of these arguments, and it's downright silly to see the blind love. The universal truths of keeping the any weapon and ammunition reasonably clean, understanding the principles of marksmanship, and knowing how to "run" a gun are becoming lost in a whirlwind of doo doo.

Just look at the OICW and the objective weight of 14 pounds with an elaborate fire control system. I still don't understand the purpose of slapping all that crap and complexity onto a rifle. What happened to suppression, maneuver, and the final assault?

Cavguy
06-16-2008, 08:04 PM
I love the M4 and M16, and think they are fine. It has become increasingly difficult to find basic truth in the variety of tests and analyses conducted these days on the weapon systems fronts. Couple that with the plethora of gun rag authors who recycle the same argument: AK vs M16; run it dry or run it wet; 28 rds or 25rds per mag; optics vs iron sights; piston vs. gas key, and you get a lot of hot air but too often little critical thought.

Quite a few folks on the gun porn boards get thmselves all lathered up when discussing the merits of either side of these arguments, and it's downright silly to see the blind love. The universal truths of keeping the any weapon and ammunition reasonably clean, understanding the principles of marksmanship, and knowing how to "run" a gun are becoming lost in a whirlwind of doo doo.



Agree completely. I posted on this same subject a few months ago (gets resurrected in new threads constantly). In two tours involving 29 months total in Iraq in all forms of combat no one I knew actively complained about the M4/M16. No one in my 129 soldier combat arms company experienced weapons malfunctions that were serious enough to report. I personally fired thousands of rounds through my M4 with no trouble I can recall. The one set of jamming I had was a bent magazine.

One can argue the merits of this or that rifle/caliber/gun, and as you said the gun enthusiasts get really riled up over it. There may be better on the market, but I had no problems with the M4 (personally or professionally) and would happy take one into combat again. I'm actually with the army - I'd rather get a completely new next-gen rifle than waste money on one that would be marginally better.

As far as add-ons, I found short range reflexive sights (M68 or similar) on most augmented by a few 4x ACOGs accounted for all of our needs in that environment.

Norwiscutter
07-16-2008, 10:35 PM
I have always liked the idea of necking up the 5.56 to 6mm. All that would be necessary would be to switch out the barrels on existing rifles and make the necessary modifications in the ammo supply chain. The existing .223 brass in the system could be retained and used, magazine capacity would stay the same, and the additional weight would be restricted to the grain differential between the new and old projectiles. All in all, I would think this option to be a somewhat reasonable and comparatively minimal modification that would allow for the utilization of bullets in the 100 grain range. Why this idea fails to garner more attention from the bigger caliber crowd I don't know. Perhaps because it is to incremental.

With that being said, I agree completely with the following opinion of Cavguy:


One can argue the merits of this or that rifle/caliber/gun, and as you said the gun enthusiasts get really riled up over it. There may be better on the market, but I had no problems with the M4 (personally or professionally) and would happy take one into combat again. I'm actually with the army - I'd rather get a completely new next-gen rifle than waste money on one that would be marginally better.

At this point, the focus should be on phasing out of the lighter weight 5.56 ammo(less than 62 grain) in favor of a heavier projectile and providing enough of it so that weapons proficiency can be established and sustained.

SethB
07-16-2008, 11:11 PM
The caliber that you are talking about is already extant. 6X45MM. It has some things going for it. Try searching it on google.

That said, there was a significant amount of literature released at NDIA this year concerning small arms ammunition, including data on possible replacement projectiles for 5.56 NATO.

I'll try and prepare a comprehensive post, but it may be a while before I get time.

Darksaga
07-19-2008, 07:55 AM
The 5.56 is designed to maim. It is designed to ricochet inside the body causing extensive wounds. It is designed to pull any enemy back so they don't leave a wounded comrade and bring them into the line of fire. For those who do live it creates an enormous burden on the medical staff that is working to save the life thereby using up the enemies resources.

However, in the current conflict, the enemy does not have the medical support and those that we injure we end up treating further causing a drain upon our resources and creating difficulty for us in managing the war effort.

From a practicle standpoint a larger round with more stopping power would be better suited for a counter-insurgency.

Cavguy
07-19-2008, 02:05 PM
However, in the current conflict, the enemy does not have the medical support and those that we injure we end up treating further causing a drain upon our resources and creating difficulty for us in managing the war effort.

From a practicle standpoint a larger round with more stopping power would be better suited for a counter-insurgency.

I've never seen insurgent casualties from our rounds "strain" our resources, and even less difficulty in regards to the "war effort". Where are you getting this?

Norwiscutter
07-19-2008, 06:15 PM
The 5.56 is designed to maim. It is designed to ricochet inside the body causing extensive wounds. It is designed to pull any enemy back so they don't leave a wounded comrade and bring them into the line of fire. For those who do live it creates an enormous burden on the medical staff that is working to save the life thereby using up the enemies resources.



I have never really felt that the whole "terminal cavitation induced by high velocity argument" was a very sound rationale for the adaptation of a new weapons platform. Only conjecture on my part, but this argument seams more like a rationalization from those who, at the time of implementation, had already made up their minds.

Outside of terminal ballistics, there are other areas that should come into play: performance through glass and creating loop holes, immobilizing vehicles, etc.

SethB
07-19-2008, 06:24 PM
NDIA (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/) 2008 contained a wealth of information on alternate calibers, terminal ballistics, intermediate barriers and other small arms related information.

The theories that Darksaga is posting about are either not in the historical record or overstatements. The 5.56 came from a series of projects dedicated to pushing a bullet fast enough to transfer energy through the bodies own liquids. This only works in brain and liver.

Future 5.56 cartridges will be much improved when dealing with barriers.

Darksaga
07-19-2008, 08:41 PM
I've never seen insurgent casualties from our rounds "strain" our resources, and even less difficulty in regards to the "war effort". Where are you getting this?

Maybe strain is too strong a word however our resources are utilized which does cause a drain on supplies and manpower when we are the only ones treating enemy wounded.

My resource from this has been from various briefings that I have attended. In the whole big picture it probably is a small measure however to the medical teams it can be a different story entirely.

Darksaga
07-19-2008, 08:44 PM
NDIA (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/) 2008 contained a wealth of information on alternate calibers, terminal ballistics, intermediate barriers and other small arms related information.

The theories that Darksaga is posting about are either not in the historical record or overstatements. The 5.56 came from a series of projects dedicated to pushing a bullet fast enough to transfer energy through the bodies own liquids. This only works in brain and liver.

Future 5.56 cartridges will be much improved when dealing with barriers.

What I pulled from was the training that I received and what to expect if one has to deal with a wound from a 5.56.

SethB
07-19-2008, 08:50 PM
Darksaga, I understand that. The fragmenting bullet was not discovered until the weapon was fielded. It does do just that, although I've been told that the current M855 ammunition is unreliable in that regard, fragmenting only 20% of the time at optimal velocity.

120mm
07-20-2008, 06:15 PM
Maybe strain is too strong a word however our resources are utilized which does cause a drain on supplies and manpower when we are the only ones treating enemy wounded.

My resource from this has been from various briefings that I have attended. In the whole big picture it probably is a small measure however to the medical teams it can be a different story entirely.

The "designed to wound, because X amount of people are required to take care of a WIA" is basically an "old sergeants' tale" and is factually and historically incorrect.

But, it's been passed around long enough to gain currency among those who don't use rigor in determining accuracy.

The 5.56 round is capable of both incredible wounding/killing and also poking a nice neat hole through someone they don't even notice until later. And it's very difficult to determine why.

I witnessed two nearly complete limb amputations caused by 5.56. But that was at extremely close range.

Ken White
07-20-2008, 06:40 PM
that the 5.56 was originally selected because it would tumble in tissue, not fragment (any fragmentation by a FMJ military bullet is theoretically not by design) but that tumbling never worked as good as it was supposed to and the Army required powder change lowered even the incidence of that.

As you say "...it's very difficult to determine why."

But there sure are a lot of myths out there. Hard to determine why that is, too... ;)

selil
07-21-2008, 04:11 AM
Video from Future Weapons on the IAR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVHLvtArC_g

120mm
07-24-2008, 06:55 AM
This could have some comedic overtones:

http://www.military.com/news/article/hill-aides-to-test-m4-alternatives.html


Hill Aides to Test M4 Alternatives
July 11, 2008
Military.com|by Christian Lowe

In a move that could ruffle the feathers of an Army command that views the Colt Defense-built M4 as the best carbine in the world, a select group of top senate staffers is gathering today to look at what could be the future of the military's standard assault rifle.

About 30 legislative aides have signed up to attend a July 11 demonstration at Marine Corps Base Quantico, just outside Washington, D.C., that will feature weapons from various manufacturers vying to end the reign of the M16 and M4 as the U.S. military's most fielded personal weapon...


For some reason, I have these visions of teenaged bubbleheaded blondes on the firing lines, with groups of Generals "hitting the dirt" as they flag everyone on the range with the muzzles of the rifles....

GS
07-28-2008, 02:08 AM
I have been to a shoot at Aberdeen with a group of Congressional staffers. Sure there are a few lookie-lous and a few lookers, but most of them have their stuff wired tight and ask some very good questions.