The Army’s M-4 Carbine: Background and Issues for Congress
Courtesy of Secrecy News at FAS
Article
I think this is a pretty good commentary and look at the weapons system.
Quote:
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).
Quote:
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.
You're forgetting the ultimate discriminator
Wilf said:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
Then Wilf said:
Quote:
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.
It did and does require a degree of
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...
The Troops carry their weapons almost at all times over there,
leaves and passes included LINK (Scroll down). Bad neighborhood... ;)