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

**selil** · 06-12-2008

Courtesy of Secrecy News at FAS

Article

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by MattC86

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

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.

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** · 06-14-2008

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

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

Originally Posted by MattC86

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!!