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

[selil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

[Rifleman]

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]

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...

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]

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]

MV isn't that big an issue...

[MattC86]

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]

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]

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]

leaves and passes included LINK (Scroll down). Bad neighborhood...

[selil]

leaves and passes included LINK (Scroll down). Bad neighborhood...

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

[Ken White]

...................

[selil]

I think it was the IDF that had hot chicks in the Army or some such as a recruiting effort.

[Stan]

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

Sweet link and jpeg, Ken