The M4 discussion
RM3(SS) sends us a link from the Washington Times entitled “Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in rifle” a rather long article about the controversy surrounding the Army’s standard battle rifle, the M4, particularly the Colt version;
Mr. Traudt, of Green Mountain Defense, said the military paid his company a decade ago for ideas for fixing the M4. He produced his company’s product, a 2001 technical report titled “Carbine extended life barrel and selected reliability improvement components identification.”
“The M4s were substandard,” he said. “The Army paid us to find a way to improve them, improve them cheaply with a little bit of extra engineering and metallurgical changes to make a gun that was markedly more reliable than the Colt weapon. The Army took our advice and did nothing with it.”
[…]
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, an artillery officer who earned the Silver Star in Vietnam, is a prominent M4 critic.
He said its 5.56-caliber bullet is too small and the gas-piston firing system is prone to stoppage. He said better weapons — the German Heckler-Koch G36 and Russian AK-74 (a version of the venerable AK-47) — use superior firing systems.
“Frankly, this whole thing is scandalous,” Gen. Scales said. “We send soldiers into close combat with lousy weapons and we’ve done it since World War II and nobody complains. It’s a national outrage.
“It has no penetrating power,” he said of the M4. “It’s ineffective against vehicles, against bunkers. It’s ineffective against virtually anything except a man in the open. Put a flak jacket on the enemy and it’s virtually useless.”
I was a fan of the M16A2. It was a perfect weapon, but I guess it was too long for the close-in fighting we’ve seen in recent years. I’m heartened that the Marines still use the M16. I have a civilian version of the M4 (not the Colt – I’m not made of money) and of course, I don’t use it under combat conditions or fire thousands of rounds through in a few minutes (again, I’m not made of money) and it gets cleaned in my living room before and after firing it. So, I guess I’m trying to say that I’m no expert on the M4 just because I own one. I also have an AR pistol that I built (from all non-Colt parts). But I’d like to hear what you guys have to say about it.
Like I said, I left the Army when the M16A2 was the issued weapon and I liked that it was structurally more reliable than the M16A1 and more accurate at longer ranges. We spent a lot of time cleaning it, but, then that’s what good soldiers do, isn’t it? I’ll admit that I like the idea of a 7.62 version. My friend has one and it has a more satisfying recoil than the M4, meaning better penetration and improved target impact. But I want to hear what you think of it, you have more experience with it in combat than me.
Category: Big Army
Gun nut debate begins in 3…2…1
I’d rather have an M-4 for a rifle than an M-9 for a pistol. Holy hell is that thing a piece of shit!
I thought the reason (one of) for 5.56 was weight. It allowed soldiers to carry a larger basic load.
Quick research and found this:
280 rds of 7.62= 20 lbs
660 rds of 5.56= 21.8 lbs
I guess I answered my own question. As you were…
Typical MSM article on guns written by someone who doesn’t know shit about guns.
“The gas piston firing system is prone to stoppage.” No, dumbass, the M4 doesn’t have a gas piston, it has direct gas impingement. Critics of the M4 (and M16) claim that the M4 SHOULD have a gas piston (as the HK and AK both do.)
Given that they can’t get the basic facts right, I’m guessing the rest of the article is BS too. No, the M4 is not perfect, but name one weapons system that is? To paraphrase Rumsfeld, you go to war with the rifle you have, not the rifle somebody sitting on their ass in a chair at home thinks you should have.
From my recollection, the complaints about the M4 didn’t start until after the war in Afghanistan began. My unit had M4A1s in 1999-2001 and we never had issues with them overheating or otherwise failing, even after extended range sessions.
Here’s the thing: You can ALWAYS find someone who wants to complain. ALWAYS. But that doesn’t neccessarily mean those complaints are completely valid.
Let’s also consider the possibility that not modifying the M4 was the least-bad option. Think about it: Imagine that the DoD pulled all the M4s off the line circa 2002 and refitted them. You can bet that when problems arose (as they ALWAYS do) the same people who are bitching today about the military not modifying the M4 would be saying “Why did they fix something that wasn’t broken?”
@1: E-6, as a combat historian, I was issued the M9 pistol at CRC; glad I didn’t have to actually use that pea-shooter for any actual shooting in Iraq…
You’ll notice in the article that none of the “experts” they interview work for Colt. In fact, they’re all in competition with Colt. By the way, my AR pistol has a piston system that seems to work just fine, although it’s a little slower than the the M4.
I had an M16A4 for most of my time in uniform. Even though I resisted the new optics that the rail system allowed, I liked it a lot. I suppose an M4 would have been somewhat better for going room to room, but other than that I can’t see a reason to switch, the A4 was perfectly balanced, more accurate at range, and I never had one jam on me, unlike a certain squad automatic weapon. I like the fact that the Marines have stuck with the M16 as well, they go house to house just like the Army does, the extra length obviously isn’t an impediment.
If we’re going to keep the M-16 series of rifles in the inventory, I’d like to see the uppers replaced with a flat top, and keep the 20″ barrel. That would give the shooter the ability to properly mount an optic if desired, plus keep the long barrel for increased range and accuracy. That’s just my opinion.
Having carried both an m4, an m16a4 with a collapsible buttstock, and an m14 ebr I would take the M4 anyday of the week, with a little care it operated well in box iraq and afghanistan, while I wouldn’t mind beefing up the round to something like .300 blackout I think the 5.56 has done plenty well…as evidenced by the fact the AK-74 mentioned in the article uses a very similar round the 5.45. I think there should be an option or easier access to 7.62 weapons like the scar 17 for regular troops in long range environments like A’stan but all in all I don’t think anyone is being done a disservice by carrying an M4.
@7 almost every single m16 I have seen has been upgraded to the a4 with a rail for optics mounting
I used MILITEC on my M-4 before deploying. In 16 months of shooting I did not have to add lubricant to my M-4 and didn’t have a single problem. Since we are talking about guns my civilian version of the M-4 is the SIG-Sauer R516.
@9. If you’re talking a out a rail system forward of the carry handle, that’s not the same as a flat top. It’s inherently less accurate. I also see lots of A-2s here in Afghanistan. Many of the support troops have them.
@11 okay that is true I did see a lot of pogues with a2’s downrange last year too…but i also saw plenty of a4’s…when I was on active duty my battalion had about 15 a2’s in our arms room
Here we go again with this BULLSHIT regarding the M4,M16,AR15, or what I call the Stoner Rifle.
I have the AR10 version in both M4(short carbine) and a 24″ stainless bull barrel weapon. I would depend on these just as much as I depended on the M4 I was issued while deployed to Iraq. JUST KEEP THE UPPER RECEIVER, AND THE BOLT AND BOLT CARRIER CLEAN. This took me no more than five minutes of my time to run a chamber brush, a bore snake, and a parts cleaning brush over everything and then I only used Mobil 1 synthetic oil for light lubrication, the talcum powder sand and dirt of Iraq would get every where.
Magazines are also a critical part of the reason for most failures of the Stoner Rifle. Just like the old soldiers adage of taking care of your feet also applies to your weapon.
Here is a link to an ex-operator, US Army Special Forces that really puts everything negative about the Stoner Rifle to rest. http://mountainguerrilla.wordpress.com/the-last-word-on-the-ars-suck-balls-debate/
@12. I’ve carried arms all of my adult life. I was on my units high power rifle team back in the day when we had M-14s for that purpose. I’ve always said I may not be the best shot in the word, but the people I hang out with are. It’s simple physics that makes a longer barrel with the corresponding longer sight radius (with iron sights) more accurate. The longer barrel also keeps the velocity up longer for more accurate distance shooting. Since the Army realistically won’t be changing calibers anytime soon, why not make the best out of it and just equip us with longer barreled rifles, like the Marines have done? And, in keeping with teaching to the lowest common denominator, a flat topped receiver will allow the most accurate mounting of an optic to the rifle.
IMO the M-4 is a piece of garbage. I was issued a brand new unissued M-4 for Afghanistan. The front site post would lean 10 degrees left and right of vertical making it impossible to use the iron sights. The QC in the factory on them was horrible. They jammed at the slightest hint of sand in Afghanistan no matter how often they were cleaned. And had documented problems with AD’s, hence the Army wide Safety Letter issued in summer of 2004.
In an ideal world, where money, time, and training isn’t an issue, if I’m operatinging in an Afgahnistan like eviroment, I’m carrying either an M-14, or an HK417. If I’m conducting MOUNT, I’m rocking an M16A4 or the HK417. If I’m CQB’ing it up, I’m using either the HK-MP5 or the Mossberg 500 and an assload of flashbangs.
The reality is, that when I deployed to Iraq I carried an M4. For the four months I was in Afghanistan I carried the M4A1. I look at tthe M4 a lot like I look at the ACU’s. The M4 tries to do everything passably well, and as a result its great at nothing. Did I ever have it fail on me? In burst mode, I’d get a lot of double feeds and jams (I never had to use the A1 so I don’t know if the full auto has the same issue). Do I have confidence in its ability to perform? Not really. When I used it, I felt like I had to put a lot of rounds on target to make sure of the target. But that’s mostly the fault of the 556 round itself.
Is the M16/M4 series not gas IMPINGEMENT, or did we get completely fucked during ROTC and then every rifle I’ve bought since then be completely wrong?
The great M4 controversy seems to surround the Battle of Wanat in 2008. The report that was written about it did mention failures of M4 carbines, but it also mentioned the failure of other weapons systems like the SAW and even insurgent AK failures. The author deemed the failures due to the furious and constant firing that went on between US and Insurgent forces. But that was just a small part of the report and made no conclusions as to the reliability of the M4 or any other weapon used. The report mostly focused on the failures of leadership all up the chain of command for the absolutely stupid placement of the camp and the lack of support for those solders caught in the fight. But as is usual, detractors of the M4 have tried to use the report to denigrate the carbine. Does it overheat? It can, just like any other firearm if fired as furiously as those M4s had to be that day. A heavier barrel would help to alleviate that problem. “Stopping power” a problem? Go to a heavier caliber like the 6.5grendel or 6.8SPC.
This just seems to be the Washington Times doing their usual hatchet job on the military.
I’ve been able to fire three different “primary weapon systems” in my time in the Army. Not just popping off a few shots, but actually training on them. Of course the first was the M4, the TAR-21 (Tavor) from Israel, and the SA-80 from Great Brittan. I have to say that, all things considered, the M4 kind of sucks.
The M4 targeting has to be trained for shot placement to be precise. If you don’t have good cheek position, head tilt, and focus through the sights downrange, you miss. The TAR-21 has an integrated aim-point sight. The SA-80 is similar to the M4 with the rear aperture and forward post.
When it comes to the size, weight, and maneuverability of a weapon in MOUT, I’ll take a bullpup design over our forward load any day. The TAR-21 has a forward profile closer to an Uzi. Both it and the SA-80 have a center of balance over the pistol grip rather than at the beginning of the barrel, so they are easier to quickly turn.
The only place the M4 has an advantage over both weapons is where it comes to bayonet combat (which is being phased out of the US military anyway). The M4 is longer in the barrel and designed similar to the M16 for “spear” combat.
My 2¢ (since you asked). I cannot speak from personal experience regarding the impact of the 5.56 round on a human target since I’ve never actually seen anyone shot with one, although I have heard 2nd hand accounts. I’ve seen people shot at with one but have never known if any of those rounds actually found their mark. I’ve only witnessed anyone being shot by the M240 (what a beast that gun is!). However, I have carried one in all kinds of conditions. Under ideal conditions with proper maintenance, it operates fine. However, no amount of maintenance can help prepare for a dust or sand storm and that is when, in my experience, they’ve failed me. Other than that, I’ve never had a problem with one. I do see the value in moving to a piston-operated system though simply for reliability in less-than-ideal conditions where a gas-operated system might fail. There are plenty of those at decent prices that Uncle Sam could probably get cheaper with bulk purchases.
I’m a big fan of the ‘416. It looks like a solid rifle to me, though I’m not much of a gun nut. Should make a nice replacement for the old ’16 and ‘4.
I spanned from the M16A2 to M4s. Never really had a problem with either. Spent my last couple of years behind an RWS with a M2 attached on a Stryker, though, so penetration (heh, heh, he said penetration), never really kept me awake at night.
Gen Scales is a little coocoo for cocoa puffs these days too, Silver Star or not. During the ‘women in combat’ debate he told a reporter he’d commanded a brigade where all of the battery commanders were women. When I called him on it he wanted to turn into a dick measuring contest.
After 32 years of police work (30 years as a firearms instructor-including “the” rifle) 20+ years in the Army and Ca national guard—having shot thousands and thousands of rounds in rifles, pistols, machine guns, less lethal, 81MM mortar, etc.
I came to the conclusion that any friggen weapon has to be kept clean, fed a good diet of ammo and shot correctly. There were days in Iraq that we had to clean our weapons (for me an M4 and an M9) 4 times without even firing them. Why? because of sand storms…and I knew that shit would make our weapons not work if needed. My team understood this and after a few times they just did it without me having to say anything.
As far as pistols, I’m a factory trained armorer on the M9…it’s a great handgun…but the military ball 9mm ammo sucks. If you use something like Winchester SXTs it’s a great gun and will stop assholes. The 9mm ball ammo just needs 2 or 3 hits to work.
A “cheap” fix for the M4 or M16 is to convert the upper to the H&K gas piston. runs cooler, less fouling etc.
But guns are like cars…you may love a Chevy and hate a Ford…but what are you being issued? take it and understand how it works and make it work. Don’t whine about it because the Generals and all know best…right?
I’m mildly curious from that article…Is an infantryman’s weapon SUPPOSED to be effective against bunkers or vehicles? Sure, it’d be nice, but-I don’t think even a Raufoss Mk11 is effective against pure concrete.
Sorry… I will remain a fan of the 7.62!
where do we get a copy of the 2001 technical report titled “Carbine extended life barrel and selected reliability improvement components identification.”
I have an OOOOOOOOLD XM177 upper on a colt AR-15 M4gery lower. I love it. It’s my favorite AR. Having said that, if I had to go to war, I’d take an M1A (or M14). I have three of them. They’re heavier than my ARs. They’re bigger. I’ve also never had an issue with jamming from ANY of them that wasn’t caused by cheap chinese mags that had phony markings to rob me of 200 bucks.
I never really cared for a lot of aspects of the Ak. Just not my thing.
Oh, and the best AR I have is an LMT. Maybe a handful of times it jammed since I bought it, and I bought it used.
“He said its 5.56-caliber bullet is too small and the gas-piston firing system is prone to stoppage. He said better weapons — the German Heckler-Koch G36 and Russian AK-74 (a version of the venerable AK-47) — use superior firing systems.”
Of course, the G36 also uses the 5.56mm (not caliber). The G36 also has a number of problems, such as losing zero on your second magazine due to all the plastic in it in places that shouldn’t be plastic.
From talking with people, I’d say the biggest problem is that the Army knows, practices, and teaches fuck all about proper weapons maintenance and cleaning.
If you run it dry or with the lightest possible amount of lube, if you try to make it pass a white glove test, and if you ignore the fact that it’s a mechanical system and parts, especially springs, do need to be regularly checked and replaced, then, yeah, it’ll break on you.
I own a Armalite A-10(.308) and seriously considering buying one of the short pison 308 made by a US company. Stag Arms is high on my list because they make a true Left handed carbine.Before I went to Nam an old Gunny told me. “Never go to war w2ithout a rifle does not begin with a 3 or a pistol with a 4. The Airwing(Helo)were never issured the M-16,even upon returt to the World. Joe
I carried the M16 A-2 early on in my career and was given an M16 A-4 before crossing the border in ’03. Loved the A-2 and the A-4 was great for CQB and ranged-fighting, which we did a lot of. I also think the 5.56 round is great if you are accurate with your shots. If you hit center mass it was usually a traatic enough hit that it would drop the bad guy and a headshot was usually fatal. There were a few times where the round would go clean through and the bad guy would keep coming, but everyone knows Marine grunts cant just fire one shot so one of my subsequent shots would do the trick. I spent any downtime keeping my weapon clean and never had an issue with it. On my 3rd deployment in 05-06, they gave some of us M-4s…. I f’n hated it. It felt like a toy and my accuracy past 250 meters was pretty bad. I asked (and received) an A-4 again… Felt like I was reunited with an old friend.
Buttstrokes are more effective from an M16 due to the extra weight and leverage you can put behind it, as well.
*traumatic enough hit
Someone already posted…but guns are like cars and women…different tpes for different likes. A long, long time ago on ranges firing AKs…we had ZERO misfires-malfuncions. This occurred on several occasions. I cannot say that with the M16.
I never even held an M4, way before my time, so I can’t speak to you guy’s experience with it. I used the M16A1. It served me well. Some of the guys before me had problems with the original but those kinks were, by and large, worked out with the M16A1 corrections for failure to extract and failure to fire. I agree with Jonn. I would like to see a 7.62 variant, for range and power’s sake (understanding though that accuracy at long range is helped/hampered by barrel length). That is why we had the “pig” as the SAW of my day. I just think it is a better round than the 5.56. Just my opinion. Some of the guys WAY before me had had the M14. They liked the power and range but they said in the bush it could be hard to wield as well as the wooden stock having problems in rain and humidity. (Thus comes the M16) Still think it, the M14, is a great weapon. I believe it and the M1 Garand are still used to this day in match shooting if that says anything about their worthiness. I personally think whatever they have, a 7.62 is a better kill round. As stated above though, I don’t believe the top brass are going to change rounds anytime soon. All this is just my one humble opinion. You younger guys, who have seen Iraq/Afghanistan tours have far more experience with more types of weapons than I ever did and so I defer to your recommendations. You guys did the “house to house” work which I never experienced (thank God) so your opinions are far more worthwhile than mine on this issue. But, if I had my hearts desire before I die, I always wanted to cut loose with an M2HB. Only saw them in action but never had the chance to fire one and I’ve seen photos and videos of vehicle mounts from Iraq and Afghanistan of it and the newer M2A1. I heard there’s an annual “machine gun” event in Nevada somewhere. I hear everybody… Read more »
My garage is full of tools. Standard, metric, flat, phillips, torx, open end, box end, ratcheting, fixed. Despite that, I have a drawer of flathead screwdrivers all with bent tips. That’s what I get for trying to use them as pry bars… a use beyond it’s intended function. Why people think there should exist one firearm perfect for any scenario is beyond me.
Too bad they didn’t interview a proper expert, maybe either Larry Vickers or Jack Leuba.
But, that’s the media for you.
No round is ideal for all conditions (although a lot of AR fans I know really LIKE the 6.8!) The 5.56 has evolved over the years – originally it was intended for <250 meter ranges and the original bullet was less than 55 grains in weight. As time went on they wnted to use heavier bullets for better energy retention at longer range, so for better accuracy they changed the rifling twist. It's always a compromise – 7.62 x 51 packs a lot more punch downrange but weighs, and recoils, significantly more. (And yes, they do make ARs in 7.62 – see the AR-10.) You can carry a helluva lot more 5.56 but it's one-shot-stop rate is poor. Gas piston guns typically need less bolt cleaning than direct impingement guns but typically weigh more and are more complex. Ideally
we would all have 2-pound .50BMGs that all held 50 round mags which would shoot half-minute groups… but that ain't happenin'. No matter what, a weapon is always a set of compromises and generally whatever works for you best is one whose compromises you can accept better than another system.
Oh, and FMJ 9mms have about the same first-round-stop rate as FMJ .45s in the real world…bluntly, neither is that damn great (around 73% or so.) Want a real stopper? 125gr hollwpoint .357 runs closer to 94%… but you have significantly higher recoil and other issues. Compromises…
@39 David…thanks for that. Always enjoy reading you guys with far more experience. You said the thread closer I guess…Compromises.
I do agree though, my old 1972 purchased, S&W Model 66 4″ barrel is a great weapon and I love shooting it. Never jambed either!
I grew up on the M-16 and never had any major problems with it. In Iraq was issued and M4 and I liked it a lot better. I thought the trigger control was better. Was easier to sight better and faster while in Battle Rattle. You did not have to climb over the top of the Weapon to get a good sight picture, us South Paws you know. Stopping power and Caliber size are really end of the Equation factors though. If you are not accurate, or your Weapon will not fire. It does not matter what size round leaves the Barrel. Funny how it always comes down to fundementals. Do they still teach those or is it too UN-PC to have them.
Bunch of gear queers wanting overpriced HK.
How not surprising.
The same turds that claims 7.62 is the God round won’t be the ones carrying it either.
Every single Iraqi I saw shot with a 5.56 in the torso died. that was evidence enough for me.
I carried the M-16A2 when I enlisted and was issued a brand new M-4 after a few years. If you keep the weapon clean, iled, feed it the correct ammo (M-855and M-856, NOT the M-193 or M-196 designed for the M-16 and M-16A1) and it will work for you. When I got to my unit I was the smallest guy in the unit and as such I was made a 60 gunner. I was told over and over by everyone how the 60 was a unreliable POS. I took care of my weapon and cleaned it on a regular basis and guess what, my 60 never failed to send rounds and on one occasion even a blank adapter downrange. I personally fell in love with the M-14s in our armory but of the two types of RIFLES I have had to hump around I was happy with my M-16A2.
Finally, something I can comment on from over 26 years of experience. Little background: Aberdeen Proving Grounds, small arms trained repairman. Barrett factory, M107 armorers course. Beretta factory armorers course. RTSM certified tank turret, and artillery repair. Certified Small Arms Master Gunner. 25 years federal service time, working on small arms. PLT SGT, Armament platoon. Combat Rifle competitor, machine gun competitor, high power competitor, IDPA, USPS, and ICORE shooter. Two combat tours in Iraq (2nd was supporting 5th, and 7th SF ODA & ODB teams). I’ve been issued M16A1’s through M16A4’s, and have repaired, altered, cleaned, and beat the crap out of them all, from every branch of service. That said…there’s not a damn thing wrong with the M4, or the M16 family. In my career, the #1 reason for rifle failure, was neglect of maintenance. Do what the -10 says to do for cleaning and lubrication, and the rifle will march to battle reliably and accurately. The Army has trained recruits WRONG since 1964, in maintenance, lubrication, and method of firing. Despite that, the rifle is accurate and very lethal. Everyone here, who was ever issued the rifle in Basic Training, should vividly remember your Drill Sergeant pouring in the oil through the ejection port, just before you marched to the firing line. WRONG. He made you clean it so you could eat off it, polishing the bore to a mirror shine so his white glove remains pristine. WRONG. And that lousy training stuck with the Army ever since. This emphasis on heavy lube, and perfect cleaning, was a carry-over from corrosive ammo days, and is STILL pushed in the services. So, scrubbed rifles have lost their protective finishes, exposing bare steel to the elements. Gobs of oil means that every rock and dust particle known to God will find the lower receiver and be glued to components that do much better without grit and debris grinding away on the exposed steel, and breaking springs that keep the rifle running safe and sure. Not to mention the too many self proclaimed “weapons experts” who keep stripping the rifle down… Read more »
Ok, this seems to be the appropriate thread to ask this question. If I was in the market to buy an M-4, or variant. If I was in the market for an off the shelf rifle that fit those requirements what would you recommend? Assume I know what a 1:7 twist and a chromed barrel means. Also, 5.56 vs .223.
Let’s say my budget was $1500. What do you recommend?
Oh, I’m happy with iron sites.
@46,
I have owned and built many AR type weapons.
For an off the Shelf in that price range I like Del Ton.
Nato 5.56 Vs .223
Any weapon chambered 5.56 will safely fire .223
.223 Chambered Weapons firing a 5.56 round can cause high pressures, it is not recommended or safe.
I use once fired Nato 5.56 brass, Trim it down to .223 spec and load a 55 grain fmjbt. I never load a max load.
I would the 5.56 , you can shoot the 223 in the rifle. The 5.56 has higher chamber pressure than the 223.Shooting 5.56 in a 223 could damage the rifle and in extreme cases yourself . This advice has written about in several shooting magazines. Goolge it. As to what brand and gas system and use the internet. You will find plenty in your price. Once you the rifle I suggest you check the Gallery of Guns and a few others like GOG. I would suggest that the brand be compatible to upper assembly changes at a later time. JOE
#46: The answer I get from folks that teach lots of AR classes is: Colt, Bravo/BCM, or Daniel Defense.
A basic Colt 6920 can be had for under $1000 ($967) at Cheaper than Dirt, and one with the Magpul goodies already installed is $1027. The additional $400 should buy a good bit of accessories- a bunch of Pmags, a Vickers sling, box of ammo and a good light (if you’re just staying basic).
You can also snag the Colt 6720 for around the same price, if you want the ‘pencil’ barrel.