In the continuing debate over whether the current version of the M4 carbine should be replaced, some lawmakers are keeping pressure on the Army to take another look at their standard-issued rifle.
In a series of letters to top Army officials, Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma who has no small arms makers in his state, asked a simple question to the new, acting Army secretary Pete Geren: <a target=“_blank” href=“http://www.defensetech.org/archives/archives/Coburn%20second%20letter%20to%20Sec%20Army%20Geren%205%2016%2007.pdf””>Is the M4 the best rifle in the world?
The letter, written May 16, is the latest attempt by the first-term Senator to force the Army to look at new rifle technologies that could make life a lot easier for Soldiers and other troops who use the compact M4 as their primary weapon. Coburn does not sit on any armed service-related committees.
As most DT readers already know, the M4 in its current state uses a gas-operated system to eject a spent round and load another. That system without going into the minute details is said to be prone to malfunctions unless it is meticulously cleaned. Thats hard to do in harsh, talcum-sand environments like Iraq and Afghanistan and can be extremely time consuming.
New (at least in infantry weapons) gas-piston operating system designs are much less prone to fouling, operators say, and can be retrofitted to current weapons at relatively low cost.
The congressional pressure is mounting, a Senate source tells Defense Tech, to withhold funds in the 2008 Defense Authorization bill to buy $375 million in M4s for new Army Brigade Combat Teams from Colt Defense until the Army holds an evaluation of these new rifle systems. Candidate weapons include the FN-made SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, the HK 416 (which is popular with special operations forces) and Colts gas-piston version of the M4, appropriately dubbed the M5.
Competition-backers in the Senate arent optimistic that they can insert language into the budget markup, but are planning to take their argument to the floor of the Senate when the final bill comes up for a vote. The senate source said Air/Land forces subcommittee chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), is resisting the competition bill language.
Colt Defense is based in West Hartford, Conn.
The Army has also resisted changing course on the M4, saying back in late March that the carbine has been improved numerous times and employs the most current technology available on any rifle/carbine in general use today.
That seems to be at odds with what the Armys most elite soldiers (and other special ops forces, for that matter) really want. But as the body armor debate heats back up again and lawmakers show a greater willingness to have the services explore and pay for new approaches to everyday equipment, well see if the Army takes another look at the Soldiers most important piece of equipment.
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
I think it is very stupid of us to think that we can still use a rifle that was developed during the Korean war, when the rest of the world is advancing right around us. Regardless of the number of modifications made to the M4 it is still a very old and out-dated rifle. It is not only a better choice to update the standard battle rifle, but we owe it to our soldiers to give them the very best on the market. Our enemies have already learned this. Result… Iranian made IED’s. If the only super power left in the world cant even give it’s military the best fighting chance because of some jerk-off in Washington, then they deserve to have the blood of every dead soldier dumped on their house.
What’s with all the interest in ‘rifle’ configurations?
European armies use a lot of ‘bullpulp’ designs.
The new Israeli rifle is pretty cool.. why don’t they look into that :P
The problem is not linked to the gas system per se, but because the gas system in the M-16 family of rifles does not have a separate gas cylinder that acts on the bolt. The design blows gases directly back through the receiver to the bolt, fouling the small components in between. In comparison, the AK-47 vents the gases to an exterior piston and rod assembly, which exerts force on the bolt.
What criteria would they compare the rifle too?
If the Army was really concerned about it’s soldiers they would buy the HK 416 right now. All the Army top dogs care about is the kickbacks they get from buying more M4s and M16s. Our soldiers fighting for us deserve alot better than a 2nd best carbine.
Coburn has highly impressed me during his first term. He seems to be above all the brown stuff in Washington. I hope he keeps it up.
Air/Land forces subcommittee chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), is resisting the competition bill language. (Democrat from Conn…. hmmm…)
and
Colt Defense is based in West Hartford, Conn. (based in Conn…. more hmmmm)
I wonder if Mr. Lieberman sleeps well at night. I’ll bet he does. No conscience means he does not have nightmares of US soldiers in a life or death situation holding a weapon that has just jammed on them.
A few comments.
First, the M-16 series is obviously getting a little long in the tooth. It’s had an almost 40 year run, which is pretty much unprecedented for military issue repeating rifles (with the exceptions of the AK and the Mauser 98). Reevaluating it is a good idea.
Replacing it may not be. Few modern militaries have successfully changed issue rifles (much less calibers) in the middle of a war. Issue of substitute standards are not uncommon — the Germans issuing the Stg/44 and 7.92mm Kurz, the Russians the SKS and 7.62x39mm, the Japanese moving to 7.7 Arisaka, the Israelis issuing the Galil and M-16 series side by side. Few armies have tried to switch horses in midstream on a wholesale basis.
The only exception that occurs to me right now is our switch from 7.62 NATO/M-14 to the M-16 during Viet Nam. By most accounts, that didn’t work out so well. And, IIRC, the M-14 wasn’t ever completely replaced; the Navy, Marines, and many Army units (e.g., the Ranger battalion) always kept a few around for sniper/Arctic/desert duty, or antimaterial/EOD.
So, let’s measure the feasibility of replacing the M-16 accordingly. Issue of a substitute standard platform (like a piston driven system) and/or cartridge might be a better idea.
Second, is it just me, or does something about this smell like a political stunt? I mean, I’m just sayin’. Historically, Congressman just love the troops, at least until it’s time to fund or reform the VA. Some of our worst political hypocrisies contain the phrase “what’s good for the troops.”
Me, I’m turning up the gain on my bullshit detector. Being a first term Senator doesn’t make you a saint.
Third, does anyone on this board have a horse in this race? I don’t; I don’t own stock in Colt, Heckler, FN, etc., am not employed by them in any capacity, and don’t own their wares either. Maybe I’ve got my bullshit detector’s gain turned up too high, but, believe it or not, product reps have been known to anonymously post on gun boards. They’ve even been known to flame their competitor’s products. That’s sad, but true. If any of you have got a bias in any direction, I sure would appreciate it if you lay it down, on the square and level.
Fourth, I’ve been told some of the M-4′s problems with grit speak to issued and/or wet lubricants. I’ve been told that dry lubes — microspheres, teflon, moly — do a better job, but they’re either expensive, or they haven’t been mil spec’d.
Don’t know if that’s true or not. Correct me if I’m wrong. Anyone out there BT,DT, got time in the AO? Can the M-4 be fixed with better lubes?
Fifth, getting down on the M-16′s gas system is an easy hit. Let’s not forget why it was built that way. IIRC, at the time, it was thought that having moving parts like a gas piston and a return spring over/near the muzzle meant more shot dispersion, thought to be especially NFG for full auto. That’s why the M-16′s return spring and buffer are in the stock tube, closer to the shooter’s body, stabilized by his counterweight. Theoretically, the M-16 series holds a tighter group on either semi or full auto than other systems. Theoretically, a low grade moron can consistently get chest hits at combat ranges, even under stress.
IIRC, another reason the system was chosen was that it allowed easy access to all essential parts. Some competing gas tappet systems of the time were also known to foul, and accessing them for repair wasn’t as simple.
Don’t know if all of that is still true, if it ever was, but bear it in mind. Advances in computer modeling, motion studies, CAD, CAM, etc., etc. may have made for more accurate, fail safe gas piston systems. If so, it’s time for a side by side comparison. [And, BTW, if anyone has a gas system that will allow the salvage and conversion of existing uppers, maybe that should be considered too.]
Let’s not ascribe the M-16′s longevity to simple incompetence or stupidity. That’s a cheap shot, however superior it may make you feel. The people who chose, built and maintained the M-16 had (and continue to have) very good intentions. Unfortunately, that’s what the road to Hell is paved with.
Please, don’t make the same mistake.
More and more this conflict is looking like Vietnam.
Another war where the troops are not getting the combat rifle they need because of kickbacks and back-room deals. The war may change, but the reasons stay the same.
Just remember when we quit Vietnam, Thailand was not overthrown, nor Malaysia or Burma.
Al Qaeda has not gotten too far in Saudi Arabia or the other Gulf States. They would not be in Iraq if we were not there in the first place.
> Air/Land forces subcommittee
> chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.),
> is resisting the competition bill language.
> (Democrat from Conn…. hmmm…)
Joe Lieberman was elected from the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. He neglected to register any members of the party other than himself or to hold a Party meeting, as required by state law, so he lost control of that party to a group of not-so-well-wishers. He then changed his registration and party affiliation to Independent. He is not a member of the Democratic Party nor a Democratic Senator.
Cranky
Why do we have to repalce the entire infanty rifle system in one fell swoop, in “midstream”? It would seem that the best solution for an immediate problem would be to purchase operating rod uppers from HK, Colt, DSA, and so on. By doing that you are reducing some of the initial cost. And, would further keep costs down by not having to buy other items like magazines, ammo, cleaning kits, and spare parts for an entirely new rifle. Nevermind having to train on a new weapon system.
From what I understand most of the issues with the M-4, and M-16, are related to the gas blowback system. So, it would seem the most logical would be to just replace the gas blowback system. Then, when we have a lul in the fighting, we can worry about changing the entire rifle. So then next time our troops are required to kill some fundamentalist wacko’s somewhere in the world they will have a rifle system that was carefully thoughtout and purchased, that allows them to more effectively kill people.
( I know how the Government works, and I know a solution that is sensible, and practical for the troops will never come out of congress, but I can at least hope. Right?)
Cranky,
You might want to check your stats on Lieberman’s party affiliation. http://lieberman.senate.gov/about/
He was the running mate to Al Gore a few years ago.
Davids,
I hear a stick works well also
@Will Wheeler:
One problem is thedirect gas system, another probelm are low quality magazines.
You don’t really need to change magazines if youa dopt another weapon, but there are good reasons to do so even without changing the weapon.
Further – many M16 are still limited to safe/single shot/burst. No full auto as advisable when clearing a room (hand grenade in, one full auto full magazine sweep around and room is clear – not advisable in Iraq, but who want’s to prepare only for the previous war?).
There are many things not optimal in the AR-15 system and that includes the lower receiver.
Anyway,the rifle cost itself is pretty marginal if purchased in huge quantities. Some hundred, less than 2k bucks at most for the army. For an item that lasts for many years. Compare that to the personnel and rifle add-on costs…
That should be less important than quality.
> He [Lieberman] was the running mate to Al Gore
> a few years ago.
I am aware of that. In 2006 he lost a primary to a Democratic opponent, then left the Democratic Party to run under the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. He can claim whatever he wants at this point, but when he refused to accept the will of Democratic Party primary voters he by definition left the Democratic Party. The AP stylebook description for him is “Senator Lieberman [I-CT]” since he lost the “CfL-CT” label when he didn’t comply with Connecticut election law on the registration of parties.
Cranky
The Senator asks a simple, but devastating question. A rarity, indeed.
Everyone knows where I stand on this issue. The M4 and 5.56mm needs to go. Not going to happen anytime soon. The results for radical weapon changes during wartime are mixed at best. Still, during combat, you will know right away if something works as advertised, sometimes at the expense of lives.
It is hard to argue the M4 is superior to the Sig 556, FN SCAR 5.56/7.62mm, Magpul
How feasible is starting to only buy uppers that fit onto the m16 series and m4 series lowers? I think I remember some stats on the prices and an 416 upper is about the price as a whole m4. Do lowers wear out at a rate that would make this partial upgrade a bad idea?
Saying not to change weapons mid war doesn’t hold much water. Look at Delta Force and other units. Thay had enough with the M4 low reliability and now carry the HK416. If the M4 was good enough then they wouldn’t have changed. Guess they don’t care about changing weapons mid war…
Also to say that the “leaders” who chose the M4 are all angels and have the best interest of the grunt unfortunately isn’t always the case. Many of the guys who make these decisions in the military somehow end up working for the same defense contractor that made the weapon they pushed on everyone.
Also, how much pressure do you think the maker of the M4 is putting on the Conn senators and congressmen right now to push through that new M4 buy? A TON!!
lenn
The weapon that gets approved will be the one whos company greases the most political palms. That is how it is and how it has always been. It isnt pretty but it is the truth. Start putting term limits on these polititians. If people think the Pres has the most power they better think again. Why would a Senetor or Congresman stay there for 20-30 years or more?
Looking in from UK, I can see that it must be hugely frustrating for troops on the ground to be equiped with a weapon that still seems to have some flaws. I have seen 3 generations of weapons in my time with the UK armed forces. The reliable SLR,(FAL),big round, but very few soldiers truly mastered its power. The SA80A1 good intentions, British built, but so full of flaws UK special forces never really touched it, other than for trials. Poor magazines, mag release that operated when you did not need it, poor components, massively unreliable, it felt like junk and was junk.
Strangly enough as with the HK416, the SA80A2 version is a different beast and Heckler Koch have worked a treat on it. Modified by HK UK armed forces now have a much more reliable weapon. Sure SF wont be using it, but having carried it on operations and fired it in dust storms on ranges in Kuwait, and watched National Guard M16′s fail as ours continued to operate. Its largely accepted that for the cost of the mods, every SA80 could have been replaced with an M16,something that was considered.
The US military could do worse and let HK work their magic on the M4 even if costs more. What cost a soldiers life? I hope that the US soldier gets a weapon up to the task,…soon.
You guys make me laugh.
Many of you babble on about changing a MAJOR WEAPONS SYSTEM, when you know very little about assault rifles or infantry weapons…most of what you know is from video games, isn’t it? And yet you feel your expert opinions should guide life-and-death procurement decisions. Is that wise?
About the 5.56: it is a good, efficient killer. It’s been killing for almost five decdes now. Hundreds of thousands have fallen to it. And isn’t it funny that some clamor for a larger round, but in the next breath advocate a new rifle to replace the M-16, even though the new rifle would also be 5.56! Change! We need new, cooler stuff! All the other guys are doing it! And that new Israeli rifle sure does LOOK cool, eh?
As for the “big bore bigots”…heavy rounds mean heavy recoil, heavy weapons, and heavy ammo. Any range advantage is illusory. The farthest you can see on most battlefields is 300 meters. Which is about as far as the average guy can hit in the stress of combat. Anyway, >90% of combat occurs <100 meters. Beyond that we have maching guns, snipers and artillery to kill the enemy.
About the “unreliable” gas system on the M-16: the supposedly superior HK 416 rifles use the EXACT SAME bolt locking system. That is what causes stoppages in sandy conditions, NOT the Direct Gas operating system! Gas pistons like the AK and HK get very dirty, as those of you who ACTUALLY HAVE FIRED these rifles know.
I’d like to add my comments about the M16/M4.
(sorry for the length)
Most of the those who post opinions about the rifle really don
Templeton Peck – Nice post btw. That’s a good deal of info, quite nicely summed up.
Anyways, my point was to state that there are problems with issues of so called “upgrades” or “redesigns” that are meant to go without a glitch.
The design and implementation of new components into older designs (that were not built to work in this method) generally ends up costing as much money as designing and implementing a new weapon.
Coming from an engineering angle, the structure is likely to be acting differently, with different stresses. Also, wear will happen in new areas etc.
So, when you think you have ironed out all the problems, you introduce a new one. And problems are never cheap (especially when lives are concerned – even from an economical aspect 1 jam could equal at least whatever it is currently being paid out to the dependant family for a death or serious injury).
Total cost of a redesign will indeed be much more on the outset, but then again, there are many good designs out there that have only the supply and demand problem to have sorted.