Posted on 08/04/2002 11:34:22 AM PDT by demlosers
It’s smaller, lighter and better suited for modern battles. And it might be headed into the hands of U.S. Marines.
Marine Corps officials wrapped up testing two new rifles as a possible replacement to the M-16A2 in stock now: the short M-4 carbine and the M-16A4, an upgraded model of the rifle Marines use now.
The jury’s still out, but a decision is expected soon. So far, though, the M-4 is garnering praise from the Marines and looks to be a front-runner.
However, some soldiers who fought in Afghanistan have expressed concerns about the M-4, which also is standard issue for U.S. Army infantry troops. Their chief complaints, though, appear to center on the ammunition used, not the weapon itself — and officials have said ammunition types are undergoing review.
The M-4 is hardly new to the Corps. Marine Force Reconnaissance units, Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Teams and Military Police Special Response Teams have been using the weapon since 1999 as a replacement for the MP-5 submachine gun.
Corps officials tested the two rifles for more than 18 months. The latest test, held at Camp Lejeune, N.C., wrapped up in July. The rifles were put through the wringer, including shooting at known-distance ranges, live-fire field trials and force-on-force scenarios, said Capt. John Douglas, project officer at Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va.
Douglas said the M-16A4 looks and feels much like the M-16A2 but, like the M-4, has component parts. The Corps can buy either weapon of the existing Army contract, Douglas said.
“Both weapons have flat-top upper receivers with 1913 Military Standard rails for mounting optics as well as forward rail hand guards,” Douglas said.
“All accessories from lasers, lights, scopes, etc., mount to the 1913 rails as a standard mounting platform, allowing tailoring of the weapon to mission, billet, or individual ergonomic preferences,” he said.
But even if a new rifle comes, Douglas said, not every Marine will get one. They’ll be fielded only for ground infantry units.
The maneuverability, adaptability and ease of operation cause some to favor the M-4 for tomorrow’s Marines.
Mike Reissig, a sales representative with Colt Manufacturing, declined to answer questions before test results are released but forwarded a point paper provided by the Marine Corps to Colt Manufacturing. It says the rifle simply is a better fit for the way Marines will be fighting in the future.
The weapon, the paper said, is based on a proven design familiar to all Marines, and is equally well-suited for operations in all types of terrain, including use in urban environments.
The M-4 has interchangeable sighting systems, add-on vertical forward grips and even a detachable short version of the M-203 grenade launcher. The rifle itself is one full pound lighter than the M-16A2 and 10 inches shorter. The collapsible buttstock is designed to make it more adaptable to individual shooters, a benefit especially in tight-packed urban areas.
“This allows the Marine to rapidly shoulder the weapon from a proper fighting stance with combat gear,” the review said. “The reduced barrel length allows the weapon to be more easily maneuvered in restrictive terrain, urban areas, vehicles and aircraft.”
There are some drawbacks to the M-4, though. A shorter barrel means reduced velocity and accuracy at long ranges. But it’s unlikely, the Marine review said, that battles would be waged at more than 200 meters. At that distance, the M-16A2’s and M-4’s performance are nearly identical.
The M-4, the review concluded, “provides our infantry unit leaders with the ability to rapidly prepare for combat under varying situations, while allowing them to employ the latest in target acquisition technology. Its modular nature allows us to upgrade components as improvements become available.”
I think that you're being a bit misled by your data. Here's what the US Army has to say:
5.56 NATO Ball Ammunition Ballistic Comparison
based on Aberdeen Proving Ground Data
velocity (fps) trajectory (in.) drop (inches) drift (inches)*
range M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855
(meters)
0 3,200 3,100 -2.5 -2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
100 2,774 2,751 +2.8 +4.4 -2.2 -2.3 1.3 1.1
200 2,374 2,420 +2.7 +5.8 -9.9 -10.2 5.8 4.9
300 2,012 2,115 -4.9 0.0 -25.1 -25.3 14.2 11.8
400 1,680 1,833 -23.0 -15.0 -50.8 -49.5 27.6 22.4
500 1,373 1,569 -56.2 -42.9 -91.6 -86.7 47.5 38.0
600 1,106 1,323 -113.1 -88.2 -156.1 -141.3 76.4 59.5
700 995 1,106 -206.8 -156.1 -257.3 -220.9 113.5 88.4
800 927 1,010 -339.9 -267.7 -398.0 -339.2 156.1 124.9
* Drift for 10 mph wind.
M193 Ball ammunition fired in M16A1 rifle with 250 meter battle sight zero.
M855 Ball ammunition fired in M16A2 rifle with 300 meter battle sight zero.
The M855 round penetrates a nominal 10 gauge SAE 1010 or 1020 steel test plate at a range of at least 570 meters (623 yards). At 500 yards, the SS109 (M855) would penetrate both sides of a USGI PASGT Kevlar helmet with your head inside it.
At 1000 yards, it would penetrate one side of the helmet, go through your head, and maybe be halted by the other side of the helmet.
In short, the black rifle is not suitable as a sniper rifle in the as issued service condition. It never was. The M16 round will not penetrate light armor or trees. The M16 round richoets off water and sand too easy. The M4 carbine shares these same short commings.
A long range rifle that is less sensitive to dirt than the M16 is required for combat in the Middle East deserts. The carbines will not be useful until a city is invaded and door to door combat ensues. Sounds like the plan ?
Works for me. Bring back the M-14.
In short, the black rifle is not suitable as a sniper rifle in the as issued service condition. It never was. The M16 round will not penetrate light armor or trees. The M16 round richoets off water and sand too easy. The M4 carbine shares these same short commings.
A long range rifle that is less sensitive to dirt than the M16 is required for combat in the Middle East deserts. The carbines will not be useful until a city is invaded and door to door combat ensues. Sounds like the plan ?
The exact same argument can be used against the M-14.
I hope you're not implying that the M-14's are all service grade with military ammo. I'll even mention that the Marines and probably the rest of the teams, weigh all of their Sierra MatchKings.
So you see, we shadow-boxed the wrong opponent while the North Vietnamese went for the knockout punch here in the US.
Yes, we could have defeated them completely, but the ROE as promulgated by Johnson/McNamara and never dumped by Nixon made Cambodia, Laos and N. Vietnam basically off-limits. That gave away the military advantage we had.
Mister, I don't give a shit for your acceptance of my Dad's quotation. My Dad was an honorable man and an honest man. He told the truth. I don't give a damn for you spinners who fall in love with some piece of filth who stood up and debated the meaning of the word "is".
You can question me, but don't ever imply my late Father was a liar! My Dad fought in World War II and Viet Nam for this country, and that includes deluded, self-righteous individuals like you.
If you haven't lived it, then you only know what your liberal professors told you. You are living a lie.
I didn't call him a liar. I'm just skeptical of all unsourced quotations. Even assuming that you've got the quotation verbatim, I'm not sure what that proves.
I don't give a damn for you spinners who fall in love with some piece of filth who stood up and debated the meaning of the word "is".
Huh? What does Clintigula have to do with any of this?
If you haven't lived it, then you only know what your liberal professors told you. You are living a lie.
While I freely confess to having had more than my fair share of liberal professors, I also took a bullet for my country in Vietnam. What have you done?
While all the big bullet Bear hunters on this thread can no doubt master all aspects of shooting full power rifles in belted magnum calibers at 800 yards and beyond, the only thing that matters is CAN THE TROOPS HIT WITH THE RIFLE??? The answer, with the M14, was NOT USUALLY. With more training, a few strong and dedicated shooters will emerge as marksman, having mastered the skills necessary to engage small targets at extended range with big recoil and reduced inherent accuracy.
Or, you can start with 5.56mm, and EVERYBODY can shoot reasonably well, even the skinny guys and my goodness, the GIRLS!
Would you rather have 10 Marines that can enage targets to 1000m with the mighty M14, and 490 that can't shoot it past 10ft and hit anything , or 400 Marines that can engage targets to 500m with the M16, and 100 that can shoot it competently to 200m?
The issue surrounding service rifles and calibers are usually NOT related to "which is the best rifle for SGT York" - but which is best for the majority of soldiers, and to paraphrase the pistol shooters, a hit with a 5.56 is a lot better than a loud miss with a 7.62.
"MORE TRAINING" is not the answer, either. Training resources are limited, and the bottom line is you get more hits for your training dollar with 5.56 than with 7.62.
To my thinking, the AR-10 would be just about the perfect battle rifle. Has anyone competed with one at Camp Perry? How do they stack up against the awsome M1-A1?
And yes, I've put my gun through the same kind of environments as the military does. I'm not a benchrest shooter.
Why haven't I had any problems? I take care of my gear. My rifle is kept in good repair and I clean it after shooting.
I've engaged targets out to 600 yards with my rifle (M4 configuration) with no problems. The M4 is a fine rifle and very reliable. It's a good decision on the part of the Marines to move to it.
Mike
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.