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.”
One of the things needed when we went from the M16A1 to the A2 was a heavier barrel. Not for more accuracy but because the every day GI Joe used it for a pry-bar. Try flipping the lid off a hidden bunker.
The M4 may look cool for all the want to be Rambo’s Just like sitting in an Indy car. But not useful in the every day real world.
Let’s list some of the “old “ weapons that still do a better job B-52s, .50 cals., 1911.....
Can’t afford bullets. But can waste money on hats & toys.
I carried a shotgun on patrol in Viet Nam. Since we often could not see more than a few yards into the bush, distance was not a problem. Keeping it clean and free of rust was. Even with the maintenance problem, I liked it, especially since I was not much of a marksman. Evenually the shotgun was taken away and I was issued a M79 grenade launcher. Not much good for close work, but in the open, if I could see it, I could hit it.
As I said, there is a definite place for the M-4. But let us not cut off 300 meters off our infantry's range of engagement.
I agree - it's a great cartridge. And not a "baby" bullet. I drop deer dead in their tracks, yet it has almost no recoil.
Megadittos on the SL-8. I've had mine for a couple of months now and am really impressed - it doesn't seem as finicky as the ARs I've shot, is easy to fieldstrip, and shoots a mighty small group. On the downside, it is limited to a 10-round mag, but then it's a sporter, not a military rifle. I hated the skinny nylon sling and replaced it.
For anyone contemplating purchase of this piece I'd recommend looking into the G-36 optical sight system - replaces the pickatinny rail with a military reticle lower sight and a Hensloldt red-dot. It's another 6 Benjamins but oh, my is it sweet...
The more I read and remember, the more I think we ought to reactivate the M-14.
One dirty little secret. The M-16 was adopted over the M-14, not so much for the reasons reported, but for the main reason that in the mid-60s, we had ceased being a "Nation of Riflemen" and the kiddies drafted from the big cities couldn't handle the recoil (kick) of the M-14 and were boloing on the range. The M-16, nothing but a .22 Long Rifle on steroids, didn't kick the kiddies so much and they were qualifying with it...but not becoming riflemen.
End of rant.
Answer, probably not many.
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.
I don't get it...
All the buzz in the military world is that our forces can be lighter and faster because 'Meeting Engagements' will be a thing of the past as better intell and maneuverability give us stand-off, stand-off, stand-off.
OK, now we've got light and maneuverable stuff and great intell and all that crap and we can't engage anything beyond 200m?!
And the Navy tried several M14s in .243 for SEAL team used, and came back unimpressed, largely due to problems with the rifling twist of the barrels, as those suitable for long-range work are less suitable for up-close work with more lethal projectiles. Neither were barrel luives of 10,000 rounds considered sufficient in weapons meant for fully-automatic fire.
The British .280/30, originally meant for their experimental EM-2 rifle of the 1950s, might have been another step in the right direction. But I suspect we'll be stuck with the M16/5,56mm cartridge combination for so long as conventional mettallic-cased cartridge ammunition remains state-of-the-art.
But when caseless or plastic-cased ammo comes along....
-archy-/-
The BAR ( really a WWI weapon !) was good at the same range,and an excellent "light" machine gun : heavy and awkward to carry, but a LOT lighter than the air-cooled .30 machine gun.
One person in each 4 man fire team carried a BAR ( for some reason, it was generally the smallest member of the team. )
During the Korean war, a lot of the shooting was at longer ranges. People who were there said the 7.62 Russian rounds would "fall short" at those ranges, but the Garand and the BAR - in capable hands - would make life interesting for the Koreans and Chinese.
Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
--Karl von Clausewitz
If you read "On Strategy" by the late Col Harry Summers, you will see the difference.
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.