Marines might replace M-16A2 with M-4

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 am afraid you missed the point, andy.

Since I don't understand the argument, that would appear to be the case.

Wars may be prosecuted as extensions of a country's political goals and ambitions, but it is fought with rifles and spirit.

No. Wars must be prosecuted as political means to an end. And while rifles help win wars, "spirit" doesn't count for much at all. If you have any doubts about that, ask the French how far they got on elan alone, or the Germans Fourth Army, for that matter.

If you read "On Strategy" by the late Col Harry Summers, you will see the difference.

I read Summers' book about 20 years ago, and I remember liking it, but disagreeing with most of its conclusions regarding Vietnam. If I remember correctly, Summers argued that defeat was largely the result of errors in strategy by Westmoreland's people. I think it goes beyond that. I don't believe any war in Indochina was winnable, in the sense that we could have permanently suppressed insurgency without enormous costs, both in economic terms and in manpower. Invading Laos and North Vietnam could have escaped the underlying political mistakes at the heart of US entry.

The more I read and remember, the more I think we ought to reactivate the M-14.

The single biggest determining factor in ditching the M-14 was that it was ungodly expensive to manufacture. Far and away one of the most expensive combat rifles ever produced by any country. The M-16 was something like half the cost per unit (and more accurate off-the-rack, not that it matters).

As for the ballistics of the .223, your are badly mistaken. If you've ever looked at physical models of terminal ballistics, there is a crossover velocity (2500-2700 fps, depending on the bullet) where terminal lethality takes on a new dimension due to reaching critical rotational energy densities. The .22LR has the terminal ballistics of a pistol bullet. The .308 sits on the edge of this envelope at the muzzle. The .223 is in it for about 100-200 yards out of an M16. I've never met an operator that wasn't quite pleased with the performance of the .223 when it mattered and even many old-timers prefer it.

And for those interested, the critical rotational energy density has to do with fragmentation behavior. Below the critical threshold, fragmentation adds little or no value to the terminal characteristics of a bullet. Above the critical threshold, the energy density is so high that the bullet literally explodes quite violently with the fragments travelling perpendicular to the center axis of the bullet at velocities around 250-300 fps depending on the specifics as a simple consequence of physics. At those velocities, bullet fragments are quite capable of perforating tissue, particularly in distressed tissue (like a temporary cavity). Hence why a good hit at relatively close range with a .223 can turn the insides of a person into hamburger that substantially exceeds the expected damage. The tumbling bullet causing damage bit is something of a myth -- ALL bullets tumble when they hit tissue. When it happens to bullets that exceed the critical rotational energy density, this frequently triggers the very energetic radial fragmentation.

And no this was not a design consideration when the .223 was originally selected. It was a fortunate coincidence.

As the LTC Summers stated to his NVA LTC counter-part..."You know we defeated you on the battlefield every time." to which his counterpart stated, "Yes, but that is irrelevent."

Again, to quote you, "Since I don't understand the argument, that would appear to be the case."

A casual shooter can expect to shoot around 400 or less with a Garand. Around 430 or less with a M1A. An out of the box Colt HBar can let someone who hardly shoots but knows the basics get a 450 score.
Did you ever use that Garand in a regular High Power match? If so, what was your score?
My experience told me that accurizing a Garand is a waste of time and money. Shooting a Match Grade M1A is a lot of fun but after a while, they need a lot of expensive re-work done.
There will never be a good book on accurizing the AR that isn't filled with reloading data. Except for buying a trigger and making sure the front sight isn't loose, there isn't anything that needs to be done.

Suggest you reread the book. His point was that the NCA failed to follow the principles of war. They oriented on defeating in the field while the North Vietamese oriented on the political victory, fighting a holding action in the South while the real battle took place in the US, in the media and on the college campuses. As the LTC Summers stated to his NVA LTC counter-part..."You know we defeated you on the battlefield every time." to which his counterpart stated, "Yes, but that is irrelevent."

Of course I agree that winning the most pitched battles is irrelevent, most especially in a guerilla war. But Summers argued (and again, this is to the best of my memory) that Vietnam was the fault of political and conceptual strategic errors and not, as you seem to claim, moral turpitude on the part of the American public. The public would have turned against the massive casualties in the war no matter what, for American goals were nebulous, casualties were high, and there was no way we could "win" without paying a heavy cost.

"But Summers argued (and again, this is to the best of my memory) that Vietnam was the fault of political and conceptual strategic errors and not, as you seem to claim, moral turpitude on the part of the American public."

Man you love to twist statements! You just admitted to what I pointed out to you and tried to accuse me of something entirely different. The North Vietnamese used the mush-heads on American Campuses for their political and propaganda campaigns. The media was also a willing accomplice. I know. My late Father ran into a stone wall as a PIO in Nam trying to post articles about volunteer civic action work National Guard and Reserve troops were accomplishing. The guy to killed the stories...Dan Rather. He admitted to my Dad that he "was probably a Communist, but as long as he was in charge of the bureau in Siagon, the American people were only going to see the war the way he wanted them to see it!"

The primary problem was the failure at the NCA to strategize it. The campus riots and protests and the media lies supported the NVA operation. The field actions by the NVA were only a supporting attack on the US populace.

As to accuracy, I would disagree.

As I recall, tests done by the military on early M16s pulled off the rack and fired by a mechanical benchrest showed an average accuracy of 1.1 MOA. It was considered remarkable at the time, and I know the M14 never did that. I don't think I've ever owned an AR15 pattern weapon that couldn't shoot 1-MOA all day with good ammo. Its the only semi-auto military rifle I've owned that could do that routinely. Most non-American species never did better than about 1.5-MOA in the finest specimens (including a couple very nice AK variants that could shoot respectable groups with match ammo). Any competent gunsmith can get an M14 or Garand to routinely shoot 1-MOA, but you don't usually find that accuracy in the stock rack-grade weapon.

I'm not saying that relatively thin differences in accuracy matter in practice, but the AR15 family is technically a more accurate platform in rack or match grade and I don't know too many people who disagree with this. You may have other reasons for disliking the M16, but accuracy isn't a valid one (except at distances where the .308 isn't any better).

Man you love to twist statements! You just admitted to what I pointed out to you and tried to accuse me of something entirely different.

You give me too much credit. I'm just trying to respond to arguments I disagree with.

The North Vietnamese used the mush-heads on American Campuses for their political and propaganda campaigns. The media was also a willing accomplice.

That's just silly. The rise of the campus leftist loonies was an effect, not a cause of the US defeat in Vietnam. And Summers doesn't disagree.

My late Father ran into a stone wall as a PIO in Nam trying to post articles about volunteer civic action work National Guard and Reserve troops were accomplishing. The guy to killed the stories...Dan Rather.

I'm not going to analyze the validity of the Rather quotation, but I think the numbers of US and Vietnamese casualties speak for themselves. We were fighting without any political or strategic objectives, using tactics that were doomed to failure. Any domestic lunacy was purely coincidental. The costs were enormous, and no gain was possible.

At our monthly range competition, I'm not seeing anyone shooting into the 400s (200 yard range) with any 'Service' rifle other than an M-1A or an occasional AR-15. I haven't seen anyone using an M-1 Garand except for the seasoned old loaners we offer for the one-timers who are only there to qualify for their $400 DCM Garands.

I can stay in the 400s with an HK-91A2, but since it's not a US military service rifle I have to shoot in the 'Match' competition against guys with hyper-accurized Tikkas that usually comes down to the winner being who cut the most X's inside the ten ring. I don't think that there are any Hk rifles with iron sights that can do that.

I really wish I would have made the time to get into the Freeper Postal Match.

In comparing the 5.56mm to the .22 cal LR, I was referring to the recoil, not the ballistics. I agree that the high speed, combined with the tumble at impact was devestating on humands, but useless on materiale.

You were correct before, actually the 5.56mm is .22 cal. there is absolutely no difference and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise does not know what they are talking about. 5.56 is nothing more than the metric measurement of a .22 cal bullet. The military usually uses 55gn 22 cal bullets in their 5.56mm cartridges. Thats a fact, Jack!

I also want to point out the facts to some of the other posters claiming that the M16 can shoot 1000 yards... well this is a true statement however you are not going to kill anything or anyone taking that shot. The measely little 5.56mm puts out a pthetic 207 ft-pds of energy at 500 yds that means out at 1000 it is hardly breaking the paper target. Comparativley a 220 swift or 22-250 is a better round, and yes these are both .22 cal cartridges.

Go ahead and ask any hunter if he would take a 500 or 1000 yard shot at a deer with a .22 cal rifle... As far as animals go a deer is about the same size/wt as a man so if you wouldnt take that shot at a deer then why at a man, and definitely why at a man who has a rifle in his hand?

As far as the tumbling comment thats a joke the 5.56m will tumble no more or no less than any other bullet, this is pure nonsense and propaganda. It does NOT tumble, it bounces off of bone because the round is too light to do anything else! There is NO design technique used in this bullet to make it tumble it is nothing more than a jacketed 55gn 22 cal bullet. No magic, nothing, nada!

While we are here lets compare the energy of other rifle rounds that the military has used over the years at 500 yds compared to the 5.56mm

5.56@500yds 207-ft-pds (yes that is 207 what a joke!)
.308@500yds 1239 ft-pds
30.06@500yds1246 ft-pds

Guess which caliber the enemy is using!
Hint: It is NOT the first one...

Want to know what I think. We should go back to the M-14 or M-1

--RebelDawg
USMC
and
Hunter

I routinely shot 406-616 with my stock out of the box CMP rifle and I never practiced. That was with my Garand.
The loaner rifles that belonged to the club were all junk. Front sights would fall off, clips would eject after one round was fired, rear sights would ratchet downward, Short stroking, gas cylinders were loose.
I shot a Master score the first time I used my AR. 471.
We have to write to Cap and see if he would like to host a Garand match. I know, they're eagerly awaiting a blackpowder match but I haven't done that in so long I have to dig my stuff out from the last 15 years.
I really regret not using my stock Garand for the Freeper rifle match instead of the Mauser.

Fascinating debate guys. Most of your points are opinionated and therefore can not be really proven.

I think the reason we walked away from Vietnam (Notice how I said we did not lose Vietnam.) was a composite of the factors you have named.

I must say that I disagree with you Andy on your opinion that we could NOT have won the war. My opinion on why we walked away is two-fold...

1/ All the branches of the Military were playing "Politics," and the actual Politicians did not help at all. In effect, they became "Armchair Generals.", the actual Pols that is.

2/ (This is the big one for me!) The ENTIRE MORONIC "Escalating Force," doctrine of the US Military at that time. I am not a Vietnam Vet but my CO was one and he sat down and explained this concept to me in length(He did not approve, he said he threw away tagets because of orders.) and it was a laughable strategy. Furthermore, I think all of the propoganda and Anti-US demonstrations actually strengthened the reliance on this foolish doctrine.

Sorry to butt in but I wanted to add my two cents. I realize I am in the minority, I think we could have destroyed them. Dont you think leaving the North relatively unharmed while the South focused on the Guerilla war and we "Escalated," force against the NVA was a tad... moronic?

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.