Troops left to fend for themselves after Army was warned of flaws in M4 rifle

[LRRPF52]

[SIZE="3"]U.S. Military Losing Edge in Small Arms[/SIZE]
by Jim Schatz

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/a...lArms.aspx

What an utter wash, rinse, repeat of the same garbage as before:

Elite units — with a few exceptions — do not use the standard-issue U.S. Army small arms or ammunition. Why? Because they are inferior to the more advanced weapons selected by these units. There is a fundamental difference between their acquisition process and that of the “Big Army,” where there are hundreds of decisions makers and countless agencies and offices involved.

The rifle used to kill Osama bin Laden was not the standard-issue M4 carbine. In the military’s top-tier SOF units, the M4 has all but been replaced by the commercial HK416 rifle, developed on a handshake by industry with no U.S. research-and-development dollars back in 2004. This rifle outperformed the M4 carbine in no less than four government comparison tests, multiple Army “dust tests” and the “individual carbine” program assessment at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland.

No less than five attempts have been made by the Army to replace the current M16 and M4 family of weapons since 2005, yet still today troops serve with a rifle and cartridge that was, in its earlier form, first fielded in the early 1960s.

I guess they never got the memo that everyone in SOCOM still has M4A1's. The idea that the HK416 is superior because some DEV guys use them is retarded. Suppressed SBR with a lot of use in the water might call for that type of M4 variant, but would be inappropriate for most everyone else, including SF, Ranger Regiment, MARSOC, and big Army. There are plenty of teams within SOCOM that have evaluated HK416 for potential adoption, and dropped it after seeing how it compared to their existing M4A1's. Same goes for the SCAR-L. There are guns floating out there, but M4 proved to have more pros than cons compared to any of these other new offerings.

Notice they mention Wanat again, which has nothing to do with the M4, and everything to do with incompetent leadership.

The only semi-valid argument they have is for the HK automatic 40mm grenade launcher, which is superior to the Mk19, but are there any plans to upgrade the entire fleet of Mk19's Army-wide? The article reads like an HK advertisement.

I know coalition SF and infantry troops who had HK416's, and removed the trigger from it to install in regular M4's, as they had issues with the 416. There's a full auto rental range in Vegas called Battlefield Las Vegas. They started as a foreign weapons training outfit, then opened up shop for a more adventure-based live fire experience. They have posted some very interesting observations about how long guns last before major components fail, like AK receivers cracking, when M4 barrels/bolts need replacement, what optics crap the bed and what ones last, things like that.

DD and PSA AR15's usually go for at least 20k rounds before the barrels ar replaced. AR15 receivers seem to last forever.

Eotechs break, whereas Aimpoints don't.

HK MR556 started key-holing at 10,000rds, which they haven't ever seen in standard AR barrels.

These guys burn through tens of thousands of rounds a week. They maintain over 150 different types of machineguns, and the place employs veterans who show the customers how to be familiar with them, while also covering down on the logistics of keeping that many guns running with replacement parts.

The HK crapped the bed on them very early.

This article is now talking about 6.5x47 Lapua for a service rifle cartridge. I guess they never researched the concept of overbore and chamber pressure and how that affects throat and barrel life. They make it sound like infantry engagements are decided by service rifles, while the enemy magically gets PKM's, yet our machineguns get no mention.

More false premises. These people need to do some more research...

So how is this fixed? A solution requires courageous leadership and pressure from the top. The predecessor of today’s M4 carbine, the AR-15, was only adopted because of the direct personal involvement of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and President John F. Kennedy.

I guess Kennedy went back in time and told Army Ordnance, ARPA, and these types to solicit a SCHV rifle too. Maybe he purposely slowed down the disastrous M14 production lines before he took office, right? This article is amateurish.

[stanc]

The article reads like an HK advertisement.

I'm sure it's just coincidence that the author worked for H&K for a number of years.

This article is now talking about 6.5x47 Lapua for a service rifle cartridge. I guess they never researched the concept of overbore and chamber pressure and how that affects throat and barrel life.

I think he was not talking about 6.5x47 Lapua, but rather the .264 USA, which has a case length of ~47mm. He's been touting the .264 USA in his recent articles and NDIA presentations.

(See http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=2941 and page 29 of http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015smallarms/17354_Schatz.pdf )

They make it sound like infantry engagements are decided by service rifles, while the enemy magically gets PKM's, yet our machineguns get no mention.

Yeah, GPC advocates constantly do that.

[JASmith]

One of the challenges facing advocates of getting the best infantry weapons is the doctrine placing the infantry in the "clean up" role after first, airpower, and then artillery have worked over the battlefield.

Aircraft, artillery, and their weapons are hugely expensive with the result that the firms providing this class of equipment have serious lobbying power.

The two taken together make getting a serious program to modernize infantry armament extraordinarily difficult. The fact that the M-4, the Ma-Deuce, and existing mortars do very well in the nominal infantry makes building that case very difficult.

Special operators, on the other hand, frequently are required to depend only the firepower they can bring to the fight without recourse to the larger world of bombers and artillery. That may be one of the reasons the special forces have wide latitude for selecting weapons.

[ah1whiskey]

every time i have seen a new system adopted there is a bunch of "SNAFU's that go along with it, ammo problems, parts failures , training and equipment issues. it don't matter if HK, FN or whoever developed it-- issue about 15,000 of um and send to the sand box-- little things are gonna start showing up on the radar.

give a bunch of green boots/recruits ANY arm and they will find a way to bork it up on the firing line. i have run a firing line with allies running AKs and guess what? they had a number of stoppages and a few breakdowns like any other would have.

i hate to say it but i never was all that impressed with HKs hardware. to me they seem to be selling a lot of snake oil , like 100x the cost vs a 2% improvement? sure their good but just not up to the hype.


the old m-16 took what 40 years to fully develop ? but it is a devil we all know . its easy to fix and inexpensive, and light.

a m4 ain't gonna out firepower a fn-fal. now lug that FAL , all its ammo and mags on a 24 mile speed march along with your full kit . uphill in iraq---


i carried the m4 and the m16s on many a far flung place , i never felt very insecure about using it either.

the only real gripe was the some what lacking barrier penetration of the little 5.56 , like engaging a ex-soviet truck full of tangos or a bomb @ 500+ m


those things have thick sheet metal and m855 seemed a bit wimpy-- luck for us we had other things to hit the truck with.

it has some limitations but the mobility of the system makes up for it.

[LRRPF52]

The AR15 was very well developed already by 1967 with the Colt Model 603 (M16A1). Even the first production guns were viable (Colt 601), and many are still in use today in the USAF. For the rifle configuration, not much has really changed when looking at the buffer, recoil spring, BCG, and barrel in terms of a functional weapon.

For the carbines, there have been a lot of minor tweaks here and there, but nothing earth-shattering, and the M4/Colt Commando is one of the most reliable, lethal weapon systems of all the assault rifles in the world.

The M855A1 smokes 3/8" AR500 steel from a carbine, so barrier penetration is quite impressive with it compared to 7.62 AP even, beating it due to sectional density.

Don't get me started on AK's.

Also, when it comes to elite units, they are often the test bed for weapons and ammunition, clothing, equipment, and TTP's that eventually get adopted by big Green Pickle machine.

If these guys would do an article on troops being left to fend for themselves in the vacuum of competent leadership, then we would have something of substance that actually addresses the ground truth. We have some of the best equipment and weapons of any nation in the world really when you see what other poor suckers are stuck with, especially for the size of military the US has. Being able to crank out quality and quantity is not easy, and there aren't any other nations that come to mind that compare well with how stringent the evaluation and vetting process is for US Army and Marine Infantry weapons, especially what goes on in Alaska. We have layers of engineers, T&E personnel, test platoons and OT&E units, and fielding initiatives that would make most other nations' head spin in scope, depth, and duration.

[JASmith]

We have some of the best equipment and weapons of any nation in the world really when you see what other poor suckers are stuck with, especially for the size of military the US has. Being able to crank out quality and quantity is not easy, and there aren't any other nations that come to mind that compare well with how stringent the evaluation and vetting process is for US Army and Marine Infantry weapons, especially what goes on in Alaska. We have layers of engineers, T&E personnel, test platoons and OT&E units, and fielding initiatives that would make most other nations' head spin in scope, depth, and duration.

I can vet this from personal experience in the development world.

If we have a weakness, it is the beauracatic inertia that automatically follows a large and multiply redundant RDT&E system.

[ah1whiskey]

m855 ain't even close to a real AP round--

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m993.htm

[Variable]

m855 ain't even close to a real AP round--

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m993.htm

M855A1 is significantly better than M855 though. While it may penetrate less than M993, it has much more terminall effect in two legged critters, and isn't as expensive as M993 either. I was highly skeptical of their earlier attempts, but the current version seems to be a dramatic improvement.

[LRRPF52]

m855 ain't even close to a real AP round--

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m993.htm

M855A1 really surprised me. I didn't think it would make it through 3/8" AR500 steel. It blew through it like it was paper.

[stanc]

[video=youtube;e0gxeSpjdSk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0gxeSpjdSk[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0gxeSpjdSk

[Rickyi]

Wow! I don't know if you could have drilled that hole any more perfect.... or faster....

Ricky

[LRRPF52]

Title should read:

Contractors left to their own marketing devices after M4 beats all their submissions....again.

[Trooper]

Wonder how the Tavor would compare?
http://www.iwi.us/

[stanc]

Very long video, but somewhat entertaining:

[video=youtube;JJS9DDe6K-o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJS9DDe6K-o[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJS9DDe6K-o

[NugginFutz]

That.. was... painful. Not at all what I was expecting to view.

I was surprised to see how picky the Tavor was, though. Apparently, in addition to mud. etc., it also dislikes steel cased wolf ammo. I would have thought a weapon of this ilk would go through the stuff without complaint. The other takeaway is that even the vaunted AK will choke when subjected to the same sort of interference.

Don't know where you dig this stuff up, Stan, but thanks.