©2010 James Dunnigan and Strategy Page. All rights reserved, used with permission.Finally Fixing The M4 Carbine
by James Dunnigan
October 4, 2010
The U.S. Army has begun delivering upgrade kits for its M4 carbines. The kits replace the barrel, receiver and auto-loading system with one that is easier to keep clean. There is also a heavier barrel and the ability to fire full automatic. There are also stronger rails on top of the barrel, for mounting scopes and such. The army is distributing at least 10,000 of these kits this year. The marines are not upgrading their M4s (which are mainly used by support troops.) Most elements (except for the piston loading system) were already incorporated by SOCOM (Special Operations Command) for their own M4s, which were then redesignated M4A1.
This conversion kit addressed years of complaints about the M-4 and M-16 assault rifles. The M-4 is a short barrel M-16, and has become very popular with the troops. The army had asked the Department of Defense for permission to spend a few hundred million dollars on these upgrades for its 400,000 M-4 assault rifles. The main change was replacing the main portion of the rifle with a new component that contains a short stroke piston gas system (to reduce buildup of carbon inside the rifle) and a heavier (by 142 gr/five ounces) barrel (which reduces barrel failure from too much heat, which happens when several hundred rounds are fired within a few minutes.)
Much of this goes back to the decades old argument about replacing the recoil system in the M-16 assault rifles, to make them more reliable and easier to clean. This came to a head (again) three years ago, when the army ran more tests on its M-4 rifle, involving dust and reliability. Four weapons were tested. The M4, the XM8, SCAR (Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle) and the H&K 416 (similar to the new M4 with the upgrade kit).
The testing consisted of exposing the weapons to 25 hours of heavy dust conditions over two months. During that testing period, 6,000 rounds were fired from each of ten weapons of each type. The weapons with the fewest failures (usually jams) were rated highest. Thus the XM8 finished first, SCAR second, 416 third and M4 last. In response, the army said it was satisfied with the M4's performance, but was considering equipping it with a heavier barrel (to lessen overheating) and more effective magazines (27 percent of the M4s 882 jams were magazine related.) The army noted that the M4 fired over 98 percent of its rounds without problems. That missed the point that the other rifles had far fewer jams. In combat, each jam is a life threatening situation for the soldier in question. The army had been forced by Congress to conduct the tests. Congress was responding to complaints by the troops.
The XM8 had 127 jams, the SCAR 226 and the 416 had 233. Thus the M-4 had nearly eight times as many jams as the XM8, the rifle designed to replace it. The M4 had nearly four times the jams of the SCAR and 416, which were basically M4 type rifles with a different gas handling system. Any stoppage is potentially fatal for the soldier holding the rifle. Thus the disagreement between the army brass, and the troops who use the weapons in combat.
In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon (from the recoil system) and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles.
If the issue were put to a vote, the troops would vote for a rifle using a short-stroke system (like the XM8, SCAR or H&K 416). But the military is not a democracy, so the troops spend a lot of time cleaning their weapons, and hoping for the best. The debate involves two intertwined attitudes among senior army commanders. First, they don't want the hassle, and possible embarrassment, of switching to a new rifle. Second, they are anticipating a breakthrough in weapons technology that will make a possible a much improved infantry weapon. This is likely to happen later, rather than sooner, but the generals kept obsessing over it.
Earlier efforts to just get the troops a more reliable rifle have failed. Back in 2005, the U.S. Army's design for a new assault rifle, the XM8, was cancelled. But now the manufacturer has incorporated one of the key components of the XM8, into M4 rifles, and calls the hybrid the H&K 416. Heckler & Koch (H&K) designed the XM8, which was based on an earlier H&K rifle, the G36. SOCOM is using the 416, but no one else is (except for a few police departments).
The XM8 (like the G36 and 416) uses a short-stroke piston system. The M16 uses the gas-tube system, which results in carbon being blown back into the chamber. That leads to carbon build up, which results in jams (rounds getting stuck in the chamber, and the weapon unable to fire.). The short-stroke system also does not expose parts of the rifle to extremely hot gases (which wears out components more quickly). As a result, rifles using the short-stroke system, rather than the gas-tube, are more reliable, easier to maintain and last longer.
H&K developed the 416, for SOCOM, at the same time the XM8 was being evaluated by the army. SOCOM got the first 416s in 2004, a year before the army cancelled the XM8. The 416 looks like the M4, for the only thing that has changed is the gas system that automatically extracts the cartridge after the bullet has been fired, and loads the next round. SOCOM can buy pretty much whatever they want, the U.S. Army cannot. SOCOM listens to what its troops want, the army often doesn't.
The army made some other changes, as part of the M-4 component replacement. These included improved trigger pull characteristics, ambidextrous controls (to make life easier for lefties) and a round counter (in the pistol grip) to track the number of bullets fired over the lifetime of the rifle (makes for better data on how rifles perform over time, and for scheduling the replacement of components.)
And, I'm still phoning it in as a mirror for Strategy Page...



Good summary of the problem and the solution, leaving aside any snarkiness about the numerous errors in terminology.
Our troops deserve the best, even if the solutions being applied now are for problems that have plagued the M16 family for more than 40 years.
Despite any shortcomings, the M16 family has earned a place in history with the longest continuous service life of any U.S. military rifle, most of which became obsolete after about 20 years. (The sporadic reincarnation of the M14/M21 is a bit longer, but has not been continuous.)
@Pogue-and the cased/caseless telescoping ammunition (the "breakthrough" that Dunnigan alludes to) is currently being developed in...5.56mm.
Despite all the data, going back to before WWII with the .276 Pederson, showing the excellent performance of rounds in the 6.5-7mm range, and more recent information that a 6.5 - 7mm projectile in the 120-140 grain weight class would offer a tremendous improvement in performance, especially at longer range.
I'd guess that $1 billion would be on the low side for the cost of replacing the M16/M4 family with completely new rifles in a new caliber. Rough beer math of 1,000,000 rifles at $1,000 each is $1 billion, whichi doesn't include R&D costs, new ammo, plus a concsurrent replacement for the M249 SAW. And that's just the Army (Active, Reserve, and Guard)
Of course, you could probably do all of that for less than the cost of a squadron of F-35s, or about the cost of the extra C-17s Congress stuffs into the budget every year.
I'm not endorsing Jim's writing, or really his opinions (though I'm not agin 'em in any real way) I'm tossing this up as red meat to the crowd.
Translation: I have yet to come up with a sufficiently torturous Whatziz to have everyone burning up all the search engines in a futile hunt for answers.
0>;~}
Og is getting impatient. I can feel the glare, and hear the derisive snorts from his flared nostrils as he paws the arena floor.
This would be a short stroke, apparently similar to the HK 416, which is based on the G36, which in turn is an adaptation of the AR-18. Which was originally developed by Armalite, the same folks who brought us the M16.
As far as caliber goes, both the 6.5 and the 6.8 (which was actually used by some of the special ops bubbas in action) have far superior lethality and accuracy at range as opposed to the 5.56 but of course, facts like that are not going to sway the REMFS who make such decisions, even though the cost to replace the weapons or upchamber them would be far less than the funds the Air Force typically wastes each year pampering its people with unnecessary coddling. And the people who actually fight the war and take the ground would be better off. No way that is gonna happen...
But but but... punky rounds that can't hardly penetrate crap cause more casualties and casualties are cooler than kills 'cause someone then has to carry them, even in cultures where they don't give a crap about casualties!
But but but... a real round through a real rifle would weight too much and our poor poor infanterymens wouldn't be able to carry them!
Cheers
(History has been revised for the sake of starting a fight with the Marines. What can I say, I was Navy)
It's about time the Army did something about the M-16 action. Piston uppers have been available for Ar-15s for at least 10 years in the civvie market and a noted increase in reliability was noticed.
I blame curtiss lemay and the pentagon "whiz kids".
the marines wanted the stoner 63 system but they were forced to take the M16.