New version of the M4

[kato13]

TiggerCCW UK 04-23-2004, 08:46 AM I'd always thought that the M4 was a fairly reliable and useful weapon, but the more that I read about it recently, the more it seems to get a bad press. This might go some way towards improving it.


http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/Military...rbines/m4.html

********************

dawg180 04-23-2004, 01:02 PM Hehe, yeah the M4/M16 is a terrible weapon. Only a 40+ year service life, longer than any other longarm issued...


There actually have been several attempts to convert the M16 to gas piston from direct gas and pretty much all have suffered the same fate- sheared off gas (or impingement) key. Although I am sure HK has engineered the gas piston to take the forces, I bet it also will have an HK price tag.


Here is an interesting link I found:


http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m16vsak47.htm


BTW, that link you listed appears to be broken/dead. I just happen to know a little bit about the HK M4

********************

TR 04-23-2004, 05:36 PM Uh guys...


You know that Colt is suing H&K and Bushmaster for issues relating to their production of their M-4's right?


Here's the article on it below.


Later


TR


Colt Challenges Rivals' Illegal Marketing Practices

(Source: Colt Defense; issued Apr. 21, 2004)

HARTFORD, Conn. --- Colt Defense LLC today filed suit against Bushmaster Firearms, Inc. and Heckler & Koch and demanded that the two companies end their illegal marketing campaigns with respect to the Colt M4 carbine. In its lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Colt cited acts of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, false advertising, patent infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices. Colt is seeking injunctive relief and damages against the two companies.



Colt is the leading supplier of military and law enforcement weaponry and related products to the U.S. Government and many American allies. It holds a sole source contract to exclusively supply the M4 carbine to all branches of the U.S. military. Only Colt may manufacture an authentic M4 carbine; those made by others are imitations.



The M4 carbine evolved from the most combat-proven family of weapons, the Colt-developed M16 rifle. To develop this carbine, Colt at its own expense integrated 40 years of combat experience of the M16 rifle with advances in technology. Colt then offered this carbine to the U.S. Army that subjected it to a multi-year certification process before finally accepting it for use by American troops.



"This case is about the systematic efforts of Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch to confront us, not as competitors on a level playing field, but with unlawful marketing practices that misrepresent the nature of their products and disparage the products of Colt Defense," said Colt's President and Chief Executive Officer, Lieutenant General William M. Keys, USMC (retired).



"Colt's products have been the mainstay of the U.S. military for over 100 years, and have played a significant role in both World Wars and the Vietnamese conflict. Today, our products are in the hands of our elite forces in Iraq. Our reputation was earned the hard way, on the battlefield. And it is our battle-tested reputation that these defendants are attempting to exploit by selling M4 knockoffs," said General Keys.



According to the complaint, both Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch are intentionally and illegally blurring the distinction between their products and the products manufactured by Colt, particularly the M4 carbine. Both Bushmaster and Heckler & Koch have developed copycat versions of the M4 to profit from Colt's good name and reputation.



In a transparent attempt to mislead potential customers into believing that they are buying "American Made" products, Heckler & Koch, whose principal place of business is Oberndorf, Germany, falsely states that it will manufacture firearms in a plant in Georgia that does not yet exist. In fact, Heckler & Koch's manufacturing and engineering is performed outside the country, according to the complaint.



The complaint alleges that Bushmaster, which has no legal right or authority to sell to the U.S. military, has intentionally and illegally incorporated the look and feel of the Colt M4 into its "M4 type" carbine. By duplicating the appearance of a real M4 weapon, and employing calculated marketing that blurs the distinction between Colt's products and their own, Bushmaster deceptively markets its "M4 type" carbine to the civilian market and foreign governments, hoping that consumers will confuse the goodwill associated with the Colt brand with Bushmaster, according to the complaint.



The complaint also alleges that Bushmaster has plagiarized Colt's M16 and M4 parts numbers. By doing so, Bushmaster intentionally misrepresents to its non-military customers that Bushmaster parts are interchangeable with Colt's AR-15, M16(TM) and M4 products -- a misrepresentation that could have serious safety repercussions.



Colt Defense LLC is an American company with a direct lineage to the original company founded by Samuel Colt in 1836. Colt Defense products command a global presence as the weapons of choice in over 50 countries. Located in West Hartford, Connecticut, its manufacturing facilities are ISO 9001-2000 certified and quality-certified by the U.S. Department of Defense. The Colt name is famous in the United States and throughout the world, and has long been associated in the minds of military, civilian and law enforcement customers with high quality and innovation. Many of Colt's products have achieved legendary status. Over 9,000,000 authentic M16 rifles and M4 carbines have been installed for military and law enforcement use around the world.

********************

ReHerakhte 04-24-2004, 10:01 AM Only a 40+ year service life, longer than any other longarm issued...

Hmm, not to rain on anyone's parade but this is not quite correct. The German Karbin 98 had a service life of about 47 years while the Lee Enfield design had a service life of approximately 48 years as a basic battle rifle. It is still in service with special police units in India and variants of the design lived on in the DeLisle carbine and the L42A1 sniper rifle (which would take the designs in service life to an incredible 92 years - if you include Indian police service the design has been in service just over 100 years).

The AK design is basically unchanged except for calibre and that's been in service for nearly 50 years, even if it was a blatant rip-off of the German StG44 (and Kalashnikov didn't even design it, he was a last minute appointment as the head of the design team after the former head disappointed Stalin one too many times). The M1 Garand design continued life under the guise of the Beretta BM59 taking the designs service life to 54 years.


However, I do concede that in terms of modern military (as in assault) rifles, the M16 design runs pretty damned close, particularly if you specify no change in calibre (like the AK which would win hands down otherwise).


Sorry, couldn't help myself


Cheers, Kevin

********************

dawg180 04-26-2004, 12:28 AM Sorry, I meant to say "longest service life of any longarm in U.S. history." I know there are some that have been around longer


The AK comes close, but I think the M16 takes the cake for longest unchanged design, meaning that all the existing parts are pretty much interchangeable with those of the original system, with the exception of the Rear A2 sight assembly. You can swap the barrel, bolt, uppers and lowers and pretty much any other part between an M16 manufactured in 1964 and one manufactured in 2004 and have a 100% functional rifle as long as you fire the proper ammo for the barrel twist.


In fact I know of one guy who had an issued rifle that was *technically* an M16A2 with the 3 round burst but the lower reciever was one of the very first USAF purchase ones and had simply had the markings overstamped. it didn't even have the raised "fence" around the mag release it was so old- pre 1965 and he was carrying it in 1996!


I think that is a testament to a good design!


Oh, and Reherakte, want to make any best on what rifle the USMC will be carrying 10 (or even 20) years from now? They just picked up a batch of something like 16,000 brand new M16A4s over the next 5 years IIRC.

********************

evilmike 04-26-2004, 01:44 AM I don't see what the fuss is about.


Me and the boys have used the M4 for quite some time, and aside from the usual M16-style irritations (they are finicky, ESPECIALLY in places like, say, deserts...), it's performed very well.


Personally, I'd rather have a Galil, but hey, the M4 is ok.


And the service is going to be using M16's for decades to come.


Big shout from the Sandbox to y'all.

********************

ReHerakhte 04-26-2004, 02:21 AM Hey Dawg,

Having used the M16A1 and the M16A2 and being a bit of a gunhead, I have a reasonable idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the design. I would NOT bet against you on this because I reckon you're right and that the design will still be around in 20 or probably even 50 years time. Although there's a lot of talk about the XM8 (if I remember correctly), I think some major army somewhere will still be using the M16 design whether it's a Diemaco or Colt etc.


And as for your saying sorry, you don't need to, I get carried away some (most!) times when certain topics come around, I'll end up pissing my pants one day like an excited puppy


I haven't used the M4 but most of the weaknesses that have been attributed to it I believe can be found in most other weapons in its class e.g. the short range etc as discussed in another thread here. As for it being finicky in the desert, I'll take evilmike's word for it cos he's actually there using one


Cheers,

Kevin

********************

dawg180 04-26-2004, 10:03 AM No problem Kevin, I am just a big fan of the M16 series (I own two civvy M4's and an old school semi M16A1) so I know them pretty well


I think longest service life for a weapon would be good old Ma Deuce which has been in Service since just after WWI, which is a service life of 80+ years, and I don't think there is any doubt it may make it to 2104 at this rate!

********************

TR 04-26-2004, 05:53 PM The M-4 issue is odd in that it got a bad reputation after Somalia as being incapable of putting the Somalis down. The problem there was they were issued AP ammunition which went straight through the people they shot without doing any internal organ damage.


Since then there are people who seem to find fault with it no matter what. I don't get it. It's a good enough weapon as long as it's cared for, which I think is the case with most weapons. A decent primer for those who want the basics on the M-4 can be found here:


http://www.specialoperations.com/Wea...4/Default.html


The XM8 is amusing, everyone is talking about it as if their expecting it to replace the M-16/M-4. I just don't see it, to be honest the XM-8 I think is just the newest fad. But we'll have to see what the military does.


Oh before I forget, here's where the military is planning to go with the M-2...


https://peosoldier.army.mil/program_...312_2-copy.jpg


Description

The XM312 is a light weight .50 caliber machine gun capable of firing all of the current .50 caliber ammunitions in the inventory. This includes, but not limited to, the standard M33 ball round, the M8 armor piercing incendiary (API), the M903 saboted light armor penetrator (SLAP) and the MK211 multipurposed round that penetrates, fragments, and starts fires. The .50 caliber XM312 weapon is derived from the 25mm XM307 weapon Advanced Crew Served Weapon (formerly known as the Objective Crew Served Weapon (OCSW)). An XM312 weapon can be created by replacing only five parts in the XM307 weapon. The commonality of these two weapons greatly enhances supportability. First, training is simplified. Operator and maintenance training will both be reduced in scope since the principles of operation and the repair procedures will be very similar. Second, spare and repair parts will be significantly reduced in type, quantity on-hand, and also in manufacturing cost. Safety will be improved through the elimination of the requirement for the operator to adjust headspace and timing. Also, familiarity of one system rather than two separate systems further increases safety. The XM312 weapon will primarily replace most of the currently fielded M2 .50 caliber machine guns. The XM312 will also be the foundation for the Future Combat System's Common Close Support Weapon system providing a low risk approach and easy growth potential to 25mm air bursting munitions. This spiral development approach provides tremendous flexibility for the Transformation campaign. The XM312 and/or the XM307 are currently planned for mounting on seven of the eight vehicles requiring close support offensive and defensive capabilities. By replacing the 75-year-old M2 machine gun the Army achieves significant reductions in weight and recoil force. The XM312 weighs approximately one third the weight of the M2 and imparts only one quarter of the recoil. This lighter weight permits easy dismount and ground transportability when necessary and the reduced recoil will lead to greater lethality through increase first burst accuracy.



Until Later


TR



And yes I hand in the article in case anyone is wondering.

********************

evilmike 04-26-2004, 11:37 PM *drools over lighter, lesser-recoil version of M2HB*


We'll be able to mount them on dirtbikes......

********************

ReHerakhte 04-27-2004, 04:11 AM And the most important question goes to TR...


So have you got T2K stats for the XM312 on your site yet!?


Knowing you, I should probably stop asking and go and check coz it's probably already there!


Cheers,

Kevin

********************

TR 04-27-2004, 05:47 PM Not yet... I can put something together fairly easily and have some other pics of it...


I'll report in later.



TR

********************

TR 04-27-2004, 06:43 PM Ok...


Done.


http://www.wapahani.com/armaments9.html







TR

********************

Abbott Shaull 04-28-2004, 03:12 PM No I have to agree that the M4/M16 will stay in the US inventory for sometime to come. If for nothing than the shear numbers that are aready on hand. It would be like any ex-Soviet state replacing their trusted AKs, PKs, and RPKs. It will take several years before there are enough weapons to replace those in front-line service and then several years after that before a complete swap out of the inventories.


As the M8 with just the rifle itself. I don't see it being used much with the exception by Special Operations units/Air Force Security types. Then again they were the ones who field tested the CAR-15 and later M4 before they were issued to Airborne/Air Assault units and then rest of the military in general. The M4/M16 are doing the job. Not only that there are too many different attachments that any Assault Rifle System of the future would have to be capable with.


No if the M8 as part of the IOWC(?) or what every the system is introduced. I think we will be seeing it introduce with one or two per Rifle Squad going to the Rifleman in each Fire Team. So basically in theory if it is ever introduced you could have for a Fire Team:


Fire Team Leader: M16 or M4 with Master Key

Grenadier: M16 or M4 with M203

Automatic Weapon Man: M249

Rifleman: M8 with rifle and 20mm


Which will give the Fire Team that more flexibility. I am sure the Master Key and the M203 would be made compatable to the M8 system if they had to be. Either way it is still a hell lot of fire power that the Rifle Squads of WWII and Korea could only dream of.


Abbott



Abbott

********************

TR 04-28-2004, 05:50 PM Abbott,


I agree with regards to the M-4 & XM-8 issues...


Currently however the pics of the XM-8 show the AG-36 40mm grenade launcher. I am sure a conversion mount system is in the works as the M-203 has held the market for the past few decades... H&K can't possibily expect to capture that market by forcing them to the AG-36 only.


Their also experimenting with the LSS design as well so the Masterkey is not the only shotgun on the playing field. The 6.8mm cartirdge and the companies hoping to get the contract (i.e Barrett with their Model 468, Robinson Arms, etc) is ANOTHER possibility for specialist/spec forces use.


Their keeping busy on more variations and models than you can shake a stick it seems.



Until Later



TR

********************

Abbott Shaull 04-29-2004, 09:15 AM Yeah, isn't great that everyone is trying to get the piece of the action...lol...


You know what surprises me is it after Vietnam it took a short while for the idea of placing the Gernade Launcher with an M16 in under/over fashion so quickly. Yet, it took them almost until they system turned 40 to figure they could do the same with a shotgun... I remember the relics we used in the 82nd on guard duty... Would probably do more damage to oneself trying to use them than to the intended victim....


Well if they make M8 avaliable where it can have the 20mm cannon/gernade launcher or 40 mm Gernade Launcher or a shotgun. In my opinion would only hinder it acceptance as a standard military firearm for a couple reasons.


1. Like I pointed out with the Russians who are attempting themselves to change the Basic Assault Rifle used have found out with the AKs. The M16/M4 and the dozen or so variants in the US inventory make it impossible to adopt any replacement in other than piecemeal form and that would be for the Regular Army let alone the US Navy, Marines, or Air Force.


2. Then lets say if you make orders of 10,000 units to be delievered at time with the vision of changing whole Battalions at time from the M16/M4 to the M8. You create other headaches like in Vietnam when M16s were just issue with no cleaning kits or instruction on who to care for the weapon. You have to stand-down a unit for weeks if not a couple month to relearn the things that they have been taught since Basic Training with the M16...


3. Whe do you re-do what is taught in Basic Training too at some point too... No sense sending replacement to Divisions that have no idea how to care for a weapons. Or for that matter to fight with a completely different weapon system than what they spent weeks training with back at Fort Jackson, Sill, Knox, or Benning.


No I don't see the US throwing away the M203s anytime soon. Like the M16s that they have been use with for so long and the M4. They work and do their functions.


Thinking of which do the Brits use the M16/M203 combo in their regular Infantry units or do they have another Assault Rifle/GL combination or do they use a stand-alone GL at the infantry Squad/Section level? I know their Special Operation use/d the M16/M203 combo, but haven't heard much of it making it way to the Infantry especially since they have their L85s and L86s I believe and even then they ordered Mimini to bring in more fire power later due to the fact L86s were filling the requirement of Light Machinegun/Automatic Rifle role at fire team level.


Abbott

********************

TR 04-29-2004, 05:42 PM Abbott,


as far as the L85A1/A2 series and the issue of the M203 it is a tad bit more complicated unfortunatly.


I've seen pics of the H&K 69/79 being fitted to the series and the current AG-36 but not any pics of the M-203 mated to the L85 family.


http://dboy.cpgl.net/Britain/sa80/GERNADE-L85A.jpg



http://dboy.cpgl.net/Britain/sa80/sa80b.jpg



http://image2.sina.com.cn/jc/pc/2003...3091253743.jpg



Until Later


TR

********************

Abbott Shaull 04-30-2004, 09:39 AM Okay I just haven't recalled seeing a L85 outfitted with GL. Hey can't ask everyone to buy what the US uses. Shoot I can remember back before the Persian Gulf the M60 was the standard GPMG now we have the M240 which has been adopted many NATO countries in various fashions. Do the the Brits still issue the L86 anymore?


Abbott

********************

TR 04-30-2004, 05:43 PM As far as I have seen the L86 is still officially in the inventory... they made somewhere around 22,000 to 23,000 of them.



TR

********************

ReHerakhte 04-30-2004, 09:55 PM As far as I recall, the UK troops are using the Minimi in the LMG role AND the L86 LSW but in a long range 5.56mm rifle role (and as a supplment to the Minimi if needed). So their Section/Squad organization sees the Minimi replace the L86 in the support role and the L86 is given to the best shooters for the marksman's role.


I recall too that of the 2 L85 rifles, one will be fitted with the AG36 so basic Fire Team composition would be as follows: -


Section/Squad = 2 x Fire Team

Fire Team = 4 personnel

Weapons/Fire Team: -

1 x L85A2

1 x L85A2/AG36

1 x Minimi

1 x L86A2


1st Fire Team will be controlled by the Section Leader (Corporal)

2nd Fire Team will be controlled by Section 2IC (Lance Corporal)


I vaguely recall this organization was originally structured around the mech infantry forces with 8 troops to a Warrior MICV but this composition does give a lot of flexibility to even basic foot slogger units and like US Squads, heavier weapons can be attached as needed (such as assigning a MAG58/L7A2 GPMG team). I haven't got access to the books I read this stuff in at the moment and they were about a year old so if anyone from the UK has a better understanding please correct my info (I'm always happy to get new info!)


Cheers,

Kevin

********************