Army Times: M4 Upgrades

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army Times: M4 Upgrades (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 11/20/2009 10:41:22 PM EDT

I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:
heavy M4A1 barrel
Better trigger
monolithic rail
gas piston
ambi controls
round counter

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

Posted: 11/20/2009 10:56:58 PM EDT

[#1]

Is a round counter the guy standing next to you looking at the p-mag window?

Posted: 11/20/2009 10:58:01 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:

heavy M4A1 barrel

Better trigger

monolithic rail

gas piston

ambi controls

round counter

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

As is the piston.

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:03:33 PM EDT

[#3]

A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:06:06 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:06:25 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:
heavy M4A1 barrel - needs completely new barrel profile, heavier is NOT the way to go here.
Better trigger - get rid of stupid 3 shot burst will correct most of the trigger issues
monolithic rail - or just a decent rail system
gas piston - bad idea and not needed if they'd configure the rifle correctly
ambi controls - yes, and with 0/45/90 selector like the SCAR
round counter - whatever
my additions:
improved bolt design with balanced extractor and possibly a stepped cam pin
better flash suppressor
if they stay with 14.5" barrel, change to midlength gas system along with the improved barrel profile
improved stock and grip designs
change lower to integral magpul-style triggerguard

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:08:19 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

Probably the report of rifles being too hot to shoot at Wanat.

Rifles are rifles and MGs are MGs and never the two shall meet...or something like that.

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:08:38 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:

heavy M4A1 barrel - needs completely new barrel profile

Better trigger - get rid of stupid 3 shot burst will correct most of the trigger issues

monolithic rail - or just a decent rail system

gas piston - not needed if they'd configure the rifle correctly

ambi controls - yes, and with 0/45/90 selector like the SCAR

round counter - whatever

my additions:

improved bolt design with balanced extractor and possibly a stepped cam pin

better flash suppressor

if they stay with 14.5" barrel, change to midlength gas system along with the improved barrel profile

improved stock and grip designs

change lower to integral magpul-style triggerguard

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

How about the SR15E3...

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:09:59 PM EDT

[#8]

Yeah, for "piston" your'e talking a whole new fucking lower.

And what the fuck do they mean by "round counter"?

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:13:18 PM EDT

[#9]

Army Times = National Inquirer..... more tabloid BS in their pages than not. According the them I should have had a new rifle 6 times in the last 18 months, with new camo, body armor, helmet, camera, and a multi-cam patridge in a pear tree.

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:18:04 PM EDT

[#10]

Agreed... And also a heavy barrel, while at times an advantage, is also at times a disadvantage.

Monolithic rail as part of the upper is not necessary when various DD products and equivalents exist. In fact monolithic limits your options.

A crisper trigger (same design, better workmanship) would be an improvement... Any fancy shit (two stage, lighter, drop-in etc) is a bad idea.

Ambi selector is a good idea... Mag release or bolt catch are fine just as they are and would be retarded to change.

I can understand the round counter for reserve units and the like where weapons might be ignored if there isn't a flashing red light that says "inspect me"... However, warriors worth shit don't need such a thing.
A good improvement setup on the M4: Optional heavy barrel model for units that need it. DD Omega rail. Aimpoint and Troy BUIS standard issue on all rifles, Ambi selector, crisper trigger, PMAGs and Mk262 ammo standard issue, round counter in the pistol grip for lazy units, extractor upgrade kit, improved cleaning kit (plastic carbon scraper, CLP replaced with a dedicated cleaning solvent and a heavy 90 weight synthetic lubricant and protectant).

Mainly, though, better training in their manual of arms, urban marksmanship and MOUT tactics. We may be the best in the world generally, but to be honest the quality of training still kind of sucks in their regard for most units. Although it has vastly improved since the WOT started, it still isn't nearly enough to make me happen... Especially when these are skills personnel outside of combat arms need this day in age.

Quoted:

Quoted:

I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:

heavy M4A1 barrel

Better trigger

monolithic rail

gas piston

ambi controls

round counter

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

As is the piston.

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:28:45 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:

heavy M4A1 barrel - needs completely new barrel profile, heavier is NOT the way to go here. Meh, the current profile isn't that bad... Heavier makes sense for some units, but not most, and it needs flutes for heat dissipation and stiffness if it's going to be heavier.

Better trigger - get rid of stupid 3 shot burst will correct most of the trigger issues Most M4s are not three round burst. The simple fact is many of the trigger just plain suck. A few more minutes finishing at factory would solve this.

monolithic rail - or just a decent rail system Correct.

gas piston - bad idea and not needed if they'd configure the rifle correctly Not needed at all... Period.

ambi controls - yes, and with 0/45/90 selector like the SCAR This is fucking pointless. And under no circumstances should we change the manual of arms.

round counter - whatever It makes sense for units that might otherwise neglect their weapons. HSLD Operators won't need this shit.

my additions:

improved bolt design with balanced extractor and possibly a stepped cam pin Meh... Maybe... Not absolutely necessary provided proper inspection and preventative maintenance is done.

better flash suppressor Only modest improvement could be made... Maybe if the upgrade is cheap and still works with the M9 bayonet.

if they stay with 14.5" barrel, change to midlength gas system along with the improved barrel profile This is retarded. Not just no, but hell no. The carbine system works, and adding a whole new gas system is a logistical and training nightmare almost as bad as those retarded piston toys.

improved stock and grip designs Meh... Only for some units, and they'll procure such improvements on their own. The current setup works for the rank and file.

change lower to integral magpul-style triggerguard Not neccesary... Waste of resources better used elsewhere.

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:32:56 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

Probably the report of rifles being too hot to shoot at Wanat.

Rifles are rifles and MGs are MGs and never the two shall meet Except when the Marines manage to get this mixed up and buy this thing called IAR...or something like that.

Red Note aside, I agree with your original purpose...

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:34:40 PM EDT

[#13]

Sounds like the Army Times wants an HK416...

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:39:42 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Army Times = National Inquirer....quote]

Pretty much

Posted: 11/20/2009 11:43:50 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

Probably the report of rifles being too hot to shoot at Wanat.

Rifles are rifles and MGs are MGs and never the two shall meet Except when the Marines manage to get this mixed up and buy this thing called IAR...or something like that.

Red Note aside, I agree with your original purpose...

Yeah...well...it seems to be really watered down at this point.

Posted: 11/21/2009 1:40:41 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Sounds like the Army Times wants an HK416...

Damn. Beat to it.

Posted: 11/21/2009 1:51:59 AM EDT

[#17]

piston IS the way to go! sorry dave yer wrong again

i got both set ups, MUCH prefer the piston!

Posted: 11/21/2009 1:53:46 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Yeah, for "piston" your'e talking a whole new fucking lower.

And what the fuck do they mean by "round counter"?

Yeah, do they mean something out of Aliens and Halo, or a round counter mag like Pmags?

Posted: 11/21/2009 2:56:16 AM EDT

[#19]

I think somebody saw the SCAR FN had at the Paris expo and thought the nifty processor mounted in the grip to count the number of rounds fired was just too cool.

Wait until they latch on to the "smart gun technology" that said gun also had and use photos of Zarqawi with the SAW or Taliban with M4s as proof that it's needed.

Posted: 11/21/2009 3:01:12 AM EDT

[#20]

They should upgrade to a SAKO RU95 or a SIG STG90!

Posted: 11/21/2009 3:14:41 AM EDT

[#21]

Round Counter = Window PMags?

Posted: 11/21/2009 3:35:24 AM EDT

[#22]

Does anybody still believe ANYTHING that Army Times writes?

What a shit rag.

Posted: 11/21/2009 3:40:12 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I think somebody saw the SCAR FN had at the Paris expo and thought the nifty processor mounted in the grip to count the number of rounds fired was just too cool.

Wait until they latch on to the "smart gun technology" that said gun also had and use photos of Zarqawi with the SAW or Taliban with M4s as proof that it's needed.

Is that a weapon disabling thing?

Posted: 11/21/2009 4:09:52 AM EDT

[#24]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJcjE85A8-A

There, they have a round counter.

Next, the barrel, if you want "hi-po" gear, you have to pay "hi-po" prices.

I don't think the barrel profile is bad. But, the double insulated handguards, don't let heat escape as well as more open designs. The handguards are designed to keep heat away from the user's hands. Not dissipate the heat. That should be changed.

A thicker barrel profile, with flutes, to keep the weight exactly the same, might also have a modest effect on heat dissipation.

Better trigger, ambi controls, and gas piston..................... It's a pretty good trigger, especially if the 3 round burst mechanism goes by-by. Ambi controls, the more you put on there the more complicated it gets. The more complicated the more likely it is to fail. Gas piston, every time this comes up people say it will effect accuracy. I have seen super slow mo of an AK type rifle firing, the barrel is "whipping" about pretty noticeably.

Posted: 11/21/2009 4:25:06 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJcjE85A8-A

There, they have a round counter.

Next, the barrel, if you want "hi-po" gear, you have to pay "hi-po" prices.

I don't think the barrel profile is bad. But, the double insulated handguards, don't let heat escape as well as more open designs. The handguards are designed to keep heat away from the user's hands. Not dissipate the heat. That should be changed.

A thicker barrel profile, with flutes, to keep the weight exactly the same, might also have a modest effect on heat dissipation.

Better trigger, ambi controls, and gas piston..................... It's a pretty good trigger, especially if the 3 round burst mechanism goes by-by. Ambi controls, the more you put on there the more complicated it gets. The more complicated the more likely it is to fail. Gas piston, every time this comes up people say it will effect accuracy. I have seen super slow mo of an AK type rifle firing, the barrel is "whipping" about pretty noticeably.

Wouldn't a short stroke piston affect accuracy less than the long stroke of the AK?

Posted: 11/21/2009 4:30:00 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Wouldn't a short stroke piston affect accuracy less than the long stroke of the AK?

Entirely possible, just like a stiffer barrel would be less effected.

But, I don't think the people clamoring for a piston setup, will be ready to accept the accuracy loss that comes with it.

Lots of people want a rifle that shoots tight groups, and will feed any type of ammo reliably, and have a high cyclic rate on full auto.

I don't think a piston system will "solve" any of the M4/M16's "problems". Because it seems that a lot of the problems, are users expectations, not actual problems.

Posted: 11/21/2009 4:40:45 AM EDT

[#27]

Here's my two cents. I've never had the opportunity to fire an M4 or M4gery but when I tried the M16A2 I was amazed at the light weight and accuracy of the weapon. Unless a piston is truly needed I think it would be stupid to install one. It would probably affect accuracy somewhat and it would definitely make the gun heavier. The accuracy and light weight are the main advantages of the AR over other weapons. Those advantages shouldn't be given up unless it's necessary.

Posted: 11/21/2009 5:54:19 AM EDT

[#28]

I don't think that you guys are thinking "round counter" the way that the Army thinks about it. Its not to give the soldier some kind of video game display of how many rounds they have left.

Round counters are generally installed on military weapons as an internal, mechanical mechanism that gives the armorer an idea of when routine maintenance is required (especially in regards to when to gauge a barrel).

In my opinion they are not entirely necessary, but I did want to point out that it is likely not to give the rifle a feature found on video games as some people pointed out.

As far as piston systems go, I would like to see the data behind some of these "pistons decrease accuracy" statements.

Posted: 11/21/2009 6:53:55 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Round counters are generally installed on military weapons as an internal, mechanical mechanism that gives the armorer an idea of when routine maintenance is required (especially in regards to when to gauge a barrel).

I am not sure where you are getting that from, only cannons weapon systems are required to have gun books that track number of rounds fired and number of Effective Full Charges fired. However, those are filled out by the crew later off number of rounds from either the records of fire or in some cases memory. Those numbers tend to be an inaccurate predictor of wear so, the weapon will either have a pull over or drop style gauge run through it to confirm the predication of the wear.

Posted: 11/21/2009 6:59:59 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
As far as piston systems go, I would like to see the data behind some of these "pistons decrease accuracy" statements.

The simple fact that LWRC and POF don't sell uppers with pencil barrels any more should answer this question...

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:01:47 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:
heavy M4A1 barrel - needs completely new barrel profile, heavier is NOT the way to go here. Meh, the current profile isn't that bad... Heavier makes sense for some units, but not most, and it needs flutes for heat dissipation and stiffness if it's going to be heavier.
Better trigger - get rid of stupid 3 shot burst will correct most of the trigger issues Most M4s are not three round burst. The simple fact is many of the trigger just plain suck. A few more minutes finishing at factory would solve this.
monolithic rail - or just a decent rail system Correct.
gas piston - bad idea and not needed if they'd configure the rifle correctly Not needed at all... Period.
ambi controls - yes, and with 0/45/90 selector like the SCAR This is fucking pointless. And under no circumstances should we change the manual of arms.
round counter - whatever It makes sense for units that might otherwise neglect their weapons. HSLD Operators won't need this shit.
my additions:
improved bolt design with balanced extractor and possibly a stepped cam pin Meh... Maybe... Not absolutely necessary provided proper inspection and preventative maintenance is done.
better flash suppressor Only modest improvement could be made... Maybe if the upgrade is cheap and still works with the M9 bayonet.
if they stay with 14.5" barrel, change to midlength gas system along with the improved barrel profile This is retarded. Not just no, but hell no. The carbine system works, and adding a whole new gas system is a logistical and training nightmare almost as bad as those retarded piston toys.
improved stock and grip designs Meh... Only for some units, and they'll procure such improvements on their own. The current setup works for the rank and file.
change lower to integral magpul-style triggerguard Not neccesary... Waste of resources better used elsewhere.

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

Most M4s are three round burst. M4 = 3 round burst. M4A1 = Auto.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:08:53 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:
heavy M4A1 barrel
Better trigger
monolithic rail
gas piston
ambi controls
round counter

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

Current barrel is a good compromise between stiffness and weight. Also, NOT drop in!

I agree that the triggers could be better and would be worth the added cost.

Stupid. This would add a lot of weight to the rifle. The advantage of the M4 is lightness and portability. Also NOT drop in. I would suggest light 4 rail handguards for most operators.

This is something people who want to sell us something see as a solution to a problem that most would agree does not exist. The M4 bolt/carrier is designed for direct impingement. Period. This would also introduce proprietary parts into the weapon system. The strength of the M4/M16 IMHO is its modular universal design with almost full interchangeability. Besides the bolt lugs are designed to have pressure on them relieved by the gas acting behind the bolt before the bolt is rotated and withdrawn from the barrel extension. A piston system removes this important step from the cycling process.

Nope. Ambi controls are not needed. If ANYTHING I would say ambi selector might be handy.

Retarded... I think this is seen as a tool to drive maintenance intervals. Operators should maintain their weapons as they've been trained and based on conditions.

My $.02

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:10:28 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
piston IS the way to go! sorry dave yer wrong again

i got both set ups, MUCH prefer the piston!

Enjoy that piston system when it starts eating bolt/carrier parts and you have to hope the original, proprietary, manufacturer is still making replacement parts for it.

ETA: All the ad copy about pistons not needing lube, etc. also reminds me of the early M16's being so "maintenance-free" that they weren't shipped with cleaning kits!

Hopefully the whole piston fad will die and early yet not untimely death.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:17:40 AM EDT

[#34]

So basically a Colt 6940 upper + a cold hammer forged barrel and maybe an ambi lower ala KAC's SR15.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:19:18 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

If you were in a high op tempo unit, you'd know bolt lugs breaking IS a problem, my Plt breaks at least 2-3 every shooting package, 2-3 out of 20 is a lot of bolts.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:23:22 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

If you were in a high op tempo unit, you'd know bolt lugs breaking IS a problem, my Plt breaks at least 2-3 every shooting package, 2-3 out of 20 is a lot of bolts.

A thicker barrel is not the solution to that. M4A1s still have that same cracking/missing lug issue.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:26:49 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

If you were in a high op tempo unit, you'd know bolt lugs breaking IS a problem, my Plt breaks at least 2-3 every shooting package, 2-3 out of 20 is a lot of bolts.

+1 The M4 breaks bolt lugs early and often in its service life. That is a fact. The round counter is a product of an improved maintenance schedule that is designed to replace parts at certain round counts vs waiting until they break to fix it.

It is akin to aircraft maintenance...you don't wait for the engine to fail before you replace components...they are replaced at certain hour ratings.

There is a generally accepted round count that you are going to start seeing broken bolts, etc and with a round counter, you can replace things before they break so that you don't end up with a broken gun in combat.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:28:27 AM EDT

[#38]

People who are against the round counter need to loosen the tin foil.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:28:38 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

If you were in a high op tempo unit, you'd know bolt lugs breaking IS a problem, my Plt breaks at least 2-3 every shooting package, 2-3 out of 20 is a lot of bolts.

A thicker barrel is not the solution to that. M4A1s still have that same cracking/missing lug issue.

I was merely responding to the above quoted post that implied that bolt breakages were a trumped up problem of the M4 weapon system.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:29:41 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

If you were in a high op tempo unit, you'd know bolt lugs breaking IS a problem, my Plt breaks at least 2-3 every shooting package, 2-3 out of 20 is a lot of bolts.

So these geniuses want to reduce bolt problems by going to a piston system that is even harder on them???

Sounds to me like bolts are wearing unevenly against the barrel extensions or something. I wonder, are all your rifles from the same production lot? Are they just swapping out bolts when they break, and using them in worn barrel extensions? If so, this will only accelerate bolt failures.

ETA: Dangit! wasted post 3333 on this silliness

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:32:57 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

There is a generally accepted round count that you are going to start seeing broken bolts, etc and with a round counter, you can replace things before they break so that you don't end up with a broken gun in combat.

That reeeeally depends on rate of fire.

I know that some M16A2s probably have far more rounds through them after 20+ years of range duty, etc, than carbines that have bolt failures at 4-7k because every mag was practically dumped and the shooter was squeezing the shit out of the front of the rifle in a direction other than straight back.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:34:39 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A true monolithic rail is not exactly drop in. What they are talking about is a new upper at the very least, and a new rifle in a more realistic sense. I have no idea why they want the M4A1 barrel, other than to counteract the movement of the op-rod. Everything there would increase weight and proportionally increase Soldier/Marine bitch factor.

The only 'justification' I can think of, is that they want to go back to true full-auto, and the heavier BBL is for heat dissapation...

Either that, or someone has convinced the (ever gullible) AT gun-writer staff that bending M4 barrels is a problem (kind of like all the BS about bolt lugs breaking being a problem....

If you were in a high op tempo unit, you'd know bolt lugs breaking IS a problem, my Plt breaks at least 2-3 every shooting package, 2-3 out of 20 is a lot of bolts.

So these geniuses want to reduce bolt problems by going to a piston system that is even harder on them???

Sounds to me like bolts are wearing unevenly against the barrel extensions or something. I wonder, are all your rifles from the same production lot? Are they just swapping out bolts when they break, and using them in worn barrel extensions? If so, this will only accelerate bolt failures.

ETA: Dangit! wasted post 3333 on this silliness

The cause of the M4 systems bolt failures is pretty well established to be the increased operating pressures/heat associated with the carbine gas system, and many of these breakages are happening on guns that came to us brand new in the box, often times the guy who broke the bolt was the first guy who was ever issued that weapon and he's still lucky to make 10K without a bolt failure.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:36:23 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There is a generally accepted round count that you are going to start seeing broken bolts, etc and with a round counter, you can replace things before they break so that you don't end up with a broken gun in combat.

That reeeeally depends on rate of fire.

I know that some M16A2s probably have far more rounds through them after 20+ years of range duty, etc, than carbines that have bolt failures at 4-7k because every mag was practically dumped and the shooter was squeezing the shit out of the front of the rifle in a direction other than straight back.

We generally see failure towards the higher end of that spectrum.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:36:30 AM EDT

[#44]

Army times also reported on the US Army getting the XM8 like it was a fait accompli and fellated it, look what happened there. When I was in we regarded the Army Times as pre-screened crap for servicemen.

I never read it much unless it was the only thing in the toilet.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:37:41 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

I was merely responding to the above quoted post that implied that bolt breakages were a trumped up problem of the M4 weapon system.

Well, with a brand new weapon that does not see full auto - even if it does see rapid semi auto fire - the 4-6-7k number that is talked about is pretty low. Most of the ones I've seen/heard discussed were above 10k and those were in fact M4A1s.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:39:25 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

We generally see failure towards the higher end of that spectrum.

There are other solutions...gas system length...bolt/barrel extension redesign...bolt material changes.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:41:10 AM EDT

[#47]

Just adopt the FN SCAR and call it done.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:42:22 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Just adopt the FN SCAR and call it done.

Jury is still out on that one.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:43:26 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We generally see failure towards the higher end of that spectrum.

There are other solutions...gas system length...bolt/barrel extension redesign...bolt material changes.

I would be all for a mid length gas system and an upgraded bolt like the LWRC design that does away with the undercut lug adjacent to the extractor, I'm not arguing in favor or against any of the upgrades in the article, just relaying personal experience with the system.

Posted: 11/21/2009 7:44:11 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
I know it's the army times and all but all the upgrades seem easy and hopefully drop in. Here's what upgrades they listed:
heavy M4A1 barrel
Better trigger
monolithic rail
gas piston
ambi controls
round counter

I like most if these upgrades could be made to exsisting m4's which is good but the round counter is retarded.

I've found all of those particular aspect to make a better AR/M4 except for the round counter. I don't know how their going to do that and don't really care. If it's windowed mags, than great.
The heavy barrel is more front weight while it can reduced muzzle jump and be more accurate shot after shot. POF flutes theirs and it not only takes some weight away but can help in cooling and making the barrel more rigid.
The monolithic rail is great for optics and accessories, the ambi controls for lefties (which I am), the better trigger a benefit to putting the bullet where it needs to go and the gas piston operating system a benefit overall to function.
It doesn't put as much abuse on vital receiver/bcg parts by routing the hot gas to the piston/gas cylinder/block designed specifically for that task alone. It doesn't flood the receiver with carbon so cleaning is less as is lubrication use. Without all the carbon in the receiver the rifle runs much better on grease too which stays in place longer than oil smoothing the actions function and decreasing wear. Once again through from the various responses, I'm glad I'm no longer in the Army with the choice of what weapon I carry, the decision of other people.
I'll shoot off a few rounds in honor of the Army Times when I get the new gas piston AR I'm about to order which will be the second I've owned seeing the difference first hand through mine and other piston AR's from other owners.

the old one,

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army Times: M4 Upgrades (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us