Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/13/2002 9:16:28 AM EST
I have been readin a posts about guy who want or just got a new M4. I must be missing something because I dont understant the Hype. Is there more to this rifle then a shorter barrel and pinned stock, or do guys just want them because they resemble the new Military weapon? Doesn't a shorter barrel length generally mean less accuraacy? and if the Stock is permanently pinned in the Full position how is it better than a old fixed style stock? I am hoping that someone can clarify this for me.
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 9:25:38 AM EST
It is very noticably lighter than a 16" shorty. The M4 barrel is thinner under the handguards and the pinned stock is lighter than the A2. These things together give you a rifle that does EVERYTHING a standard HBAR shorty with a A2 stock does, in a much lighter package. And BTW, shorter barrels DO NOT equate to less accuracy. Hahahaha, there was a big debate about this on the chat forum last night!
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 10:17:05 AM EST
So, it doesn't compromised accuracy at all despite the uneven barrel and lower muzzle velocity? What would be recommended at a bench rest match when weight is not a factor? Will people still be buying the old style XM15e2S's?
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 10:38:26 AM EST
Some people like the M4 Style. There is no hype per say, rather it is a choice. Yes I do agree what is the purpose of the telescoping stock if it does not function, but regardless people like it. I like the M4 style and have a preban M4gery. I am issued a M16A2 in the Marines. Both serve a purpose. If you don't like the M4 Style, then don't purchase one. Stick with the A1 or A2 Style. [marines] max
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 10:39:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 10:48:11 AM EST
I have not seen it mentioned yet, but the M4's out there today are very well balanced. This combined with the above mentioned low weight makes them very nimble and easy to maneuver. Also, not all M4s are "post ban" and I have them in both flavors. [:D]
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 12:29:10 PM EST
I like M4s I like them so much I have had quite a few of them over the years, postban and pre. But I must say that a lot of new shooters are just going for the LOOK. Then they complain when they can't workout the sights or whatever it is that keeps them from hitting a barn at 200 yards. Experienced shooters ( Troy, New-arguy and others ) have no problems with the short sight radius of the carbine, but many new shooters do. It is easier to shoot better with a longer rifle than a carbine. A 20" gov profile A2 rifle is very well balanced and IMO better suited for all around use than a carbine. As I see it learn with the 20" then decide.
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 3:24:18 PM EST
Hey grock! Post a pic of your preban M4 for me! Thanks! JIM
Link Posted: 12/13/2002 5:28:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/13/2002 5:29:14 PM EST by FREEFALLE6]
here is a pic of my M4, and the big reason I like it, is I use a M4 in the Army, and it keeps me in practice. [img]http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL76/709417/1194623/15685330.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 5:17:44 AM EST
Has COLT fixed the problems with the M4 yet? I've been told that they have problems with bolts, and gas tubes, and overheating on full-auto fire drills.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 7:57:38 AM EST
I just picked up a postban M4gery yesterday, and as this is my first post here's a big wave to everybody. [img]http://jeepsunlimited.com/forums/images/icons/icon322.gif[/img] I've had an A2 for a while now, wanted another AR, and decided to go with something different from what I already had. As others have said, it is noticeably lighter than an A2, and does seem nicely balanced. I won't lie though, I do like the look, and it did sway me from getting some other variation of AR. I'd say no AR collection is complete without both.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 8:54:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By Wildcat78: I just picked up a postban M4gery yesterday, and as this is my first post here's a big wave to everybody. [url]http://jeepsunlimited.com/forums/images/icons/icon322.gif[/url] I've had an A2 for a while now, wanted another AR, and decided to go with something different from what I already had. As others have said, it is noticeably lighter than an A2, and does seem nicely balanced. I won't lie though, I do like the look, and it did sway me from getting some other variation of AR. I'd say no AR collection is complete without both.
View Quote
Welcome Wildcat78! Well put! If the military something (especially ours)it is guaranteed successful if and when available in the civilian market. Clothing, calibers almost anything. Some of it is "wannabee hype", the other part is functional products that do what they were designed to do. My M4gery appeals to the gadget freak in me. With it's flat-top upper and RIS I can hang almost any combination of sight/light/laser/fly swatter mankind comes up with. This appeals to the paranoid freak in me, this weapon will meet my real, or imagined, needs.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 9:02:36 AM EST
Hahaha, thats great, the ability to meet both your real and immaginary needs is a wonderful thing!
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 12:22:13 PM EST
DALLMAN: like others have said, there really isnt a "hype" more like a healthy interest...for me, after i bought my 1st firearm, a 20" colt comp match target hbar, i had to get a complimentary m4 carbine, yes a lot of my desire was based on the military's use of the m4, hey i admit it: i rented "black hawk down" and saw all those m4's in action and had to have one. oh, if any of you havent rented that movie, you're missing out on the ultimate "ar-15 type" movie.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 2:20:48 PM EST
I'm in the Army, and like the fact that my hobby (shooting) directly relates to my work. Back in the '80's I couldn't afford an AR, so I had a Mini-14. The day before I had to qualify with my M-16, I'd practice by taking it with 100 rounds to the on-post range and shooting prone at a 100 yd target. The Army just didn't give me the trigger time that I wanted, so I got it (get it) on my own time and equipment. Now I've got the money, and I'm able to get into the AR series. It's great to be able to own an AR configured almost the same as what I have in the military. I bring both of my AR's to my unit's ranges, and the soldiers really enjoy checking them out, especially the RAS, SIR, and Reflex sights. [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/p4f7d1887a374428528b2567e7d2ab006/fcf1e56c.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/p3a2af43c1f7267075a48370c5e095b2c/fcf1e56b.jpg[/img] I like being able to familiarize the young soldiers with the RAS, since they will probably see it when they get back to the States. Chris
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 3:09:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/14/2002 3:10:40 PM EST by arizcowboy]
After swimming against the tide for a year, I caved in and just bought a Colt MT6400C since I couldn't afford a preban model. I needed an excuse to buy another AR, and yes I bought just for its looks. I don't think I'll ever use it for its intended purpose such as home defense, an entry weapon, or carry it around in a dense jungle where its size would be an advantage. So there.
Link Posted: 12/14/2002 10:49:41 PM EST
Ok, this all clarifies the m4's role amoung the AR-15 family. So, where does the CAR-15 fit in with all this?
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 9:18:53 AM EST
The CAR15 was the forerunner of the M4. There were some used during the latter part of the Vietnam war. Again it was used for special forces units. The common configuration was the 11.5" barrel with the 4.5" flashhider. Since it had a short barrel accuracy suffered and that configuration made it difficult to mount the M203. The M4 had the barrel cut to accomodate the attachment of the M203. I am sure if I am incorrect, there are members here with a wealth of knowledge. [marines] max
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 1:03:16 PM EST
Originally Posted By maxell27: Since it had a short barrel accuracy suffered
View Quote
CAR's were used by some folks long after that to my knowledge, and the shorter barrel did not compromise accuracy at all. What it did was compromise velocity. Low velocity ruins the internal ballistics of the 5.56 round FAST. Short barrel guns = low velocity = short effective range. Accuracy is fine.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 8:07:03 PM EST
All this sweet-talk about the M4 is nice, but haven't the Marines had very real problems with bolts & gas tubes on the M4? I understand that COLT has been given another chance to fix them, because under full-auto fire drills they overheat & start malfunctioning.
Link Posted: 12/15/2002 8:15:23 PM EST
I am going to buy one purely for the look. Hey, right now there is no limit on them. I have two, have two more uppers on the way, and have three additional lowers. I have my basic needs taken care of and have no guilt at all about buying one for looks alone.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 3:03:14 PM EST
I like everything about my AR rifle-except how it transports. And it isn't the weight, its the length. A M4 fits in a car, or works as a trail gun on a hike much better than a full size. Due to its short length and its more rear heavy balance, which reduces sway on a one or three point sling. I will get one, eventually. Even if I could afford one now I wouldn't get one untill its legal again to put a working telestock on it. Otherwise there is really no point. Just putting a 16" barrel upper on my A2 lower would not be enough of a reduction.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 3:32:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By montanaman: All this sweet-talk about the M4 is nice, but haven't the Marines had very real problems with bolts & gas tubes on the M4? I understand that COLT has been given another chance to fix them, because under full-auto fire drills they overheat & start malfunctioning.
View Quote
I went and searched the various gun sites, and could not find anything about problems with Colt rifles. Civilian OR military. I know at least 1 person with a registered full-auto using a Colt M4 upper. He has had ZERO problems. What is your source? Av.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 7:02:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/16/2002 7:05:40 PM EST by ArmdLbrl]
There were no "problems" with the Colt M4's the Marines tested. The FN built M16A4's had fewer mailfunctions in the torture test they put them through. [i]Probably[/i] the failures were heat or fouling related. Colt has complained, with some justice, that the torture test was unrealistic and designed to favor the heavier, longer M16 barrel and longer gas tube which is GOING to stay cooler and cleaner than the short carbine barrel. More metal, even if the barrel diameters are the same, more surface area for cooling, and a gas port further out giving both more room for the powder to burn completely meaning a cooler, cleaner gas flowing back into the reciever. Both types, however, "passed" the test. They both met the USMCs on paper requirements. The M16A4 just went further beyond them than the M4. And since the Marines were already biased in favor of a longer rifle-and they could be made by recycling M16A2's-they went for the longer gun.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 8:16:15 PM EST
It was in USMC Times - talking about COLT to get one more chance to fix the woes of the M4.
Link Posted: 12/16/2002 9:37:46 PM EST
The "woes" of the M4 are apparently news to Force Recon Marines who have been using them for a number of years now. If what the Marines wanted was a accurate, heavy barreled semi-auto rifle for sitting behind barricades and mow down human wave attacks of Chinese or fuzzy wuzzies they should of said so from the begining.
Link Posted: 12/17/2002 6:16:43 PM EST
That seems to be the case - full-auto drills, emptying three magazines as fast as they'll empty.
Link Posted: 12/18/2002 4:43:55 AM EST
The problems are quite real and relate to the central problem of the M-4: "early timing", which stems essentially from it's short gas tube. Colt is supposed to deliver their "solution" to the USMC for eval in January/February. For Hartford it will be the moment of truth. The USMC article only mentions part of the story. Those who say that SOF-capable USMC units are happy are not privy to the statistical sampling others within the Services have access to. If the M-4 didn't have these problems (and don't forget USSOCOM's woes, as well) in the face of prima facie evidence to the contrary, they wouldn't be in a crash effort to solve the problem. True, the Marines want generally a longer ranging weapon; however, that does not negate the USMC requirement for a CQB-oriented weapon. The CG, MARCORSYSCOM has said so -- in print -- period. This discussion will all prove moot in the Spring when either Colt finally fixes the system or falls on it's face. Fish or cut bait time.
Link Posted: 12/18/2002 5:12:28 AM EST
Not everyone may be aware but the heavy barrel version of the M-4 barrel has an NSN and is on many of the M4A1 carbines ( full-auto - not burst). I personally have three AR's - one preban Colt with M-4 barrel, one preban Oly Arms with A3 upper and 16" Bushmaster superlight barrel, and a postban Bushmaster AR-15 20" HBAR with A3 upper. Of the three, I still like the Colt M4gery best. Still trying to get used to the superlight barrel made by Bushmaster but it appears rugged in spite of its thin barrel. I like my 20" HBAR but don't foresee it as a general purpose weapon to lug around. If I want a full size rifle, I'll use an FAL. Being in the military makes owning an AR that much more beneficial - as was mentioned most military units don't shoot nearly enough so its nice to have an AR.
Link Posted: 12/18/2002 2:58:16 PM EST
O.K., Here's my m4 story.I'm 42 years old and every since I was a kid,I wanted a M16 like John Wayne in "THE GREEN BERET'S" so this past october I finally got a Bushmaster a2 and couldn't be happier with it, my dream gun was finally mine. Then the trouble began. I just happened to be channel surfing and came across a movie called "HEAT" with VAL KILMER AND ROBERT DENIRO it had one of the coolest bank robbery/fire fights I've seen in a while starring a bunch of full auto M4s. So now I'm scraping together the money for my next dream gun, the postban BUSHNASTER M4.( just because I saw it in a movie, go figure). BASE-RIGGER
Link Posted: 12/18/2002 9:44:36 PM EST
Originally Posted By BASE-RIGGER: O.K., Here's my m4 story.I'm 42 years old and every since I was a kid,I wanted a M16 like John Wayne in "THE GREEN BERET'S" so this past october I finally got a Bushmaster a2 and couldn't be happier with it, my dream gun was finally mine. Then the trouble began. I just happened to be channel surfing and came across a movie called "HEAT" with VAL KILMER AND ROBERT DENIRO it had one of the coolest bank robbery/fire fights I've seen in a while starring a bunch of full auto M4s. So now I'm scraping together the money for my next dream gun, the postban BUSHNASTER M4.( just because I saw it in a movie, go figure). BASE-RIGGER
View Quote
Actually, the ones they used in "Heat" were not M4's. The ones in the bank robbery were Colt M633's and the ones during the armored car heist were M653's. Both are M16A1 based carbines. The M633 has a 10.5 inch barrel and the M653 has a 14.5 inch pencil thin barrel. Bushmaster has a lightweight barrel and A1 upper receivers available if you call them. this will get you closer to the carbines in "Heat" than the M4. Also the One in "The Green Berets" was an early version of the M16 (I think pre A1). Your A2 would have to have the A1 upper receiver and the A1 handguard/pistol grip/buttstock in order to truly approach replicating the one John Wayne used. However, if you are not a stickler for exactness, both your A2 and the M4 are excellent rifles and both look really cool too.
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 2:57:27 AM EST
im still tring to figger out what gery means in m4gery.is it just someting people made up here or what? thanks tattoo
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 3:37:34 AM EST
M4gery = an M4 forgery = any commerial AR15 that is set up with a M4 barrel.
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 3:43:17 AM EST
Originally Posted By mrcr0603: I'm in the Army, and like the fact that my hobby (shooting) directly relates to my work. Back in the '80's I couldn't afford an AR, so I had a Mini-14. The day before I had to qualify with my M-16, I'd practice by taking it with 100 rounds to the on-post range and shooting prone at a 100 yd target. The Army just didn't give me the trigger time that I wanted, so I got it (get it) on my own time and equipment. Now I've got the money, and I'm able to get into the AR series. It's great to be able to own an AR configured almost the same as what I have in the military. I bring both of my AR's to my unit's ranges, and the soldiers really enjoy checking them out, especially the RAS, SIR, and Reflex sights. [url]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/p4f7d1887a374428528b2567e7d2ab006/fcf1e56c.jpg[/url] [url]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/p3a2af43c1f7267075a48370c5e095b2c/fcf1e56b.jpg[/url] I like being able to familiarize the young soldiers with the RAS, since they will probably see it when they get back to the States. Chris
View Quote
You're in Korea? What are the rules on personal firearms over there?
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 5:30:42 AM EST
On the matter of the "original" M16's, when I was in armorer school I had the opportunity to see/work on some of the very first ones - not M16A1's - but actually marked "AR-15" w/ safe, semi, auto. Very early - a collectors dream if they weren't so beat up. This was in 2001 BTW.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:07:00 AM EST
We just got a load of M16A1's in. They all have triangular handguards, no shell casing deflectors. (A bear for leftys) SOme of them were are marked AR15 and with the selector switch you described. I guess they are older?
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:33:19 AM EST
The one's marked AR15 would be very early - collector grade material since this means the M16 has probably not been officially adopted yet.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:44:16 AM EST
Originally Posted By maxell27: The CAR15 was the forerunner of the M4. There were some used during the latter part of the Vietnam war. Again it was used for special forces units. The common configuration was the 11.5" barrel with the 4.5" flashhider. Since it had a short barrel accuracy suffered and that configuration made it difficult to mount the M203. The M4 had the barrel cut to accomodate the attachment of the M203. I am sure if I am incorrect, there are members here with a wealth of knowledge. [marines] max
View Quote
Well actually the term CAR15 was applied to some of Colt's commerial shorter than 20" barrel models. The piece w/the big flash (and sound) suppressor was the XM177E2, and it was designated as a submachine gun by the Army. My 1977 edition of "Small Arms of the World" lists 32 different models of the basic AR, starting w/Armalites first AR15, and including the licsensed copies produced in the Phillipenes, Korea and Singapore; and this was the list BEFORE the A2 and later models were developed. Of these, 15 different models had been produced w/ less than 20 inch barrels, ranging from 10 to 14 inches (the commercial 16 inch barrel SP1s are not on the list). The Israelis used a lot of the 14incher in the A1 series, and have switched over to the A2 series types (both fixed handle and removable) in recent years. The Isralis often use the short barrel jobs as sniping rifles, because they're not so concerned with 1000 meter shots as they are with 2-300 meter hits on one shooter in a crowd of stone throwers. For accuracy, the short barrel jobs can be just as good as any longer barrels, at up to 300 meters or so. My own XM177E2 clone, built on a Colt SP1 carebine, shoots every bit as well out to 200 meters as my heavy barrel AR15, and outshoots my M4gery at those ranges. Accuracy drops off beyond 200 more because of the lower velocity of the bullet than any inherent inaccuracy of the weapon.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 2:48:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By QuietShootr:
Originally Posted By mrcr0603: I'm in the Army, and like the fact that my hobby (shooting) directly relates to my work. Back in the '80's I couldn't afford an AR, so I had a Mini-14. The day before I had to qualify with my M-16, I'd practice by taking it with 100 rounds to the on-post range and shooting prone at a 100 yd target. The Army just didn't give me the trigger time that I wanted, so I got it (get it) on my own time and equipment. Now I've got the money, and I'm able to get into the AR series. It's great to be able to own an AR configured almost the same as what I have in the military. I bring both of my AR's to my unit's ranges, and the soldiers really enjoy checking them out, especially the RAS, SIR, and Reflex sights. [url]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/p4f7d1887a374428528b2567e7d2ab006/fcf1e56c.jpg[/url] [url]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid42/p3a2af43c1f7267075a48370c5e095b2c/fcf1e56b.jpg[/url] I like being able to familiarize the young soldiers with the RAS, since they will probably see it when they get back to the States. Chris
View Quote
You're in Korea? What are the rules on personal firearms over there?
View Quote
You used to be able to bring them in with your household goods shipment. I shipped mine in the beginning of 2001. But no more. From my understanding, personal owned weapons (POWs) can no longer be brought into Korea. This change was instituted not long after I brought mine in. I have to abide by the Army regulation, and the U.S. Forces Korea regulation governing POWs. It basically says that I have to keep them in my unit arms room, so keeping them in my quarters is a NO GO. I bring my AR's to my unit M16 ranges. This is the only opportunity for me to fire them, and the only way for me to get ammo. I run the ranges so no one has a problem with this. Believe it or not, we have a Gun Club that shoots twice a month at a small 6-bay indoor range on post. I used to run the Gun Club ranges too, and shoot my five handguns there. We buy pistol ammunition from the PMC factory in-country. Chris
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 6:00:29 PM EST
In Army basic training at Ft Dix in 1985 we had M16A1 rifles marked Colt AR15 and a few actually marked Colt XM16. Also recall seeing Harrington and Richardson rifles with the lion stamp and Armalite receivers as well. All the rifles had chrome bolt carriers too. All had triangular hand guards and a mix of A1 butt stocks, some with trap door and some without. A mix match of parts and very rattley, they appeared to have been rebuilt numerous times. All those rifles looked pretty ragged and old but they functioned fine. We were all REMFs going through Ft Dix at that time, I would image most of the recruits going into a combat arms MOS would have trained with newer gear.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 3:48:32 AM EST
All this talk about problems with the M4's gas system-does that apply to the 16" barrelled semi-auto Colt Commercial variants, specifically the car-15a2, or just the 14.5" military weapons? thanks, Ed vfortytwoATyahoo.com
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 4:42:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 1/1/2003 4:47:23 AM EST by mach6]
Originally Posted By V42: All this talk about problems with the M4's gas system-does that apply to the 16" barrelled semi-auto Colt Commercial variants, specifically the car-15a2, or just the 14.5" military weapons? ------------------ The problems stem basically from the "early timing" issue which afflicts only the true M4 and M4A1 family. As such, the semiauto guns, regardless of barrel length, generally work fine. It's only when you go rock and roll and by that I mean with a training tempo and more long-term OPSTEMPO associated with SOF-type organizations, do the problems mainfest themselves. This is basically why the the conventional forces do not report problems with their M-4s, while HQ, USSOCOM (SOAL) and their combatant commands, along with the USMC, who all train to higher standards than conventional Army units, have been deeply involved in trying to solve this dilemma. As to why the problems have not been solved to date, I firmly believe that it is a combination of factors: (1) Political interference (read patronage in the form of protecting Colt Mfg, CT and Hartford's retirement fund); (2) Not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome which traditionally afflicts the the military bureaucracy and especially the Arsenal system (CRANE-NSWC, RIA and Picatinny/TACOM being the main culprits), and (3) the relatively low priority/visibility the M4 problems have received from the collective Chains of Command. Long winded -- sorry -- as I said earlier, this is where I work.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 5:04:23 AM EST
Gentelmen- i am new to this board, but have some knowledge of the M4A1 series. I have been involved with the Marine Corps end of the M4 since Firepower Branch tested it in 1986. I have been involved with the Force Reconnaissance use of the M4A1 since it replaced the sub caliber machine gins in 1998. So, take this as being subjective, and based on my experience. Nomenclature. The M4 is 3 shot burst. The M4A1 is full auto. Heat. Tests by ARDEC show that the M16A2 is will overheat more quickly to the point of "cook offs" than the M4 (170 rds (M16A2) to 190 rds (M4A1)at the cyclic rate). "The M4/M4A1 Carbine is as good or better than the M16A2 Rifle with respect to cookoffs" (M4 Carbine Ruptured Barrel and Cookoff Evaluation) With Fire to destruction tests, 491 rds for the M16A2 and 596 rds for the M4A1 carbine. Heavy Bbl M4 Should improve bbl life More accurate (intrinsic accuracy, not practical accuracy) Exceeds the weight requirement. Accuracy. The whole AR series is accurate farther than it is effective. In 1998, a Force SSgt shot high in the Company at the Re Qual Range with the M4A1 (before the Range Nazi's shut That down), beating out all of those shooting 16's. Last month, other Shooters using the Crane modified M4A1's with 10" bbls had no problem keeping 5 shots into the head of an option target at 200 yds, or 5 rds into the X ring (8") at 300 yds. While the short sight radius may make precision shot more difficult, all of the Force guns use optics exclusively- primarily the Aimpoint M2, but the ACOG, and the AN/PVS-17B are also available to each Shooter (this is also true for the M249 (Para) SAW). Therefore, the "less accurate" issue is moot. The optics increase the certainty of first round hits under any circumstances and under any conditions and at any practical ranges. Infantry Evaluation. 3/2 spent most of their time on rifle qualification issues, and managed to find things wrong that we were never aware of (the cheek weld is not proper etc). It was disapointing that they never asked 1st Force what our experiences were. Most of the weapons doctrine comes from the Rifle and Pistol Teams. What they do and what a Grunt does are very different. Force Reconnaissance doctrine comes from SOTG. They train to win the Gunfight, not get good re- qual scores. The SOPMOD Special Text ST 23-31-1 makes the following notations. The extractor spring should be replaced every 2000 rds. We have found that the extractor spring may go to 10,000 rds That gas rings will wear at 1200 rds. Again, they may last to 10,000 rds Bolt Locking Lugs will have detectable cracks by 5,000 to 10,000 rds, andmay break at 10,000 to 20,000 rds We find this to be true. I am aware of what the sister services have found with their M4's, and intimately aware of what 1st Force has found with theirs. A Shooter will fire appx 3-5,000 rds in the Weapons and Tactics Package, another 7-8,000 rds during the CQB Course, and another 5,000 during sustainment training in that 12 month period. While deployed, they may fire from 5-10,000 rounds. What that means is that the guns are completely shot out before they even board ship. Figure that 14,000 rds or so will see bbl and throat erosion, bolt cracks/ breakage, and other small issues. The Big Marine Corps makes much of this, holding up the 16A2 as a paragon of strength. The average Grunt will fire about 500 rds per year out of his M16A2, meaning it will wear more from incessant cleaning than actual shooting. The Marine Corps has not acknowledged that the whole upper needs to be replaced on a regular basis. The 16 doesn't, so there must be something wrong with the M4, right? Heat will accelerate wear. Force does not use FA fire except within certain narrow circumstances. That is, during training, as a position check (a Bills Drill), and for certain tactical situations (such as a point man to gain fire superiority for one magazine. Other services/ units may, and that increases the wear problem. Most of the problems that we have seen are magazine related. Force has started buying the xecellent H&K magazine, which has eliminated a lot of the crap. Replace the entire upper at 14,000 rounds and things will be a lot better. 1st Force hasn't had the problems that others may or may not have had. That is because the (then) CO mad it a point to have a strong transiton course added to the training for each platoon. Of course, all the training in the world won't make guns last forever. Once those in high places quit worrying about designing the perfect MARPAT Maternity uniform and concentrate on getting the proper equipment to the guys who do the kiling, we'll all be a lot better.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 6:07:20 AM EST
[b]Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: The "woes" of the M4 are apparently news to Force Recon Marines who have been using them for a number of years now.[/b] Actually I just spoke with a marine buddy and he stated that Recon is having problems with the m4. Especially after emerging from the water. There is something that is different in the m4 than the m16a2 that is creating this problem.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 7:33:13 AM EST
Wow! Thanks for all of the great information, everyone. I have a civilian pre-ban semi-auto A2 version with the collapsable stock and a 16" 1 in 7 twist barrel. It has about1200 rounds through it. How much of the problems of the M4 and M4A1 apply to it such as:
Bolt Locking Lugs will have detectable cracks by 5,000 to 10,000 rds, and may break at 10,000 to 20,000 rds
View Quote
The extractor spring should be replaced every 2000 rds. That gas rings will wear at 1200 rds or may last to 10,000 rds.
View Quote
Or are all of these less of an issue with a semi-auto only gun? thanks, Ed vfortytwoAtyahoo.com to send email replace the At with the @ symbol
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 9:07:56 AM EST
[b]Thank You Pat Rogers![/b]
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 11:36:03 AM EST
M2HB, Is your friend in Force Reconnaissance? Or is it hearsay? Can he be more precise about this issue? We haven't seen these issues, so i'm curious as to what he has heard.The only problem that Force has is getting the Marine Corps to understand that they have to replace uppers at regular intervals, not when parts break. V42, Consider that unless you shoot with the same frequency as the M4A1's used by Force or SOCCOM Shooters- that is 500-700 rds/day- you will not be wearing the system as rapidly. Pay attention the the extractor, gas rings and bolt lugs. I carry a spare complete bolt carrier assembly in my gun bag (that is my own, not my Uncle's) in the event of a problem. They are wear items, and will wear. The rapidity of wear is directly related to how hard- fast- you shoot the gun. The sustained rate of fire- 12-14 RPM, will let the gun run for a verryyy long time. FireControlman, Your Welcome!
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 1:57:47 PM EST
Maybe i should just get a BM A3 with the fixed telestock? very informative.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 3:32:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/1/2003 3:34:06 PM EST by mrcr0603]
Here's an excellent article brought up in the General Discussion Forum on the Marines and the M4, written by GySgt John A. Dailey, a Platoon Sergeant in 1st Force Reconnaissance Company, 15th MEU(SOC): [url]http://www.mca-marines.org/Gazette/Dailey.html[/url] His article is inline with what Mr. Rogers just posted. Here's some quotes: [i]"I have read reports of dissatisfaction with the M4A1 during testing conducted by infantry units. The weapon was called the M4A1 modular weapons system (MWS) during this test. [b]I believe that while several points are valid, the bulk of the complaints are based on misunderstanding, misuse, inadequate training, lack of trust in the capabilities of the individual rifleman and, perhaps most importantly, a fear of change.[/b]"[/i] [i][u]"Bolt/gas/extraction problems[/u]. .... I have trained or trained with over 100 Marines firing the M4 carbine and have observed only one broken bolt face. Many of our weapons have fired well in excess of 10,000 rounds. We must also stop thinking of our infantry weapon as a one-time investment. Scheduled maintenance will detect these flaws and ensure that our weapons will be ready when we need them. Another problem reported was weak extractor springs that supposedly induced type 3 malfunctions (double feeds). I have not noticed this to be true in a functionally clean weapon."[/i] And finally .... [i]"[b]It is my opinion that the M4A1 carbine is indeed a superior infantry rifle[/b]. It is based on a proven design with which all Marines are familiar and is equally well-suited for operations in all types of terrain, to include use in urban environments. It 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. [b]We must stop using our known distance range as a basis for the evaluation of our combat weapons[/b]."[/i] Chris
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 3:54:26 PM EST
Thank you for the great info Pat Rogers. If the bolts locking lugs go south after 10,000 to 20,000 rounds, how long do the mating lugs on the barrel extension last? Have you seen any failures their? Thanks
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 3:56:32 PM EST
Thanks, Pat, As it happens I have spare parts and even a complete spare bolt. Ed vfortytwoAtyahoo.com
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top