Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/9/2003 9:16:53 AM EDT
Near the end of 2002, Colt Mfg Co was given a chance to save the problem-prone M4A1s (yeah, flame away) employed by the USMC. Around New Years I understand they presented their "solution"to Systems Command. What did they do other than open up the gas port a tad? Are the Marines satisfied with the results?Thanks.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 10:52:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:04:49 AM EDT
Have you heard about the RROC system? That would fix all of the M4's current problems.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:50:02 AM EDT
RROC still needs to be developed further, it is still one man's dream. He needs to find a production facility before he can offer the upper for sale at a reasonable price. the system has a lot of potential. Marine corp made some recommandations, they are to use magazines made after date code 10/99, a stronger extractor spring is requested. Redesign stock for better cheek weld and sight alignment, a strong stock with CQB in mind is anotehr request. Vltor has been introduced to some Marine units plus the MARSOC just purchased some MSS stock. there some other recommandations, I am just listing stuff for the rifle itself.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 12:32:23 PM EDT
The M4A1 also has the heavy barrel. Picture from [b]KevinB[/b] [img]photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=3088[/img]
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 4:56:15 PM EDT
As far as I know Colt didn't do anything. Because the US Army had no complaints about the exact same gun. Nor did the Marines own Force Recon Companies. They were suing the DoD last I heard. It was farely obvious that the USMC only wanted the M16A4, and just didn't want to consider the shorter weapon. Persistant requests from the fleet not withstanding.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 5:26:25 PM EDT
I believe there is a "fix"- There is a "M4A1 reliability enhancement kit" produnced by Colt- as far as I know it is only issued to Army SF groups. As I understand it, the kit is the "heavy barrel" upper shown above, a heavier "H2" buffer and a specially strengthened bolt that has a new ejector and new extractor spring. (That last bit of info comes courtesy of a very helpful ar15.com member) ..I don't have any other info about the specifics of the bolt unfortunately.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 5:59:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ahab: I believe there is a "fix"- There is a "M4A1 reliability enhancement kit" produnced by Colt- as far as I know it is only issued to Army SF groups. As I understand it, the kit is the "heavy barrel" upper shown above, a heavier "H2" buffer and a specially strengthened bolt that has a new ejector and new extractor spring. (That last bit of info comes courtesy of a very helpful ar15.com member) ..I don't have any other info about the specifics of the bolt unfortunately.
View Quote
What your describing sounds like the description of the M4A1 SOPMOD II upgrade. MSTN is the SOPMOD expert, he would know.
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 10:38:56 PM EDT
SMGLee, how does the RROC have to be developed further? What is wrong with it as of now besides the cost?
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 10:58:08 PM EDT
As far as the RROC, the cost is the mqain concern coop with the weight, it is not a light rifle. I believe the RROC has a lot of potential, it just have to take time a lots of developement money, at this time, I don't see any investors stepping up. The inventor has taken it as far as he can go, he has done a wonderful job, and I hope some big manufacture maight pick up the ball for the tooling cost. As far as the Marine upgrade, i am take pieces of the report by the lima company. The report included these sections. Encl: (1) Rifle Range Score Spreadsheet MWS Rifle Range Survey (3) MWS Training/Tactical Incident Reports (4) MWS User Comment Forms (5) Lima Company New Equipment Training (NET) Survey (6) Pictures of Combat Sling (7) 25 Meter Zeroing Target (8) After Action Report #1 (9) After Action Report #2 (10) SL-3 Inventory List M4 MWS (11) M4 MWS Equipment
Link Posted: 7/9/2003 11:08:14 PM EDT
I've read that the RROC is only about 1 pound heaver that a normal M4, and that the extra weight isn't really even felt by the shooter.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 12:34:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2003 12:34:55 AM EDT by SMGLee]
Originally Posted By hickboy: I've read that the RROC is only about 1 pound heaver that a normal M4, and that the extra weight isn't really even felt by the shooter.
View Quote
And there is people augring between a M4 and a light wieght which is only about 4-5oz difference. weight up front is heavy. RROC will get some notice from the civilian world also from the LE field, but the impact on the military will be limited. as far as the SOPMOD2 is concern the RROC will not be a player. RROC will be pretty much in the same realm as the ZM upper's fate. Loosely Quoting Pat Rogers, M4 is a great weapon system, it will function flewlessly as long as the wepon is kept up by the user, it is all the gidgets civilians put on the rifle that makes it unreliable. RROC will beat the AR's gas system ,but the everyday dirt, sand and grit will still cause the RROC to go down as much as the M4.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 6:29:43 AM EDT
Is this report in the public domain? It would make for very good reading. thanks.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 9:48:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mach6: Is this report in the public domain? It would make for very good reading. thanks.
View Quote
No, it is not. Sorry.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 10:35:58 AM EDT
What on the RROC is chrome-lined?
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 6:07:06 PM EDT
KAC is rumored to be developing a new bolt w/ radiused lugs & extractor that utilizes dual springs, along w/ a breech interface to accomodate the modified bolt lug design. These are probably in the propposal run for SOPMOD II as well. Hopefully, KAC will win out, as they are far more likely to offer it to civilian peons, while Colt would probably never consider doing so.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 6:28:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2003 6:30:52 PM EDT by mach6]
Originally Posted By Ahab: I believe there is a "fix"- There is a "M4A1 reliability enhancement kit" produnced by Colt- as far as I know it is only issued to Army SF groups. As I understand it, the kit is the "heavy barrel" upper shown above, a heavier "H2" buffer and a specially strengthened bolt that has a new ejector and new extractor spring. (That last bit of info comes courtesy of a very helpful ar15.com member) ------------- Now this is very interesting, especially if they did nothing to alleviate the excessive gas problem. Confirmed today from friend at MARCORSYSCOM that indeed, they did nothing to the gas system. If this is true, it seems the "fix" has overlooked the most salient problem. And the reporting on KAC's work is helpful too. Thanks.
Link Posted: 7/10/2003 6:56:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Hopefully, KAC will win out, as they are far more likely to offer it to civilian peons, while Colt would probably never consider doing so.
View Quote
Thats probably true... I tried asking around about the new Colt bolt but for the most part no one's ever heard of it. I doubt I'll ever see one for sale.
Link Posted: 7/11/2003 8:32:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2003 8:34:00 AM EDT by Green0]
In my experience with the M-16 the only jams I have encountered have been after about 360-480rds in about 6 minutes. (THESE SEEM TO BE HEAT RELATED) I'm guessing the gas tube expands and binds the bolt carrier key. I'm not sure but I can say this it has happened to me every time I fired like this (exceeding mil-spec ROF of 15RPM by about 4-5 times) [b]This would not be a problem with the RROC as it's bolt carrier does not get hot or dirty. the system isn't too high$ the price I saw was $1600 which replaces: 1 $200 BBL 1 $200 Reciever 1 $350 KAC RAS 1 $75 carry handle (or $135 KAC flip sight) 1 $15 gas tube 1 $25approx buffer 1 $135 bolt and carrier 1 $5 FH That is approx $1060 worth of parts and it is far superior in terms of ability to continue to fire without overheating and it's lower recoil impulse makes it more effective on target. If the Army really wants a better weapon it is it. They are dropping the ball if they think $540 is too much added money to spend when the Air force is still dropping laser guided bombs on caves.[/b] the added pound of weight only brings it's weight up to that of the M16 A2 and I don't hear anyone saying they are too heavy.
Link Posted: 7/12/2003 7:02:14 PM EDT
Is this the new bolt and carrier you're talking about? http://lightfighter.net/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=7336015661&f=7206084761&m=8266011963
Link Posted: 7/13/2003 1:05:28 PM EDT
I spoke with the S7 of one of the Groups - the 'fix' was more ensuring the new barrels had been properly torqued (apparently many had not) and ensuring the buffer was correct - as well checkign the bolt to ensure it was a carbine bolt head (with carbine extractor srping and buffer) as opposed to rifle. This 'fix' - his quotes resulted in the reduction fo the failure rates (sounds more like lousy Colt QC than anything else)
Top Top