Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/31/2005 7:35:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 7:36:33 AM EDT by TANGOCHASER]
I just received this memo about making modifications to the M16A2 to make it an M4. Basically it says no, although it only mentions the changing of the receiver extension not the upper receiver.

I think it is refering to M4 buttstocks on M16A2s with an A2 upper, not a complete conversion with a M4 butt stock and aM4 upper receiver.


UNCLAS

Subject: Ground Precautionary Message (GPM), TACOM Control No. GPM 05-014, Item Affected M16A2 Rifle, NSN 1005-01-128-9936 LIN R95035, M16A4 Rifle, NSN 1005-01-383-2872 LIN R97175, M4 Carbine, NSN 1005-01-231-0973 LIN R97234, M4A1 Carbine, NSN 1005-01-382-0953 LIN C06935; M240 Machine Gun (MG), NSN 1005-01-025-8095, LIN L92352; M240B Machine Gun, NSN 1005-412-3129, LIN M92841.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX­XXXXXXXX

X "ATTENTION" X

X THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT IS VITAL X

X TO THE SAFETY OF ARMY PERSONNEL AND THE OPERATION X

X OR MAINTENANCE OF ARMY EQUIPMENT. X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX­XXXXXXXX

References:

a. AR 750-10, Army Modification Program, 8 August 2000.

b. Interim Policy on Capabilities Request Submissions to HQDA, 7 April 2005.

1. Distribution: Note this is a "Ground Precautionary Message". MACOM Commanders will immediately retransmit this message to all subordinate commands/activities within 24 hours of receipt of this message and acknowledge receipt of this message within five working days to Safety Office, Tank-automotive and Armament Command-Rock Island (TACOM-RI), Attn:

AMSTA-CS-CZR, Rock Island, IL 61299-7630, e-mail:

amsta-cs-czr@ria.army.mil.

2. Problem:

a. Summary of Problem. Commanders are allowing various unauthorized modifications of M16A2/M16A4 rifles, M4/M4A1 carbines and M240/M240B machine guns.

b. Background Information. During recent months, there have been an increasing number of reports of unauthorized modifications to rifles, carbines, and M240 machine guns. The most common example is unauthorized unit conversion from M16A2 rifle to M4 carbine. Action such as installing an M4 carbine buttstock on an M16A2 rifle is unauthorized and will cause increased stoppages, malfunctions, or possible safety incidents. Another example is the unauthorized modification of the basic M240 MG (coaxial

variant) to the M240B (Dismounted Infantry) configuration by adding and removing components. The language set forth in AR 750-10, chapter 3, paragraph 3-1.e, states: "No Modification Work Order (MWO) is authorized for application unless it has an approved MWO number that is the product of the MWO process in paragraph 4-2. Commanders will not allow their equipment to be modified unless there is an official MWO." There is no approved MWO for converting M16s to M4s nor is there one to convert the M240 to the M240B.

c. Expected results of unauthorized modification.

WARNING

Unauthorized modifications to small arms weapons may cause damage to the weapon and/or death/injury to the operator. Combat readiness and reliability may be reduced, causing the weapon to become unavailable in critical situations because of stoppages, malfunctions, or the weapon becoming non-operational. To avoid these issues, weapons should not be modified.

3. User Actions:

a. Corrective Procedures. Any rifle, carbine, or machine gun that has an unauthorized modification applied shall be converted back to the original configuration with the appropriate original or replacement/repair parts as listed in applicable technical manuals. Restored weapons shall be inspected as per the applicable technical manual to ensure weapon is fully mission capable.

(1) The interim policy (reference b) provides guidance on submitting requests to improve/increase unit operational capability including the Operational Needs Statement (ONS) process.

b. Unit Commanders, contact your local TACOM Logistics Assistance Representative (LAR) or your State Surface Maintenance Manager upon receipt of this message for assistance. For assistance in locating your TACOM LAR, see paragraph 6c.

4. TACOM/PM actions: none

5. Supply Status: Any requisitioned items needed to configure weapons back to standard/original configurations shall be done so at the unit's expense.

Link Posted: 8/31/2005 7:53:51 AM EDT
I'm only shocked that this didn't come out sooner.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:00:48 AM EDT
It was my understanding that changing out the stock was never allowed. And since chaning the upper would entail pulling the barrel, that should not have been allowed either.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:03:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lancelot:
It was my understanding that changing out the stock was never allowed. And since chaning the upper would entail pulling the barrel, that should not have been allowed either.



I helped out a few groups that were swapping uppers on a regular basis. It wasn't barrel swaps that I was seeing, it was the entire upper. There were a few that were also getting rid of their A2 stocks and using adjustables as well. I've got a bunch of pictures, but for obvious reasons, I'm not posting them.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 8:23:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 9:39:54 AM EDT

Wondering how long that would last.
Not like the Army I knew to allow you to "Mix and Match".
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 10:04:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By _DR:
Wondering how long that would last.
Not like the Army I knew to allow you to "Mix and Match".



+1

Kinda off topic, but in my CAV Squadron during Desert Storm there was a Troop Cmdr that got a hold of some tan latex paint and decided to have his guys “camo” their aircraft. This didn’t go over too well with the higher ups!

A few days later his guys were out scrubbing the paint off with scotchbrite and what little water they had!
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 10:50:47 AM EDT
I think this message is saying a M4 stock on an M16A2 can cause a malfunction and therfore is a safety issue. First I've heard of this.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 11:07:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
I think this message is saying a M4 stock on an M16A2 can cause a malfunction and therfore is a safety issue. First I've heard of this.




Only if installed incorrectly I assume...
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 11:10:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
I think this message is saying a M4 stock on an M16A2 can cause a malfunction and therfore is a safety issue. First I've heard of this.



I can see how that would be the case if someone accidently used a rifle buffer in a carbine buffer tube...
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 11:20:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 11:21:13 AM EDT by BravoCompanyUSA]
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:03:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 12:03:26 PM EDT by Gamma762]

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
<blahblahblah>
Restored weapons shall be inspected as per the applicable technical manual to ensure weapon is fully mission capable.
<moreblahblahblahohyou'repayingforit>


The original weapons aren't "mission capable" for the current mission, that's why they are being modified. Recto cranial impaction problem here.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:13:46 PM EDT
user friendly
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:26:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 12:26:33 PM EDT by Hunterex]

Originally Posted By Gamma762:

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
<blahblahblah>
Restored weapons shall be inspected as per the applicable technical manual to ensure weapon is fully mission capable.
<moreblahblahblahohyou'repayingforit>


The original weapons aren't "mission capable" for the current mission, that's why they are being modified. Recto cranial impaction problem here.



20 " rifle with irons will do just about everything you'll need it for.
I'm sure that people will chime in and flame me on how you need a thousand dollars worth of accessories.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 12:52:37 PM EDT
How else would we keep the economy afloat?
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:15:49 PM EDT
I can't say I disagree with the policy. If units want M16's changed to M4's, then armorers should do it with the right equipment. If it is done in the field, then there is no way they can control if it is done correctly (remember, most people in here are AR enthusiasts, most people in the military are not). Not saying a lot of people couldn't do it, but from what i rmember about being in the military, I wouldn't trust a whole lot of people to make the conversion on a weapon that was going into combat tomorrow.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:18:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hunterex:

Originally Posted By Gamma762:

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
<blahblahblah>
Restored weapons shall be inspected as per the applicable technical manual to ensure weapon is fully mission capable.
<moreblahblahblahohyou'repayingforit>


The original weapons aren't "mission capable" for the current mission, that's why they are being modified. Recto cranial impaction problem here.



20 " rifle with irons will do just about everything you'll need it for.
I'm sure that people will chime in and flame me on how you need a thousand dollars worth of accessories.


I'm just talking about the adjustable stocks.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:22:16 PM EDT
I'll go along with that due to the ballistic armor, where the adjustable stock is indeed superior.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:24:57 PM EDT
If I'm understanding this properly, the memo refers to informal unit or individual mods; not the organized conversion of M16A1s and A2s to the M4 configuration by Ordnance shops. As far as I know (and I don't know much these days) Ordnance upgrades is still going on.

But if I've misinterped the memo, I'm sure someone will let me know about it posthaste.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 1:41:52 PM EDT
Like others have said, this is probably to prevent Joe from trying to change to a telestock using a Gerber, not a formal conversion..
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 2:08:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stottman:
Like others have said, this is probably to prevent Joe from trying to change to a telestock using a Gerber, not a formal conversion..



Hey, I have had success using a fork instead of a wrench to tighten the nut on a collapsible.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 2:15:43 PM EDT
Just a SWAG from a genuine Armchair Commando, with NO .mil experience, but I'd be willing to bet that Skippy has been swapping M-4 stocks onto full length rifles, WITHOUT changing the buffer and springs.

Thus malfunctions that COULD damn well be fatal on the two way range. And maybe have been, with a resulting investigation causing the generation of this memo.



Lonny
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:11:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By xcpd69:
Just a SWAG from a genuine Armchair Commando, with NO .mil experience, but I'd be willing to bet that Skippy has been swapping M-4 stocks onto full length rifles, WITHOUT changing the buffer and springs.

Thus malfunctions that COULD damn well be fatal on the two way range. And maybe have been, with a resulting investigation causing the generation of this memo.



Lonny



I am inclined to agree with this. Lots of strange modifications can happen during a war
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:21:26 PM EDT
I performed 14 full on M16A2 conversions to M4 and I only used milspec parts. I did see a few conversions using the cheapest parts on the planet. I also test fired every conversion I did and made each recipient zero the new configuration.

I did see a few M16A2s with M4 butt stocks on the FOB. Mostly used by short people wearing body armor.

I only saw one conversion where the barrel was swapped on the issue A2 upper receiver. The idiot who performed this feat tried to shorten his A2 gas tube then realized the M4 gas tubes are stepped down where they fit into the gas key on the bolt carrier. This braniac walked around for 2 weeks with a single shot M4 while he waited for a new M4 gas tube to come in the mail.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:38:02 PM EDT
I wonder if this is the end of people bringing their own uppers with them to swap out when they get there.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:41:57 PM EDT
Isn't the USMC looking at modifying some of their M16A4 with M4 buttstocks?
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:42:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 3:58:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/31/2005 3:59:31 PM EDT by _DR]

Originally Posted By BravoCompanyUSA:

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
I think this message is saying a M4 stock on an M16A2 can cause a malfunction and therfore is a safety issue. First I've heard of this.



Mix and match . . . .Our Canadian friends may have a different opinion.




Oh I'm not saying it wouldn't work like a charm, it does, Diemaco has thoroughly tested the collapsible on the 20" rifle (C8 was it?) and it works great. Also not saying it doesn't make perfect sense, adjustable LOP with body armor, LBE etc.

I'm just saying it's not like the Army I remember to allow anything to be done based on decisions from the ground on up. I just hope after all the paperwork and AARs get filed they wake up and start implementing telestocks on M16s as well as M4s on an official basis. Either that or start issuing something stable like a magpul. Army thinking has gotten more flexible, but still too conventional sometimes.
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 4:34:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 7:03:23 PM EDT
Anyone who has spent anytime training and leading 18 year old PVT's will under stand why this reg was put into place. you have no Idea the kind of stupid shit Troops will try who lack the proper knowledge, Correct Mil Spec parts, tools and training to make Modifications. Pvts are more fascinated with hardware then the Time invested in the skill to use what they have.

If The time were Invested in things like battle drills, etc and less on having the coolest weapon they would be a lot better off when things go south.

it's not a question of it not working, it's trying to control it and not let it get out of hand across the theater of operation to the point that reliability issues causes unnecasary causulities. Multi tools are a double edge sword when it comes to Pvts and gear.....
Link Posted: 8/31/2005 7:14:22 PM EDT
Top Top