Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/8/2003 12:00:18 PM EDT
For those who dont like the GD board, STLRN posted some interesting news there

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=209019&page=1#bottom

M4 Carbines to be issued in place of most M9 handguns amongst Ground Marines. Like the M1 Carbine was issued many moons ago. Unless some kind of budget woes intervene.


Taken from the newest message released by the GCE board

ISSUE M-4 (MODULAR WEAPONS SYSTEM (MWS)) FIELDING WITHIN THE GCE :
A. DISCUSSION: THE LAST GROUND BOARD TASKED 2D MARDIV WITH DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR FIELDING THE M-4 TO SELECTED INDIVIDUALS/UNITS WITHIN THE GCE, PENDING THE M-4 IN FURTHER TESTING MEETING USMC RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS. SINCE THAT BOARD THE CG, MARCORSYSCOM HAS CERTIFIED THE M-4'S RELIABILITY. THE DIVISIONS HAVE REACHED CONSENSUS ON THE 2D MARDIV FIELDING PLAN AND RECOMMEND GCE FIELDING OF UP TO 10,000 M-4S. THE DETAILED BY UNIT PLAN WILL BE PUBLISHED SEPARATELY, BUT THE GENERAL TENETS ARE:
1. THE BASIC RIFLEMAN'S WEAPON WILL REMAIN THE M16-A4.
2. THE M-4 IS VIEWED AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE M-9 PISTOL TO
INCREASE PERSONAL FIREPOWER AND FORCE PROTECTION.
3. IN MOST CASES, THE M-4 WILL PRIMARILY REPLACE THE M-9 PISTOL AND M16A2, AND BE DISTRIBUTED TO CERTAIN SKILLED PERSONNEL/UNITS (E.G., SMALL UNIT LEADERS AND VEHICLE CREW MEMBERS).
B. ACTION: PP&O LEAD AND WILL SUBMIT THE APPROPRIATE T/E CHANGE REQUEST TO MCCDC (TFSD) IOT ALLOW SYSCOM TO BEGIN PROCUREMENT UNDER MWS. REQUEST MCCDC (TECOM) DEVELOP A PLAN THAT ADDRESSES TRAINING, MARKSMANSHIP AND OTHER TRAINING IMPLICATIONS OF M-4 AND MAGNIFIED DAY OPTIC FIELDING



There is also a section about now wanting a Magnified Day Optic for ALL M16A4's not just DMR rifles. But that properly belongs in the optics thread.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 1:13:13 PM EDT
This has been done for a while at a small unit level. I noticed in 2000 while in E. Timor, the Co. First Sergeant had an M4 instead of his M9. I think it's a good thing that they are considering this as a whole now.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 3:44:31 PM EDT
Do you think that people will now realize that a carbine and a rifle are two different animals? Probably not. The M1 was good at what it did, but was always compared to a rifle and lost out. The same is true with the M4. Those who fail to learn from the past, are doomed to repeat it.
Link Posted: 10/8/2003 4:11:37 PM EDT
Yeah but when you talk M1 carbine and M1 rifle they are 2 different weapons 2 different calibers.The M4 gives the same performance as the full size rifle out to 450 yds the only draw back is the bullet out of the M4 will fragment at 100 yds or under wich is still good considering 95% of infantry engagements since statistics from world war 2 show take place at 100 yds and under,commonly.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 7:54:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/9/2003 7:55:39 AM EDT by sfcret]
no one in their right mind would want to go to a potential hot spot, or a war zone just carrying a sidearm......sidearms are great when you're in the field for training, ease of carry and it doesn't get in the way when your doing something. I recall right before the gulf war (91) Lts, and anybody that just had a sidearm, were scrambling to get a M16 in their hands.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 8:20:49 AM EDT
yes a carbine/rifle is what you want going into harms way. right now troops are for the most part stcuk with whats on unit mtoe- myself for example am authorized an m9- basic combat load is two 15 round mags- and being in an armor battalion,about 75% of our troops are equipped this way- if we had to slug it out on the ground- we'd be in big trouble
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 8:27:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By captain127: yes a carbine/rifle is what you want going into harms way. right now troops are for the most part stcuk with whats on unit mtoe- myself for example am authorized an[red] m9- basic combat load is two 15 round mags[/red]- and being in an armor battalion,about [red]75% of our troops are equipped this way[/red]- if we had to slug it out on the ground- we'd be in big trouble
View Quote
[shock] Holy crap! That ain't right.[V]
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 8:31:48 AM EDT
Good idea, but poor execution... Instead of putting M4's INSTEAD of M9's, how bout both? A rifle is nice, but when working with both hands lifting and moving equipment, or firing artillery, it is mighty hard to keep a rifle in your hands. A pistol can stay on the hip and always be with the user. Certainly issue the M4 (someone should be shot for not doing it sooner) but keep the pistols too. Least that's how I would want it.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 9:44:10 AM EDT
Because pistols are militarily insignificant, most are not trained to use them. If you have a limited amount of time and resources and a choice between pistol and rifle training you are much better served training with the rifle.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 10:03:19 AM EDT
Not to mention the cost of issuing two weapons instead of one per person.
Link Posted: 10/9/2003 12:26:07 PM EDT
If you remember the "USMC lessons learned" document that has been floating around. The rifle squads actually want more handguns, a lot of homes in Iraq were not built for the size of a average Marine and his equipment. Stairways and doors were too narrow, rooms to small. Even the Army guys with their M4's complaned about this so the Marines with their longer M16's had to feel it worse. The extra M9's will probably go into store and then be reissued to infantry squads on an as needed basis, like the shotguns are parceled out. So they can be used to clear houses/tunnels/caves and for prisoner handling.
Top Top