Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/5/2002 6:50:53 PM EDT
My son had breakfast with the Commanding General of the 2nd Marine Division. One of the topics the General covered was the test of the M4. He was particularly unhappy about the weapons that had loose barrels. Apparently, the General was so displeased he went to Colt last week and gave them "the full measure of his charm", up close and personal. He told them that "before he bought them for 16,000 of his Marines, they had better fix the problems." I guess when you command a quarter of the Marine's ground combat element, you are the proverbial 800 lb. gorilla.

Elements of the Second Marine Division will test another batch of the M4s before the Corps will accept them for general issue.
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:01:02 PM EDT
If they do decide to purchase the M4 after all the tests,will it be the A2 or the A3?
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:19:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OMR_RDTandE:
My son had breakfast with the Commanding General of the 2nd Marine Division. One of the topics the General covered was the test of the M4. He was particularly unhappy about the weapons that had loose barrels. Apparently, the General was so displeased he went to Colt last week and gave them "the full measure of his charm", up close and personal. He told them that "before he bought them for 16,000 of his Marines, they had better fix the problems." I guess when you command a quarter of the Marine's ground combat element, you are the proverbial 800 lb. gorilla.

Elements of the Second Marine Division will test another batch of the M4s before the Corps will accept them for general issue.



WOW! the army has had these weapons for years now, this is just now coming around? loose barrels? one general? DOD?
unless this general is part of the DOD I highly doubt Colt is worrying.
besides, even if the marines reject the M4(yeah right), the navy will make them use it. hahahahahahhahahaha.
all kidding aside, I was in the military(just a peon) and I find this story hard to believe.

Ian
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:36:17 PM EDT
Ian,

What part do you find hard to believe?

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is unhappy. He talks to the CG, 2nd MarDiv who is also unhappy and, being an Officer of Marines, takes action. The results of these tests will affect ANY Marine Corps acquisition of the M4. There have been previous weapons systems, while suitable for the Army, have failed Marine Corps requirements, and needed to be modified before they were accepted.

I'd not be surprised to see the M4 accepted for use by non-infantry units (combat support, air-crew, etc.), but the Corps sticking with a 20" barreled weapon for the Grunts.
Link Posted: 2/5/2002 7:52:58 PM EDT
the Corps already has M4's just not in large quantities. and i agree completely. i dont think the Corps will ever use the M4 to replace the A2 in line units.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 3:25:17 AM EDT
Gen Sattler is normally such a happy guy though. He isn't like most of the Div CG in the past, he is always smiling. There is something un-nerving about a General smiling.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 6:05:52 AM EDT
Amen STLRN!

By the way, I talked to a Cpl who just got back from UNITAS. He said that they did a fam-fire off of the fantail and they (the Marines) loved the M-4. However, he did say that after passing the M-4's from Marine to Marine to Marine ad infinitum they did notice that the rail system became too hot to hold.

Is this a problem in design? He did mention that the M-4's with the standrd double heat shields didn't get "as hot".
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 6:12:06 AM EDT
http://www.lejeune.usmc.mil/2dmardiv/32/Military%20Information/m4.htm

My Impression is they didn't like it.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 4:47:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OMR_RDTandE:
Ian,

What part do you find hard to believe?

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is unhappy. He talks to the CG, 2nd MarDiv who is also unhappy and, being an Officer of Marines, takes action. The results of these tests will affect ANY Marine Corps acquisition of the M4. There have been previous weapons systems, while suitable for the Army, have failed Marine Corps requirements, and needed to be modified before they were accepted.

I'd not be surprised to see the M4 accepted for use by non-infantry units (combat support, air-crew, etc.), but the Corps sticking with a 20" barreled weapon for the Grunts.




I stand corrected. the army has had them for years but are not the main battle field weapon. I was under the impression you were talking about special units and such.
the units I was in had them only for support troops (ie mechanics).
i would have to agree that the M4 is too short and the separate carry handle would wear too quickly to issue to main troops.
sorry for the confusion.

Ian
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 5:35:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/6/2002 5:45:33 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By Ric_A:
If they do decide to purchase the M4 after all the tests,will it be the A2 or the A3?

If you are talking about carry handle vs. flattop, the carry handle is A2 for the M16 and the flattop is A4 for the M16. A3 is just a full auto version of the M16A2. The M4 has a carry handle, while the M4A1 is a flattop.

As for the question of Colt's quality, why do you think that FN is the sole supplier of M16's now instead of Colt?
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 6:50:00 PM EDT
Or it could be because FN offered to build a new plant in SC.
Mass voters will always vote dem, no matter what.
SC is a state in play, jobs there pay off come vote time.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 7:30:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
Or it could be because FN offered to build a new plant in SC.
Mass voters will always vote dem, no matter what.
SC is a state in play, jobs there pay off come vote time.

Nope, it is because FN makes a better product, as do most US AR makers.
Link Posted: 2/6/2002 9:35:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Ric_A:
If they do decide to purchase the M4 after all the tests,will it be the A2 or the A3?

If you are talking about carry handle vs. flattop, the carry handle is A2 for the M16 and the flattop is A4 for the M16. A3 is just a full auto version of the M16A2. The M4 has a carry handle, while the M4A1 is a flattop.

As for the question of Colt's quality, why do you think that FN is the sole supplier of M16's now instead of Colt?



Because FN was able to out bid Colt.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 5:59:52 AM EDT
The quality of the finish work on Colt's recent 1911s leave much to be desired. How long can it take for the factory to ease the edges on their slides? Those damn things can double as boxcutters .. eased 'em myself in 10 mins with a Dremel tool...
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 8:12:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
If you are talking about carry handle vs. flattop, the carry handle is A2 for the M16 and the flattop is A4 for the M16. A3 is just a full auto version of the M16A2. The M4 has a carry handle, while the M4A1 is a flattop.


I've been meaning to ask about this.

My son wrote home from Basic at Ft. Benning. He was bragging about his "new" M16A4. I'd like to know the configuration. Am I right in interpreting your post to mean that the M16A4 is full butt stock, burst only, 20" bbl, flattop?
Link Posted: 2/8/2002 5:36:13 PM EDT
Hell, if the Marines had it their way, I'm sure they would still be using the good 'ol M-14 and put it to damn good use too. My dad was in the Marines in the 60's....it is funny watching him "cuddle" with his Springfield M1A and M1's.
Link Posted: 2/8/2002 6:38:46 PM EDT
Tell them to hell with colt and go with Bushmaster, I am sure they would be more then happy to make the United States Marines anything they damn well want.

Benjamin
Link Posted: 2/8/2002 6:47:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Carbine_Man:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
If you are talking about carry handle vs. flattop, the carry handle is A2 for the M16 and the flattop is A4 for the M16. A3 is just a full auto version of the M16A2. The M4 has a carry handle, while the M4A1 is a flattop.


I've been meaning to ask about this.

My son wrote home from Basic at Ft. Benning. He was bragging about his "new" M16A4. I'd like to know the configuration. Am I right in interpreting your post to mean that the M16A4 is full butt stock, burst only, 20" bbl, flattop?

I do believe that the A4 is full auto also. They issued him a flattop??? Normal issue is an A2.
Link Posted: 2/8/2002 6:51:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By slt223:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Ric_A:
If they do decide to purchase the M4 after all the tests,will it be the A2 or the A3?

If you are talking about carry handle vs. flattop, the carry handle is A2 for the M16 and the flattop is A4 for the M16. A3 is just a full auto version of the M16A2. The M4 has a carry handle, while the M4A1 is a flattop.

As for the question of Colt's quality, why do you think that FN is the sole supplier of M16's now instead of Colt?



Because FN was able to out bid Colt.

Nah. FN makes a better product. ArmaLite makes a better product. Bushmaster makes a better product. RRA makes a better product. The only reason Colt has been able to keep the M4 is because of some patent rights.
Link Posted: 2/8/2002 8:05:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By Carbine_Man:
I've been meaning to ask about this.

My son wrote home from Basic at Ft. Benning. He was bragging about his "new" M16A4. I'd like to know the configuration. Am I right in interpreting your post to mean that the M16A4 is full butt stock, burst only, 20" bbl, flattop?

I do believe that the A4 is full auto also. They issued him a flattop??? Normal issue is an A2.



M16A3 - 100% identical to the A2 except for the full auto selector instead of burst.

M16A4 - 100% identical to the A2 except for a detachable carry handle/flat-top upper.

I guess that a full auto flat-top would be an A5 but I've never heard of them. The A3 is only issued to spec-ops troops with the training and discilpline to handle full auto, but those troops often go for something more specialized like the M4.
Link Posted: 2/9/2002 4:44:23 PM EDT
When in combat all that counts is the weapon works if it don't throw it away and get one that does lets face it at the moment of truth I would not want a weapon that comes apart.So if the COMMANDERS of the MARINE CORPS think its junk its junk.Besides when out of ammo hand to hand you need a weapon you can fight with.Not some cheep crap that burns your hand off.Give me a break.These companys make me sick send their kids out there with that junk and see how fast they make the best weapon ever.SEMPER FI
Link Posted: 2/11/2002 9:58:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:
I stand corrected. the army has had them for years but are not the main battle field weapon. I was under the impression you were talking about special units and such.
the units I was in had them only for support troops (ie mechanics).
i would have to agree that the M4 is too short and the separate carry handle would wear too quickly to issue to main troops.
sorry for the confusion.

Ian



The Army is replaceing all A2's with M4's
a few units that already have M4's... 82nd, 101st, 10th Mnt, Ranger BN's, All SF units, Armor guys are even getting them. this includes Infantry and supply alike. No distinction.
Top Top