U.S. Military Reconsiders Army's Use of M4 Rifles in Afghanistan

[koz]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/25/military-reconsiders-armys-use-m-rifles-afghanistan/

The U.S. military is re-evaluating the Army’s use of the M4 rifle in Afghanistan following concerns that the Taliban’s primitive AK-47’s are proving more effective.

The M4 is an updated version of the M16, which was designed for close quarters combat in Vietnam. But while the weapon is better suited for the kind of urban warfare common in Iraq, some have questioned whether it is deadly and accurate for Afghanistan – where U.S. troops often find themselves in long-range combat.

An Army study found that the 5.56mm bullets fired from the M4s don’t retain enough velocity past 1,000 feet to kill an enemy. In Afghanistan, forces are often up to 2,500 feet apart.

“It just makes no sense,” said Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr., a Fox News military analyst.

Scales said the M4 is “unsuitable” for Afghan terrain and “notoriously unreliable” in the first place. The Army Times reported on an Army weapons test three years ago that found the M4 performed worse than three other newer carbines when subjected to an “extreme dust test.”

Problems with the M4 locking up were also cited in a study last year on a July 2008 firefight that left nine U.S. soldiers dead in eastern Afghanistan.

The Taliban are meanwhile using heavier bullets that allow them to fire at U.S. and NATO troops from distances that are out of range of the M4.

To counter these tactics, the U.S. military is designating nine soldiers in each infantry company to serve as sharpshooters, according to Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote the Army study. The sharpshooters are equipped with the new M110 sniper rifle, which fires a larger 7.62mm round and is accurate to at least 2,500 feet.

As for what could ultimately replace the M4, the Army’s center for small-arms development is trying to find a solution.

Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, said the M4 has the advantage of more-rapid firepower.

“The 5.56 caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target,” he told The Associated Press. But he acknowledged the weapon is much less effective at 2,000 feet out.

A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56 mm and 7.62 cartridges, Tamilio said.

Scales said the U.S. military simply needs to engineer a better weapon – he said the M8, a weapon that was under development before being halted several years ago, could be revived and improved for Afghanistan.

“We’re the world’s largest superpower. Why don’t we just make one,” Scales said. “This isn’t rocket science. We’re not putting a man on the moon here.”

[NoRoadtrippin]

This is, of course, one of those conversations that has really been beat to death, but recently I've been thinking why not just reissue some M16s? There's got to be a number of A4 flattops still out there, and they could certainly be easily made. Would a longer barrel not solve some or many of the issues with the M4 at longer ranges? Seems like a very simple fix. Even if it was rolled out on a limited basis in a manner similar to the SDM it would still provide units with some weapons that could reach farther out.

[Iraqgunz]

Seems like a rather appropriate topic considering one of the conversations I had today with one of the team guys. He recently made some shots (hits) with an M4 (14.5 barrel) at 600 and 800M.

He was using Mk262 MOD 1 ammo. I personally believe that instead of complaining that the M4/M16 is ineffective we should seriously look at the ammo being used. M855 round is simply not effective enough in all cases.

[zoolander6]

Seems like a rather appropriate topic considering one of the conversations I had today with one of the team guys. He recently made some shots (hits) with an M4 (14.5 barrel) at 600 and 800M.

He was using Mk262 MOD 1 ammo. I personally believe that instead of complaining that the M4/M16 is ineffective we should seriously look at the ammo being used. M855 round is simply not effective enough in all cases.

I agree with you, thats why ACOGS have a range scale in the reticle. Plus ive instructed ANA soldiers at the range, and for someone to say that the Taliban is more accurate with an AK makes me laugh. AK point TGT 300-350, M4 point TGT 500-550 (more with an ACOG). M4's are fine. The Army just needs to revamp the their shooting program.

[ReconRover]

Absolutely correct on the longer distances being attainable. On my last mil tour over here I took the army designated marksman course with the AMTU guys. 600 meters hit without a strong crosswind, yep, 800 meter hits, yes, but ya gotta have skill...and that's with just your old run of the mil ACOG. Now...I do not like the gas inpingment system, it is the systems downfall.

That being said, I see the SCAR has made it into the final trials.

What's on KAF these days? I work here as a contractor...saw my first Candadian carrying an M4'sh looking rifle with a folding stock...then spotted the gas piston...only one I've seen so far.

The Slovakians on the gate...VZ58's with rail systems. These work exceptionally well for putting holes in contractor vehicles driving thru the gate. They are very good at lighting us up from 10 meters.

I carried an M14 EBR most of my last tour...ya know, it's o.k., but the magazines are the big downer, and it weighs a ton. Barrel is rack grade, and no accuracy mods done to the rifle. So, yeah, good for medium distances, but they aren't "sniper rifles"

A lot more supressors being issued to the front line infantry guys. Good to see the good stuff making it thru.

I also see several HK 40mm launchers under the M4's with the IR range finder/aiming box...thought it's kinda big, and sorta ugly.

My only gripe.....the Brits beat the 82nd to Multi Cam...bastards.

:lifter

[Iraqgunz]

I agree. An AK isn't a terribly bad weapon. But the fact is that even with optics it will not outshoot an M4. I have personally hit targets with my 11.5" inch suppressed and unsuppressed at 220 yds. I plan on trying to push it more in a week or so when I get back.

Most Afghans that I have seen can't shoot for shit. Not saying they are all like that, but........

The only weapon they seem to be really effective with is the PKM.

I agree with you, thats why ACOGS have a range scale in the reticle. Plus ive instructed ANA soldiers at the range, and for someone to say that the Taliban is more accurate with an AK makes me laugh. AK point TGT 300-350, M4 point TGT 500-550 (more with an ACOG). M4's are fine. The Army just needs to revamp the their shooting program.

[Basenshukai]

I've been reading, or hearing, about a replacement for the M4 since I was a 2nd LT. Back then, the Army had just begun to mass issue the M4 vs the M16, but there was talk about getting a different, more realiable weapon system and ammunition even back then. Now a field grade officer, I truly believe that I will not see an issued replacement (to the Army at large) while I'm in active service.

[SOT-Aj KIA 4th July 2010]

PKM is the issue that we are running into out here. Yes, we've all seen 'ghans shoot from the hip and even the better trained ones (often ex-ANA/ANP) will run and fire after those first few well aimed shots.

However, with the air war over, we are frequently running into entrenched ambush and sniper positions with extremely effective PKM and Dragonov fire.

It's slightly off-thread but I'm linking the following:

Well written article about what we are dealing with (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_end_air_war/)

[arizonaguide]

How would the M110 be as a primary for most instead of just the DM role?
FN-FAL? :D

Maybe still too much close range/aimpoint stuff necessary to switch completely.

Or like someone mentioned...NEW BULLET/barrel for the AR.

[Green Light]

A lot more supressors being issued to the front line infantry guys. Good to see the good stuff making it thru.

Have to ask. Why do line infantry need suppressors?

I also see several HK 40mm launchers under the M4's with the IR range finder/aiming box...thought it's kinda big, and sorta ugly.

Our guys used to have M203s under their CAR-15s (similar to M-4). Didn't get the impression that those were that big. Is the HK version that different?

[Tuukka]

Have to ask. Why do line infantry need suppressors?



Our guys used to have M203s under their CAR-15s (similar to M-4). Didn't get the impression that those were that big. Is the HK version that different?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23523729/

Hearing damage is the No. 1 disability in the war on terror, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, and some experts say the true toll could take decades to become clear. Nearly 70,000 of the more than 1.3 million troops who have served in the two war zones are collecting disability for tinnitus, a potentially debilitating ringing in the ears, and more than 58,000 are on disability for hearing loss, the VA said.

I could not locate the source, but I seem to recall that 80% of the hearing damages are due to the soldiers individual weapon. The hearing damage risk can be greatly reduced by using a suppressor.

There are now several companies offering lightweight and compact suppressors, that allow full time use on operations or in training.

Comparing the number of soldiers affected by hearing damage and the possible costs from that, the purchase price of even larger quantities of suppressors is not that bad of a trade.

In addition to the hearing damage aspect, benefits for even line infantry;

- Elimination of visible muzzle flash
- Lower overall sound pressure level = better comms
- On many weapons the recoil is reduced = faster and more accurate follow up shots

Of course the downside is increased length and weight on the weapon, added fouling etc, but the overall benefits are greater than the negative points.

Best Regards!

Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors

[blue02hd]

Comparing the number of soldiers affected by hearing damage and the possible costs from that, the purchase price of even larger quantities of suppressors is not that bad of a trade.



Ear plugs cost a dollar.

Unless you try and silence all the weapons being issued, (yeah right) your argueing a moot point.

I personally would rather the enemy hear the sound of my guns, whether it is at squad, platoon, or ODA level. Second and third order effects do extend beyond the impact of the round.

When you need discretion, then a can is useful.

The Big Army does not rely on it's discretion.

[fng13]

If Knight's M110 passed the military trials to be adopted as a DM platform what about looking at their EM carbine?

It is almost identical minues barrel length, flash hider, slight change in RIS.

I know from many posts on here Knight's gear is not a favorite, I myself have not had anything Knight's so I can't comment first hand.

[edoo118]

Our guys used to have M203s under their CAR-15s (similar to M-4). Didn't get the impression that those were that big. Is the HK version that different?

Sir,

I believe he was referring to the AN/PSQ-18 night/day aiming device you can attach to a 203. They're gigantic.

[Fonzy]

Sir,

I believe he was referring to the AN/PSQ-18 night/day aiming device you can attach to a 203. They're gigantic.

mine was so cumbersome i refused to carry it

[Grand58742]

Is it possible to mount an A4 (or A2) upper to an M4 lower? I wouldn't imagine it couldn't be done, but honestly I don't know. I figure the two are compatible, but I don't know if there would be something prohibiting the two from working together. Units could keep both the uppers in stock depending on mission. M4 uppers for certain areas like Iraq where the possibility of urban fighting is greater, A2/A4 uppers for places like the 'Stan where longer range would be needed. But still having the M4 lower capability for the adjustable stock.

Would something like this be better and more fiscally sound? I know when the USAF converted it's M16s to the A2 standard, they got parts kits and replaced the upper, pistol grip, fire control group and butt stock and mounted it to the M16 lower receiver for about two-thirds the cost of buying a new M16A2. At least I was told it was about two-thirds the cost. I might imagine changing only the upper receiver would cost less.

Just wondering if something like this is possible as opposed to fielding a completely new system or round.

[Iraqgunz]

The Canadian military has been using such a configuration for several years now called the C7A2. Generally speaking, if you put an A2/A4 upper on an M4 lower it may not function correctly. It is my understanding that the Canadian military worked with Colt/Diemaco to get the correct buffer size to work and I believe that their buffer is a custom one.

Is it possible to mount an A4 (or A2) upper to an M4 lower? I wouldn't imagine it couldn't be done, but honestly I don't know. I figure the two are compatible, but I don't know if there would be something prohibiting the two from working together. Units could keep both the uppers in stock depending on mission. M4 uppers for certain areas like Iraq where the possibility of urban fighting is greater, A2/A4 uppers for places like the 'Stan where longer range would be needed. But still having the M4 lower capability for the adjustable stock.

Would something like this be better and more fiscally sound? I know when the USAF converted it's M16s to the A2 standard, they got parts kits and replaced the upper, pistol grip, fire control group and butt stock and mounted it to the M16 lower receiver for about two-thirds the cost of buying a new M16A2. At least I was told it was about two-thirds the cost. I might imagine changing only the upper receiver would cost less.

Just wondering if something like this is possible as opposed to fielding a completely new system or round.

[Combat Diver]

I've seen a few 20" uppers with collaspable stocks in the last few months in RC East. Not that common as I've seen more M14 with EBR stocks. Still lots of M16 and M4s.

CD

[The Reaper]

The Canadian military has been using such a configuration for several years now called the C7A2. Generally speaking, if you put an A2/A4 upper on an M4 lower it may not function correctly. It is my understanding that the Canadian military worked with Colt/Diemaco to get the correct buffer size to work and I believe that their buffer is a custom one.

The dozen or two I have swapped out have run fine.

TR

[ktek01]

Our guys used to have M203s under their CAR-15s (similar to M-4). Didn't get the impression that those were that big. Is the HK version that different?

The HK has about the same range as the 203, its only about an inch shorter and the pistol grip is part of the launcher instead of using the main weapons magazine. Biggest difference I can see is the breach opens to the left, allowing longer rounds. I wonder if either could be changed to accept the 40x51 ERLP rounds, those can reach out to 800 meters.

[JMonty]

This is, of course, one of those conversations that has really been beat to death, but recently I've been thinking why not just reissue some M16s? There's got to be a number of A4 flattops still out there, and they could certainly be easily made. Would a longer barrel not solve some or many of the issues with the M4 at longer ranges? Seems like a very simple fix. Even if it was rolled out on a limited basis in a manner similar to the SDM it would still provide units with some weapons that could reach farther out.

The M16s are still around, it's just that they are issued to support MOSs instead of the guys on the line. One thing my unit has done is to take an
M16A4 and put a free floating barrel, lighter trigger group and an ACOG on it. Basically, a DMR.

[The Reaper]

The HK has about the same range as the 203, its only about an inch shorter and the pistol grip is part of the launcher instead of using the main weapons magazine. Biggest difference I can see is the breach opens to the left, allowing longer rounds. I wonder if either could be changed to accept the 40x51 ERLP rounds, those can reach out to 800 meters.

That pretty much sums it up.

I have fired an FN prototype that makes the Mk. 19's 40x53mm round firable from a single-shot, shoulder-fired launcher and I would say that I do not think you would want to try that from either the HK or the M203. I was well over 200 pounds, was prepared for heavy recoil, and it damn near broke my shoulder.

TR

[ktek01]

That pretty much sums it up.

I have fired an FN prototype that makes the Mk. 19's 40x53mm round firable from a single-shot, shoulder-fired launcher and I would say that I do not think you would want to try that from either the HK or the M203. I was well over 200 pounds, was prepared for heavy recoil, and it damn near broke my shoulder.

TR


I would have expected that from the 40X53, it was always designed for crew served weapons. The 40X51 ERLP is South African, and fired from their version of the Milkor MGL. Im not sure if the recoil has been kept low enough for a 203 type launcher, I believe they have to use a special recoil buffer in the Milkor to fire them.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Ammunition-Handbook/40-mm-ERLP-TM-MV-grenade-South-Africa.html

[bushmaster11]

I wonder what the characteristics of the M-4, replacing the complete upper receiver hardware from 5.56 to 7.62. The lower is universal, I have heard of one with a .50. I t seems that .50 is too much recoil for the M-4 frame. I do however, think 7.62 would not be excessive.

Manufacture venders have been using the M-16/M-4 frame for years as a selling feature. All soldiers would have instant muscle memory familiarity. The commanders would have the option to tailor his firepower for the combat environment without having to acquire and train to a new weapons system.

Just curious.

J R
DOL

[Guymullins]

How would the M110 be as a primary for most instead of just the DM role?
FN-FAL? :D

Maybe still too much close range/aimpoint stuff necessary to switch completely.

Or like someone mentioned...NEW BULLET/barrel for the AR.

The FN-FAL is a bitch in dusty or sandy conditions. One of the main reasons the South African army changed to the Galil-type weapon was the FNs propensity to jam if not kept spotlessly clean. The 7.62 Nato round was sorely missed though when converting to the 5.56 round. Not only was the 5.56 less good at long range, it was much easier deflected by grass and bush. Because the NATO round was almost impossible to shoot in auto mode, ammunition was conserved better and the extra rounds that could be carried using the 5.56 ammo were not needed.

[turboprop]

I wonder what the characteristics of the M-4, replacing the complete upper receiver hardware from 5.56 to 7.62. The lower is universal, I have heard of one with a .50. I t seems that .50 is too much recoil for the M-4 frame. I do however, think 7.62 would not be excessive.

Manufacture venders have been using the M-16/M-4 frame for years as a selling feature. All soldiers would have instant muscle memory familiarity. The commanders would have the option to tailor his firepower for the combat environment without having to acquire and train to a new weapons system.

Just curious.

J R
DOL

Way to dig this thread up from the dead.

The military can't just supply itself with a new cartridge overnight. Since a 7.62x51 NATO obviously won't work on a M4 lower you would need something similar in length to the 5.56x45 like a .300 Blackout. The problem is, I don't think it is going to solve the range problem since that bigger round (the blackout, or similar .308 variant) would likely lose effective range.

The answer could probably be found somewhere between better marksmanship training/more range time and getting more M14s/AR-10/SR-25s and M110s on the battlefield.

[Max_Tab]

The answer could probably be found somewhere between better marksmanship training/more range time and getting more M14s/AR-10/SR-25s and M110s on the battlefield.

In my opinion, you are half right. Better marksmanship training, and swithching to the 77 Grain ammo. And if you can, swap out for a longer barrel even better, but that would probable be the cheapest option (yet still effective).

My .02

[MAB32]

The FN-FAL is a bitch in dusty or sandy conditions. One of the main reasons the South African army changed to the Galil-type weapon was the FNs propensity to jam if not kept spotlessly clean. The 7.62 Nato round was sorely missed though when converting to the 5.56 round. Not only was the 5.56 less good at long range, it was much easier deflected by grass and bush. Because the NATO round was almost impossible to shoot in auto mode, ammunition was conserved better and the extra rounds that could be carried using the 5.56 ammo were not needed.




Maybe so my friend, but the Rhodesia's put them to great use for years. A friend of mine who was with the SAS, Selous Scouts, and the RLI liked it.....but he really liked the idea that came later with a Ruger Mini-30. He carried the FAL, Ak-47, and for a long time the AR-18.:D