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

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

TR

[ktek01]

Originally Posted by Green Light

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ktek01

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]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

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-...th-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]

Originally Posted by arizonaguide

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by turboprop

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

Originally Posted by Guymullins

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.