Corps has stake in Army’s M4 redesign - Military News | News From Afghanistan, Iraq And Around The World - Military Times

Corps has stake in Army’s M4 redesign

The Marine Corps may have a new service rifle to consider in the future, as the Army pursues a redesign of the M4 carbine.

The Army effort is aimed at making the 5.56mm weapon shoot cleaner and straighter, and with higher rates of fire. The service is awaiting Defense Department approval to launch a competition to find a new carbine, with weapons officials identifying six interim fixes intended to address shortcomings in the M4’s reliability, durability and handling.

The overhaul proposals include:

• Adding a heavier barrel for better performance during high rates of fire.

• Replacing the direct-impingement gas system with a piston gas system.

• Improving the trigger pull.

• Incorporating an improved rail system for increased strength.

• Adding ambidextrous controls.

• Adding a round counter to track the total number of bullets fired over the weapon’s lifetime.

The Corps, which uses both the M16A4 and M4 in combat, is watching closely as the Army proceeds, said Patrick Cantwell, a former Marine captain who heads the Corps’ fires and maneuver integration division at Marine Corps Combat Development Command, based at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. But Marine officials aren’t committing to any changes, and say they are largely happy with the M4s and M16A4s they have.

In all, the Corps expects delivery of 126,000 M1A4s by the end of fiscal 2013 and 82,000 M4s by the end of 2011, said officials with Quantico-based Marine Corps Systems Command. The M16A4 is considered the Corps’ primary service weapon, but tens of thousands of M4s are also in use, especially by Marines in military occupational specialties where the longer barrel of the M16A4 can be problematic, such as motor vehicle operator.

“These weapons have proven themselves more than capable in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Cantwell said. “The Marine Corps continually evaluates the future of its individual weapons programs and will certainly include the results of the Army improved carbine program in that evaluation.”

That hasn’t stopped a debate about what the Corps should do with its service rifles, with suggestions ranging from adopting a collapsible stock for the M16A4 to dropping 5.56mm-caliber rifles completely in favor of a weapon that fires larger 7.62mm ammunition. Marines likely won’t see any of these changes soon, but some are under consideration.

The Army’s plan

The Army is considering upgrades to the M4, currently made by Colt Defense LLC, at the same time it is poised to begin a competition to replace the weapon, a variant of the Vietnam-era M16 family. Senior leaders launched the effort to find a new weapon in November 2008, a year after the M4 finished last in an Army reliability test involving three other carbines. Then-Army Secretary Pete Geren directed the Army’s Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to update the carbine requirement.

That document is now under review at the Army senior staff level, but the service cannot start a competition until the requirement is approved by the Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

Even if the Army releases a request for proposal to the small-arms industry soon, it’s unlikely that the service will complete the competition and select a new carbine before fiscal 2013. And once a new carbine is selected, it will then take years to replace the M4s and M16s in the inventory.

Army weapons officials say they want to give soldiers something better, sooner. While there is no set timeline, the hope is “to have this nailed by [early] January,” said Army Col. Doug Tamilio, the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons.

The Army has made 62 changes to the M4 since it began fielding the weapon in the mid-1990s, weapons officials said. The changes have ranged from improved extractor springs to high-tech optics to a more reliable magazine.

But criticism of the M4’s performance has continued, especially after a report was released recently detailing its performance in the July 13, 2008, battle at Wanat in Afghanistan, in which an Army unit sustained heavy casualties.

Enemy Afghan forces with superior numbers and firepower dominated the terrain around the platoon-sized Army outpost there. Soldiers from 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment, 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, eventually fought off the attack, but not before the enemy knocked out the unit’s heavy weapons, killed nine soldiers and wounded another 27.

One staff sergeant described how his M4 failed him early in the battle.

“My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried to correct the malfunction,” said the soldier, identified as Staff Sgt. Phillips in a draft analysis paper on the battle written by the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Still, Army weapons officials say the M4 has an approval rating among soldiers of more than 90 percent.

Piston-gas system considered

One improvement the Army is considering for the M4 involves outfitting the weapon with the heavier barrel used on the M4A1, the special operations variant designed for fully automatic firing. The standard M4 has a three-round burst setting instead of full auto.

In past Army tests on the standard M4, the barrel eroded and warped after 540 rounds were fired in two minutes and 48 seconds. In another test, the barrel burst after 596 rounds were fired in three minutes and 39 seconds, weapons officials said.

But the heavier M4A1 barrel was able to shoot 930 rounds in four minutes 30 seconds. In that test, the heat shield melted but the barrel appeared undamaged.

While the sustained rate of fire would have to be much lower, the heavier barrel would allow the soldier to fire longer without worrying about heat problems, Tamilio said.

“We have proven it, we have tested it and we already own it,” he said.

The only downside, he said, is there is a weight penalty that would add 5 ounces to the 6.5-pound M4.

One change that might be more challenging involves replacing the M4’s direct-gas system with a piston-gas system, officials said. Both systems rely on the gas created when a round is fired to help cycle the weapon.

With a piston system, the gas siphoned from the round pushes a piston rod into the receiver and cycles the weapon. The M4’s direct-gas system uses the gas itself to cycle the weapon. This results in heat and carbon residue being blown back into the chamber, which can lead to malfunctions and parts wear.

The piston gas system performed well in an Army reliability test in November 2007. During the test, the M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams in the Heckler & Koch XM8; FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR; and the H&K 416. All three of those weapons use versions of the piston gas system.

U.S. Special Operations Command began fielding the first SCARs to its elite forces this spring. SOCom decided to move away from the M4 in November 2004, when it awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its SCAR to replace its M4s and older M16s.

Adding a piston system to the M4 would likely require the Army to release a request for proposals since many gun companies offer M4 upper-receiver groups with piston gas systems, Tamilio said.

Tamilio added that the Army might not request a piston gas system in an RFP but instead ask for an easier-to-clean and more reliable weapon, and let industry propose what it wants.

The other changes being considered are an improved trigger to give the shooter a more consistent trigger pull, which many experts say is key to accurate shooting.

Adding a “monolithic” rail design would add strength to the weapon because the upper receiver, hand guard and rail system are forged together out of a single piece of aluminum.

Adding ambidextrous controls such as the selector lever, magazine release and bolt release would make the M4 easier to operate for both right-handed and left-handed shooters.

A round counter, or shock sensor, mounted in the pistol grip would make it much easier to know when parts need replacing, Tamilio said.

Weapons officials use gauges to check for wear, but “it would really be nice to know that this one has shot 4,000 rounds, this one has shot 7,000 rounds and this one has shot 10,000 rounds,” Tamilio said. “We have never been able to do that.”

A special “integrated product team” will evaluate the pros and cons of each of the proposed improvements and decide which options, if any, will give the service the “biggest bang for the buck,” Tamilio said.

The team will be made up of multiple agencies such as the Infantry Center, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center and Program Executive Office Soldier. It will also include soldiers with combat experience and members of the small-arms community.

Representatives from the Corps, Navy and Air Force will also get a chance to weigh in on the decision for future improvements to the M4. While there is no set timeline, Tamilio said he is “hoping to have this nailed by [early] January.”

The free-floating barrel

While the Corps isn’t sold on the Army’s proposed overhaul, it continues to assess a few upgrades of its own for the M4 and M16A4, said Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jeffrey Eby, the Corps’ senior gunner. If developed successfully, they could eliminate the need for new service rifles in the future, he said.

One change under consideration is the adoption of a free-floating barrel for both the M16A4 and the M4. The concept typically requires the barrel of a rifle to be attached only to a rifle’s receiver and sights, with no contact to the stock, minimizing vibrations on the barrel and increasing accuracy.

Another possibility is replacing the M16A4’s solid, 11-inch stock with a collapsible stock similar to the M4’s, allowing Marines to shoulder the weapon better while wearing body armor. SysCom conducted reliability tests for the concept a year ago, determining that the standard M16A4 was the most reliable, with about one failure to fire for every 1,600 rounds, Marine officials said. When outfitted with a collapsible stock, the M16A4 jammed about once every 1,500 rounds. The M4 was the least reliable weapon tested, with slightly fewer than 1,500 rounds between failures.

Commandant Gen. James Conway is not sold on the idea of replacing the M16A4’s stock, however, saying he fears it could compromise a Marine’s ability to use his rifle in hand-to-hand combat as a blunt-force weapon. Nevertheless, 2,000 collapsible stocks were sent to Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, S.C., in the fall and will be used by training companies in coming months to help the Corps determine whether they help accuracy.

“This will be a slow process to make comparisons to previous year’s monthly averages, as we do not have a deliberate test plan in the works yet,” Eby said. “While we intuitively recognize that an adjustable stock is just as much a value to fit the shooter as an appropriately sized helmet, we have no evidence that our marksmanship is improved sufficient to be worth the cost to modify all the M16A4s in the inventory.”