A better M4, New barrel, faster fire and 4 other improvements [Archive]

View Full Version : A better M4, New barrel, faster fire and 4 other improvements

DMR

11-16-09, 09:22

This Week’s Army Times
A better M4, New barrel, faster fire and 4 other improvements

In this weeks Army Times. I'll have to get the print version today. Should be a interesting read for time lines AND the possible impacts on the anticipated Carbine Comp for next summer.

If anyone has the on line version please clip it.
http://www.armytimes.com/xml/front/112309_at_cover.JPG

http://gannett.a.mms.mavenapps.net/mms/rt/1/site/gannett-militarypubs-21772-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=armyhomepageplayer&maven_referralObject=1332954585

thanks,

eternal24k

11-16-09, 20:02

huh, surprised with the increased ROF, looking forward to someone posting it

grunz

11-16-09, 20:06

MisterWilson

11-16-09, 20:12

I thought that the ROF in the M4 needs to be dropped a bit.

:confused:

Sry0fcr

11-16-09, 20:20

http://www.armytimes.com/ has a video blurb on this.

Everything they mention:
Heavier BBL
Gas Piston
Smoother Trigger
Ambi controls

Can be accomplished by:
HK416 upper
Full Auto Trigger vs 3RD burst
Ambi safety/mag catch

Just a guess.

Also adding a round counter, & an improved rail system.

Oddly enough I was thinking about posting about what evolutionary mods would an M4 product improvement program would recommend.

DMR

11-16-09, 22:07

I have the hard copy now. Seems they are saying these product improvements were briefed to Congress on or around the 30th of October. The intent is to bridge the gap until the new carbine program is completed. They also mention monolithic recievers.

Seems like they could just give this a try:

http://noveskerifleworks.com/imimg/fde-recce_1a.jpg
N4 Light Carbine, Basic, with VIS
Limited Edition, N4 Light RECCE 5.56mm Rifle with VIS, Flat Dark Earth

16.1" Cold Hammer Forged Barrel, 1 in 7" twist, 5.56mm
--Made of Mil Spec M249 Machine Gun barrel steel, with heavy M249 Chrome Lining,
(appx. 2 times as thick as an M4 or M16)
--Extended Feed Ramps
--Mil Spec Phosphate finish
--MP HP tested with certification
--Mid-Length gas system, no M203 notch
--Vortex flash suppressor
--Vltor VIS 12" monolithic upper
--Geissele SSA two stage trigger
--Shot peened and MP tested bolt
--Properly staked carrier key
--Auto carrier
--Mil-Spec receiver extension, staked
--H Buffer
--Vltor E-Mod buttstock
--Tango Down pistol grip
--Six Tango Down SCAR rail panel covers
--Noveske QD receiver end plate sling mount
--One 30 rd mag included
--Low-profile gas block pinned to barrel
--Flip-up front and rear sights
--V-TAC Sling, Khaki

Just swap the lower for the Mag-Pul Lower

Sry0fcr

11-16-09, 22:48

Mjolnir

11-17-09, 08:27

Well, I was informed at SHOT, Dean Caputo and from reading articles by Chris Bartocci that the M4 is specced by the US Army and what H&K independently did with the HK416 has been offered to the US Army has been soundly rejected. Apparently, Colt recognizes the superiority of the CONCEPTS that HK provided (and others such as LWRCi and LMT, etc.) and actually have their own.

I wish they would have offered what they felt was best to the public prior to HK and the rest...

We've got to regain the small arms industry, in my opinion. Nothing against FN and HK but I believe - rightfully or wrongfully - that WE could do the same if not better if our system wasn't sabotaged and derailed.

GLAD TO SEE THIS.

P.S.

Could anyone scan and post?

Thanks in advance.

DMR

11-17-09, 09:00

I got a copy last night. Same old crap. I can buy most of the parts COTS/current programs today and do 70% of what they are asking. To get to the other 30% I can also get COTS, but would need to do some hard testing to see what's actually best. They are talking enough changes in that 30% that more than likely the solutions will be enough for the various contractors to tie this up until 2013 anyhow.

Everything they mention:
I can buy them today
Heavier BBL, SOPMOD Block II M-4A1
Improved rail system, SOPMOD Block II M-4A1
Going to a Monolithic upper = compitition and protests or Sole Source to Colt

Smoother Trigger, SOPMOD Block II M-4A1?
Plenty on the market, but so long as you retain the ratchet burst mech you will have the same issue.
Ambi controls
Norgan has a NSN, plenty of safetys availible, bolt release might call for a new lower. New lower = compitition and protests or Sole Source to Colt

Would require testing
Gas Piston, may not specify just ask for easier to clean and more reliable.
Fail Zero Full Auto Kit anyone?
Round counter (the Army has been working on this, maybe they have it finished)

the HK-416 got a half page comparision to the M-4 and the SCAR got a short paragraph.

grunz

11-17-09, 11:40

pezboy

11-17-09, 12:16

I havent read the full article - so can somebody say what kind of round counter is being talked about? Would this be a statistics/admin type of device or something for direct soldier use - ala Aliens. ;)

The round counter is only for support maintenance. Round counts are not kept by soldiers and muzzle wear and throat erosion are not good indicators of round count either. The throat erosion and muzzle wear may be fine, but the round counter will say exactly how many rounds have been fired. It will help to indicate when to replace parts.
Dustin

Thomas M-4

11-17-09, 13:36

Hmm Knights SR-16 anybody.
I don't think shoe horning a gas piston system in the M-4 is that great of a step forward but I will digress on that issue.
Mjolnir I agree with you [ if our system wasn't sabotaged and derailed.] The private sector has advanced the system more than military in the last couple of years. My personal belief is the system has been neglected to make purchasing an new system more feasible. Incremental proven improvements hammer forged barrels , dropping the 3 round burst , improved bolt designs, better coatings . Have all been ignored to push through a new system.
Who makes the shot counter I have been hearing of this for years still have not seen a shot counter on the market.

DMR

11-17-09, 13:47

Not sure who is on the inside track, but here is/was one of the condenders 2006-03-21:

Advanced Design Consulting USA, Inc. of Lansing, New York.
http://www.adc9001.com/index.php?src=shotcounter&PHPSESSID=72ad6664df75b174696cdba0e946a009

http://wscounter.com/documents/ADC_wsc_brochure.pdf

Here's another:
ACCU-COUNTER TECHNOLOGIES

September 2007: Accu-Counter receives additional Delivery Order for its Weapon Shot Counter (WSC) for the Special Operations Forces M4A1 Carbine.

http://accucounter.com/product_info.html

chadbag

11-17-09, 16:18

This is an interesting article on round counters

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/black_boxes_for_guns/

DMR

11-23-09, 08:06

The articles up now:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/11/army_M4_112109w/

Major revamp possible for M4 carbine

Army wants new barrel, faster fire and 4 other improvements
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Nov 22, 2009 13:20:30 EST

The Army is considering a major redesign of the M4 aimed at making the weapon shoot cleaner and longer — at high rates of fire.

As the Army awaits Defense Department approval of a competition to find a new carbine, weapons officials have identified six fixes intended to address shortcomings in reliability, durability and handling of the Army’s inventory of more than 400,000 M4s.

Army weapons officials presented the proposed changes to Congress on Oct. 30. They are:

• 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.

• Adding 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 Army is considering upgrades to the M4 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 in last place 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 DoD’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

Even if the Army releases a request for proposal to the small-arms industry before the end of the year, 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 Col. Doug Tamilio, the head of Project Manager Soldier Weapons.

“As we move down this carbine competition path, let’s continue to make substantial improvements to the M4,” Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller said Oct. 27. Fuller commands Program Executive Office Soldier, the command responsible for soldier weapons development.

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

But soldiers’ criticisms of the M4’s performance have continued. They were detailed recently in a report on the July 13, 2008, battle at Wanat in Afghanistan.

Enemy Afghan forces with superior numbers and firepower dominated the terrain around the platoon-sized Army outpost at Wanat. 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 Douglas Cubbison, a military historian at the Army Combat Studies Institute at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Another soldier, Spc. Chris McKaig, experienced problems with his weapon later in the battle, according to the report.

“My weapon was overheating. I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already, and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight,” McKaig said in the report. “I couldn’t charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down.”

Army weapons officials maintain that the M4 has an approval rating among soldiers of more than 90 percent.

Sgt. Eric Harder, a team leader with B Troop, 3rd squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, said his M4 didn’t have a single stoppage during an Oct. 3 enemy attack on Combat Outpost Keating in Afghanistan that lasted for more than six hours.

“I shot over 40 mags that day, and I didn’t have one jam,” Harder said during an Army video interview posted on Digital Video & Imagery Distribution’s Web site.

Army officials stress, however, that they are not discounting the alleged weapons problems Phillips and McKaig encountered at Wanat.

DMR

11-23-09, 08:09

Sturdier, heavier barrel
One improvement they are considering for the M4 involves outfitting the weapon with the heavier barrel used on the M4A1, the special operations variant that’s designed to fire on full auto. 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 2 minutes and 48 seconds. In another test, the barrel burst after 596 rounds were fired in 3 minutes and 39 seconds, weapons officials said.

But the heavier M4A1 barrel was able to shoot 930 rounds in 4 minutes 30 seconds. In that test, the heat shield melted but the barrel appeared undamaged, weapons officials maintain.

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.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform a dust test after a July 2007 request by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. Coburn took up the issue after a Feb. 26, 2007, Army Times report on moves by elite Army special operations units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable.

U.S. Special Operations Command began fielding the first SCARs to its elite forces this spring. The command decided to move away from the M4 in November 2004, when the command 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 proposal 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 the 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 Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force will also get a chance to weigh in on the decision for future improvements to the M4.

And the manditory Army Times HK Plug:
http://militarytimes.com/static/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/2007_02_20_M4.swf

Singlestack Wonder

11-23-09, 08:20

If BAR's in WWII had 30-40 round magazines, those barrels would have warped too. Is the problem still with hosing the area with automatic fire vs. aimed fired? :confused:

Roklok

11-23-09, 09:07

Sounds like this is a fire discipline and maintenance problem, not an equipment problem.

Alex V

11-23-09, 10:56

If BAR's in WWII had 30-40 round magazines, those barrels would have warped too. Is the problem still with hosing the area with automatic fire vs. aimed fired? :confused:

Without any hands on knowledge, I would have to say; yes.

It seems like the old Vietnam doctrine of spraying the area with hundreds and thousands of rounds hoping that the enemy either keeps his head down, retreats or gets hit by chance.

I am not, nor was I ever in the military [almost tho; got nominated/accepted to the USNA in 2001] but I can imagine that in a gun fight like that, if you have the balls to pick your head up above cover [which I don't know if I would have] and you have an automatic weapon, you are going to sling as much lead at where you think the fire is coming from. I doubt you have time to take aim and lay down precise fire at one enemy at a time.

If these are the conditions under which our service men will be fighting under, then the rifle should be built to handle that tipe of activity. A lot of improvements have been made to the platform over the years, but its still upseting to know our soldiers are having their weapons fail when a cheap rifle designed in the 1940's can continue to opperate.

GR!

Failure2Stop

11-23-09, 11:21

DMR

11-23-09, 11:52

Interestingly, the article's mention of barrel life in heavy sustained fire does not point to a change of operating system as being crucial, but rather in the material and manufacturing process of the same barrel.

While changing to a piston sytem will result in a cooler bolt, it will not result in a cooler barrel.

The results of the USMC's IAR solicitation is pending:

Maj. John Smith, the weapon’s project officer, said in September that the Corps was “close to having a decision” on the IAR contract competition, which pits one rifle from FN Herstal, two variants from Colt Defense and one from Heckler & Koch against each other. At the time, Smith acknowledged that Commandant Gen. James Conway had questioned how the IAR will fit into fire teams, but said that his concern was “answered in short order.” Smith declined to elaborate, and Maj. David Nevers, a spokesman for Conway, said the commandant was unavailable for comment.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/11/marine_iar_112209w/

From this process I'm quite sure that we have some interesting results that will most likely impact the development of this requirement. I understood one of the Colt variants was still DI. Depending on the results this could validate DI over piston AR variants vs Piston from the ground up design at high round counts. Also should have good barrel data that could potentualy be roled into moding the M-4 line or the SCAR for that matter.

JSantoro

11-23-09, 11:59

I thought that the ROF in the M4 needs to be dropped a bit.

Concur, if the intent is to finally be rid of the burst nonsense. The higher cyclic rate is a role fulfilled by the SAW, the IAR (once that procurement dogfight is done), and their analogues.

Otherwise, I seriously doubt that they'll take the sensible approach and simply mod existing platforms with the necessary component swaps to make it universally ambi, etc., and mod the current procurement contract so that weapons new from the factory have ambi controls and whatnot. It's been tried, and never really takes.

Instead, the Fairy God-Senators will request yet another industry RFI and pick for competition the companies that remember to put the buzz-phrase "transformational weapon" in the title of the document submission, which promises a "...phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range."

DMR

01-31-10, 10:27

To bad we are just to small to bid on this....

10--M4 Carbine Modification Kit
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-10-X-0435

Synopsis:
Added: Jan 22, 2010 2:14 pm
M4 CARBINE MODIFICATION KITMarket Survey AnnouncementW15QKN-10-X-0435

The U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command (ACC), Joint Munitions and Lethality (JM&L) Contracting Center is seeking companies with experience in small arms manufacturing and associated technologies (corporate knowledge, technical expertise, facilities, manufacturing equipment, and product acceptance test hardware). The Government is seeking to test and potentially qualify a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS)/Non-Developmental Item (NDI) Modification Kit for improvements to the M4 Carbine. It is anticipated that the modification kit be evaluated as a system and be able to drop-in/be installed to stock M4 Carbines. It is the Governments intent (via the application of this Modification) to provide measurable improvements in reliability, durability, and maintainability of the M4. Specific areas of interest may include but shall not be limited to the bolt and bolt carrier assembly, upper receiver and barrel assembly, gas operating system, trigger group assembly, and robust MIL-STD-1913 rail system (Picatinny Rail). All upgrade possibilities are encouraged and welcome, from replacement of individual components up to and including the replacement of the entire upper receiver. There are no anticipated modifications to the standard lower receiver; however minor modifications to the trigger mechanism and the interface of the upper to lower receiver may also be submitted. The weapon must retain the existing 5.56x45mm caliber (M855, NATO SS109). The application of the Modification Kit must not result in the diminution of any performance characteristic associated with the current M4 Carbine. The estimated quantity that may be required by the Government is 500,000 each.

Interested firms should submit literature/brochures not exceeding twenty (20) pages describing product technical capabilities, design details and operational characteristics, and production capability (monthly sustainable production rate). Submissions shall also include a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) unit price (per kit) estimate for the following quantity ranges 500-1,000; 1,001-5,000; 5,001-10,000 and 10,001-20,000 for each production year from FY12 thru FY17. The ROM will be used for planning purposes only. If alternate production range bands provide for more economical pricing, it is requested that those also be provided, but not to exceed four bands. The Government respectfully requests that all interested vendors provide responses to this notice on or before 16 February 2010, however responses that are submitted beyond this date will also be accepted. Please submit responses to U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command, Joint Munitions and Lethality Contracting Center, CCJM-SW, ATTN: David DeCandia, Building 9, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. 07806-5000. Submissions may also be emailed to david.decandia@us.army.mil. In the event that additional information is sought, all responders are required to provide the following contact information: Contractor name and address; point of contact with telephone number and email address; size of business; and country represented.

This market survey is for information and planning purposes only and does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP). This Market Survey is not to be construed as a commitment by the US Government. If a formal solicitation is generated at a later date, a solicitation notice will be published. No award will be made as a result of this Market Survey. All information is to be submitted at no cost or obligation to the Government. The Government reserves the right to reject, in whole or in part, any private sector input as a result of this market survey. Respondents will not be notified of the results of this survey or results of information submitted.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6c142af092ab01de3f042b56e7a012b9&tab=core&_cview=0

BAC

01-31-10, 10:35

I thought the Army was to set up trials this year for a new rifle? I like the solicitation, but it's a day late and a dollar short. It sounds like a the folks in charge are working in two different playbooks (one asking for rifle upgrades, the other asking for a new rifle altogether).

-B

Cerberus

01-31-10, 13:33

but its still upseting to know our soldiers are having their weapons fail when a cheap rifle designed in the 1940's can continue to opperate.

I don't know where this is coming from. I have not heard or seen any failures personally, and last I was able to find on the subject (2007), the M4 was getting very positive reviews from soldiers in Iraq. In fact over the years, the only Soldiers/Marines I've personally heard complain about the DI system were the kind that you had to force to clean their rifles.