Anyone do an M4A2 clone yet?

[wild_wild_wes]

As the first part of its carbine replacement project, the Army plans to retrofit current M4s with M4A1 heavy barrels and possibly a free-float handguard. The hg would prolly be the DD RIS II, or the KAC URX II, in whatever length (I'm guessing the shorter ones).

Show 'em if ya got 'em!

[rychencop]

do you have a link for this? i have not heard of the Army doing an M4 upgrade.

[wild_wild_wes]

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=61552

[rychencop]

hmmm... well all you need is a socom (http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Standard-14-5-M4-SOCOM-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-m4-14socom.htm) barrel and a FF handguard and you're GTG. several of those floating around. personally i think the whole FF thing is a shame. i still say you won't notice a huge difference between FF and non-FF at 100 meters or less. typical combat engagements are in that range and unless you're sporting an acog or other magnified optic you'll be lucky do get hits past 200 under combat conditions. just my pov of course. i'm sure many will disagree.

with all the "enhancements" they have planned, it would be better to just replace the system. by the time they would be done, it would essentially be a different rifle anyway.

[m4brian]

I would suppose that a heavier barrel is good mostly for full auto fire - right?

[rychencop]

I would suppose that a heavier barrel is good mostly for full auto fire - right?

yeah...socom uses the heavy barrels in their M4A1's to deal with the full auto issues.

[R Moran]

hmmm... well all you need is a socom (http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Standard-14-5-M4-SOCOM-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-m4-14socom.htm) barrel and a FF handguard and you're GTG. several of those floating around. personally i think the whole FF thing is a shame. i still say you won't notice a huge difference between FF and non-FF at 100 meters or less. typical combat engagements are in that range and unless you're sporting an acog or other magnified optic you'll be lucky do get hits past 200 under combat conditions. just my pov of course. i'm sure many will disagree.

with all the "enhancements" they have planned, it would be better to just replace the system. by the time they would be done, it would essentially be a different rifle anyway.

I attended a carbine operator class conducted by Jim Smith of Spartan Tactical. Mr. Smith was an operator at what everyone call's "Blackhawk Down".

Smith does place a heavy emphasis on accuracy, understandable, considering his former unit.
He had stated, that tests had been conducted, and there were significant changes in point of impact, at 100mtrs, when pressure was placed on the barrel. This included resting it on barricades/cover, using a tight sling, or a VFG. Whether it was the barrel itself, or the handguard of a non free floated barrel, a shift would be seen. Honestly I do not recall the number, just thinking it was alot. I will see if some of the guys in the class with me remember the number.

I came to the conclusion, that a long 9-12 inch length free float handguard was the answer for me. It just eliminates one more variable. I can now, throw the hadguard up against cover, over cover, move lights around, crank a sling down, etc etc, and not have to worry about its influence on the barrel/POI, as insignificant as it may be.

Havent really followed all the enhancment threads, but it seems to me, they are looking at doing not much more then most people do to their personal AR's. Better barrel, handguard, ambi controls, tougher finish on the operating parts, better mags. In fact, it looks to me, that the Army will finally get something alot closer to what it really wanted, when it got the A2 shoved down its throat.

Bob

[Belmont31R]

hmmm... well all you need is a socom (http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Standard-14-5-M4-SOCOM-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-m4-14socom.htm) barrel and a FF handguard and you're GTG. several of those floating around. personally i think the whole FF thing is a shame. i still say you won't notice a huge difference between FF and non-FF at 100 meters or less. typical combat engagements are in that range and unless you're sporting an acog or other magnified optic you'll be lucky do get hits past 200 under combat conditions. just my pov of course. i'm sure many will disagree.

with all the "enhancements" they have planned, it would be better to just replace the system. by the time they would be done, it would essentially be a different rifle anyway.



Not shooting off a bench you wont.


Shoot under combat conditions, and you will.


Besides the KAC M4 RAS is around 320 list price, and there are several FF rails that would be fit for mil duty in that price range. It wouldn't be all that much more difficult if at all for them to be installed at Colt. They already are installing the KAS RAS in house before the guns are being shipped to the mil system.


Its an obvious improvement that would see some gains without much (if any) additional cost.


I also think we need a much more accurate round. Afghanistan has proven that basic riflemen need to be making hits at extended ranges, and with the current issue gear that can be quite challenging even for the better shooters. Today I was out shooting some guns, and at 500 yards issue type ammo is just not accurate enough to make reliable hits. You are talking about 3-4MOA ammo at 400 yards plus. That means the group size just with the ammo itself is around 16-20". Switching to a better round would increase hit probability by a very good margin. I was able to make almost 100% hits on a 12" gong at 500 with TAP T2 ammo. With issue type ammo the impacts would either hit or mostly (key word mostly) dance around the target. There are several good rounds out there that would help our guys make hits and it doesn't really matter if something like the MK262 round or TAP T2 isn't as good at barrier penetration if soldiers cant hit what they are aiming at because the ammo is so crappy. Getting hits on target is what needs to be accomplished first, and then you can start worrying about how well it penetrates objects other than flesh. You can see in Molon's thread about the Mk318/SOST round even that has pretty poor accuracy compared to Mk262 and TAP T2.

Another improvement would be going to CHF barrels.

[wild_wild_wes]

I'm not a cloner; I want what is most correct, but since this might be our next service rifle, I thought it might be interesting to see.

I'm doing a build along these lines, but will be skipping the heavy barrel in favor of a DD 14.5" CHF Lightweight; I just bought a DD Mk18 RIS II for this project to go with it, so I'm stuck with CAR gas, but one of the new midlength gas 14.5s might be an option, though it is difficult to see the military go middie; they are too conservative.

[RAM Engineer]

I wish the Colt "SOCOM" heavy barrels were easier to find. I'd like a factory 6920/6921 with the HB and a RIS II. THAT'S what Colt should be making for their "tactical" line of guns that almost were.

[Molon]

I would suppose that a heavier barrel is good mostly for full auto fire - right?

It also helps with accuracy:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=59364

.....

[Grumpy MSG]

It sounds like you are looking to get what the Army is getting before they even decide what they want. It would suck for you to buy the SOPMOD barrel and a Daniel Defense handguard and they decide to buy the KAC rail system or even worse, they go with replacing the whole upper with a LMT MRP upper and barrel system. That doesn't even touch whether they go with a piston, or who's piston. Given the last several updates to the M16/M4 family, you can probably expect it to be easy to replicate once it is selected.

[kaltesherz]

hmmm... well all you need is a socom (http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-Standard-14-5-M4-SOCOM-Upper-Receiver-p/bcm-urg-m4-14socom.htm) barrel and a FF handguard and you're GTG. several of those floating around. personally i think the whole FF thing is a shame. i still say you won't notice a huge difference between FF and non-FF at 100 meters or less. typical combat engagements are in that range and unless you're sporting an acog or other magnified optic you'll be lucky do get hits past 200 under combat conditions. just my pov of course. i'm sure many will disagree.

with all the "enhancements" they have planned, it would be better to just replace the system. by the time they would be done, it would essentially be a different rifle anyway.

Most combat engagements in Afghanistan are far outside 100 meters, closer to 300-700 meters. I'd rather invest in better ammo and training than a bunch of expensive and time consuming upgrades. You'd be amazed how many combat arms troops don't know how to properly use an ACOG, and the vast majority have never shot at a range past 300m with an M4 or M249.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Call me crazy, but teach them how to not use it like an M249.

Then skip the chrome lined barrel and go nitrated.

It works on the 416, and other guns, that have gone under torture tests.

CHF, Nitrated barrel would be good.

[rychencop]

Most combat engagements in Afghanistan are far outside 100 meters, closer to 300-700 meters. I'd rather invest in better ammo and training than a bunch of expensive and time consuming upgrades. You'd be amazed how many combat arms troops don't know how to properly use an ACOG, and the vast majority have never shot at a range past 300m with an M4 or M249.

yeah...that's one particular scenario. not too many 700m kills with the M4. that's not going to happen. the afghan war is one reason they should have stuck with the M16 and another reason they should have kept a 7.62 platform. they seem to be ignoring the weak link in the M16/M4 which is the round itself. no need for heavy barrels and full auto.

[wild_wild_wes]

I don't agree. Most guys don't have the skills to make hits above 300m anyway. 7.62 would be a mistake, a step backwards. Give a 7.62 to the DM; they and supporting arms do the work >300, which is an Afghan-only scenario anyway. In Iraq most small arms fire was at ranges <100m.

[kaltesherz]

yeah...that's one particular scenario. not too many 700m kills with the M4. that's not going to happen. the afghan war is one reason they should have stuck with the M16 and another reason they should have kept a 7.62 platform. they seem to be ignoring the weak link in the M16/M4 which is the round itself. no need for heavy barrels and full auto.

700m is a bit much but 600m is doable, esp with a better round and more training. And the M16 only adds an extra 50m over the M4, at least according to the TM. And there's quite a few M14's being used overseas as well. But I do have to agree on the full auto, it's pretty pointless for the most part but the heavy barrel does make it a little more accurate which would help.

[MistWolf]

A lighter profile barrel is no less accurate than a heavier one of the same length and quality. A heavier profile barrel is inherently more consistent due increased stiffness and being less susceptible to point of impact changes due to heat. The greater mass also allows the barrel to absorb more heat (BTUs) before reaching critical temperatures and in general, during sustained fire, give better service

[Dano5326]

The most accurizing mod to an AR is a freefloat handguard. Then better ammo mk262, TAP whatever v. m885 multicomponent 3-4moa crap

The SOCOM barrel is the worst ever IMO. Heavier with no real benefits... With the amount of rds one actually carries, a light profile is fine & cools quicker.

In training, run after run, tables full of magazines... obscene weapon abuse happens.

[MistWolf]

A lighter barrel cools quicker, but the trade off is it gets hotter and is less resistant to heat damage

[Belmont31R]

A lighter barrel cools quicker, but the trade off is it gets hotter and is less resistant to heat damage



A rifleman is not supposed to be shooting fast enough to damage a barrel unless its absolutely necessary. That is what machine guns are for.

[kaltesherz]

A rifleman is not supposed to be shooting fast enough to damage a barrel unless its absolutely necessary. That is what machine guns are for.

I thought the same, until my first ambush. When you're outnumbered, the bad guys have the high ground, and it's general chaos you realize what's the difference is between theory and practice. The vast majority of time you're not going to be dumping mag after mag, but there's are times where it will happen. M4's are not supposed to be used to suppress but they are, there's only so many SAWs and M240's to go around. Grunts need a weapon that when needed can put out a large volume of fire if need be.