Carbine vs Rifle Buffer System

[Clint]

DUP.....

[Clint]

The bottom line is they were tasked with designing a much more compact version of the weapon, which included shortening both the barrel and stock.

This was the Colt 607/610/XM-177.

Compromises were made to meet an overall length target requirement.


We now know that they were probably a bit too aggressive with the 10" barrel and 7" RE.

Much better reliability is obtained with an 11.5" barrel and 7.75" RE containing a 4 weight buffer and rifle spring.

Hind sight is 20/20 and all...

The question I was asking is why didn't the engineers stick with the rifle length buffer system? Nobody mentioned gas system.

[lysander]

The question I was asking is why didn't the engineers stick with the rifle length buffer system? Nobody mentioned gas system.

The requirement was for a submachine gun with an overall length of 26 inches, or less, in compact condition. Most applicant weapons used a folding stock, but folding the receiver extension was considered too complicated and would allow dirt in the system unless you got really complicated.

This requires both ends to be cut down.

(Originally, the Army specified an 16 inch barrel as well as the 26 inch folded length, but dropped that requirement when it became quite obvious the AR design would not allow for that in any practical manner.)

The M4 was specified to use as many already developed concepts as possible, and the carbine buffer system and the carbine gas system were already developed and working reasonably well in the XM177E2, they did not have the resources available to change them.

[markm]

Why was the carbine buffer system developed/engineered when the rifle buffer system works well across the spectrum as the VLTOR A5 system has proved?

Size.