Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 58

Thread: Why do folks like the M4 barrel profile?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    99
    Feedback Score
    0
    School Circle, boots! Here's THE WORD!

    Back in 1975, when I was at USMC Officer Candidate School, we were issued M14s, and taught how to use the flash suppressor and front sight to break the wire binding C-Ration cases by combat vets.

    For whatever reason, when the Marines developed the -A2, they insisted on a thicker fore-barrel, while retaining the pencil profile under the handguards (the part, BTW, that bends under sling tension). This, presumably, was to accommodate the mounting for the M203, which was spec'ed for the M16A1 barrel profile.

    As an aside, here's an Army document giving their opinion of the USMC M16A2 changes:
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

    A very interesting read.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    1,132
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Yep thats the document, had my dates wrong, but.. I just re read.

    When you read it, you need to keep in mind the time frame.

    The document, mentions bayonet training as the reason the USMC wanted the thicker barrel.

    Bob
    " Some people say..any tactic that works is a good tactic,...I say, anything can work once" former ABQ swat Sgt.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    I find the whole thing somewhat humorous, if it wasn't for the fact that lives are the cost.

    The Army blames the Marines for the A2.
    The Marines blame the Shooting Teams for the A2 sights and stock and the Army for 3-round burst (and the resulting 3 different triggers).
    The Shooting Teams blame the Air Force for the M16 in it's entirety.

    I think that it's a travesty for so many to be stuck with the A4 (or *the horror* an A2), or M4s with M855. As it is now, the 203 notch on the M4 is irrelevant with the ability to mount the grenade launcher directly to rails.

    Sadly (or not, depending on perspective), it will probably be easier to get a new system than to fix the M4 barrel. Then again, all but the slimmest percentage of M4-type shooters will be effected by the presence or lack of the 203 notch.
    Last edited by Failure2Stop; 10-11-09 at 15:43.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NH/PA
    Posts
    856
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpy196 View Post
    For a long time, it was the only readily available profile other than the stupid H-Bar and 11.5/5.5" flash hider barrels.
    Why is it stupid? I have one and like it!

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    1,132
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Hey now! In the document, it clearly states the Army did not want the 3 round burst

    FWIW, I'm sure we all would be surprised by how much out there, gun related or not, was designed around some odd, but important at the time, parameter, that escapes us now.

    I'm sure, when the M4 was developed, the simplest means of putting an M203 on the gun was with the step cut. No one probably even thought of another means, or felt that the older system would suffice, until a newer one replaced it.

    Just recently, I read one of those trivia type emails, or what not, that traced the size of some part on the space shuttle, the rocket engine, I think, to the wheel base of a Roman Chariot! True or not, I don't know, but its not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

    Bob
    " Some people say..any tactic that works is a good tactic,...I say, anything can work once" former ABQ swat Sgt.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    At the risk of going off topic for a second-

    Quote Originally Posted by R Moran View Post
    Hey now! In the document, it clearly states the Army did not want the 3 round burst
    Hey now, I didn't say the Army wanted it, just that the Marines blame them for it. Guilt or innocence has no bearing on the placing of blame .

    I just read the .pdf linked by shep854 and all I can say is that it makes so much sense it is no wonder that everyone ignored it. Seriously. It pretty much called everyone out on the carpet and exposed their silliness. Rushing to buy unproven but promising items seem to be a hall-mark of the USMC acquisitions machine- from the A2 to MOLLE to the MTV, issues and band-aids keep popping up.
    (Don't get me wrong, the Army has made all kinds of silly errors as well.)

    I have some anecdotal data that indicates that the USMC was not as happy with the A2 as it would seem, but that whoever was in charge of the PIP simply removed the last page of the requested changes (which supposedly included the return to auto and shorter stock) and submitted it to stay under budget. While the information is anecdotal, it does come from a high source.

    Now, back to topic before I have to give myself a warning-

    I think that you are correct, Bob, with regard to 203 fastening to the barrel. It's frightening to think of the legacy interface and band-aid issues we are still dealing with when it comes to the platform. The problem seems to be that most people focus on the wrong problems instead of the critical ones and seek material solutions for training issues.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    1,132
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I don't think its really off topic as much as it is an offshoot of it.

    Why do some shooters like the M4 barrel? Leads to why the M4 barrel exists in the first place, which brings us to the institutional reasoning behind some systems component, out dated as they maybe.
    Also consider how many older systems are still around. So even with a better way to attach an M203, we still have A2's and new M4's in the system, so now we are at two different attaching systems, then when a new GL comes on line,.... and well you can see where this goes.

    To be fair also, the document recognized training shortfalls in the Army, but also realizes the challenges, what is now called the Big Army, has in training such large numbers of Soldiers.

    Notice how much of what they recommended in 1986(?) Has come to fruition in the M4?

    Bob

    ETA, notice a parallel with the uniform?
    Last edited by R Moran; 10-11-09 at 18:25.
    " Some people say..any tactic that works is a good tactic,...I say, anything can work once" former ABQ swat Sgt.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,427
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    As it is now, the 203 notch on the M4 is irrelevant with the ability to mount the grenade launcher directly to rails.

    I don't see why you find this to be beneficial as a rail mounted M203 hangs lower and makes the whole rifle/launcher combo more bulky than a barrel mounted M203 setup.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
    I don't see why you find this to be beneficial as a rail mounted M203 hangs lower and makes the whole rifle/launcher combo more bulky than a barrel mounted M203 setup.
    It is a little more bulky, but at least I can pop it on and off easily.
    I hate the 203. Even in the "slim" mounting method it is bulky and robs the shooter of the ability to really get busy with the rifle/carbine. I can go on and on about the damn thing, but to cut to the chase; a grenade launcher would be more effective as a stand-alone weapon stuck in a weapon catch (like a breaching shotty) for the infrequent times that inefficent HEDP is the answer or for illumination/marking (which are better performed by other solutions).
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,795
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by shep854 View Post
    School Circle, boots! Here's THE WORD!

    Back in 1975, when I was at USMC Officer Candidate School, we were issued M14s, and taught how to use the flash suppressor and front sight to break the wire binding C-Ration cases by combat vets.

    For whatever reason, when the Marines developed the -A2, they insisted on a thicker fore-barrel, while retaining the pencil profile under the handguards (the part, BTW, that bends under sling tension). This, presumably, was to accommodate the mounting for the M203, which was spec'ed for the M16A1 barrel profile.

    As an aside, here's an Army document giving their opinion of the USMC M16A2 changes:
    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

    A very interesting read.
    Alas! My eyes can see!

    Very interesting read indeed. In as much as all of the Army recommendations and training requirements, were completely ignored. Amazing. Thanks for the post shep.
    For God and the soldier we adore, In time of danger, not before! The danger passed, and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted." - Rudyard Kipling

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •