Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Carbines as Combat Rifles...


Lee..love the article...hate the debate(yep, I agree with the other guy)...keep me in the loop..

The debate over the replacement/improvement of the M4 is once again raging.

How the US Army settled on a carbine to arm the majority of its troops is beyond me. 

How the US Marine Corps is slowly adopting this "FASHION" trend annoys the hell out of me!

The latest debate is raging on the pages of DefenseIndustryDaily.  Read the whole thing but make note of the following passages...

The M4 Carbine is the Army’s primary individual combat rifle for Infantry, Ranger, and Special Operations forces (editors note...WHAT THE FUCK HQ's ARMY!!!  You're actually calling a Carbine a Rifle now???  SNAFU edit). Since its introduction in 1991, the M4 carbine has proven its worth on the battlefield because it is accurate, easy to shoot and maintain. The M4’s collapsible stock and shortened barrel make it ideal for Soldiers operating in vehicles or within the confines associated with urban terrain. The M4 has been improved numerous times and employs the most current technology available on any rifle/carbine in general use today.

and this...

“My unit – B Company, 2nd Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment – was deployed to Afghanistan from April 2005 to March 2006. While there, we were attached to Special Forces at Camp Tillman on the Afghan border…. I saw first-hand what happens when your weapon jams up because of the harsh environments we have to call home there. An 18B weapons sergeant was shot in the face due directly to his weapon jamming. I just can’t believe that after things like this happen, the Army is still buying more M4s.
I only have one thing to add to all this nonsense. 

We have a perfectly reliable. 

Superbly lethal. 

Highly effective Rifle in service right now. 

Its called the M-16A4.


If you like nomenclature games then add a sufficiently robust adjustable butt stock to it and call it M-16A5 but the  point is the Army attempted to fix something that wasn't broken all for style points.

Do remember that this was part of General Shinseki's attempt to "Special Op" the entire Army by giving them all berets and a cool Spec Ops rifle.

This from Wikipedia...
Prior to World War II, Army Ordnance began to see the full-size infantry rifle as unworkable as an individual weapon for the increasing proportion of service troops (truck drivers, supply personnel, radiomen, and linemen) as well as some specialist frontline troops who might need a handier weapon (paratroopers, officers, forward observers, medics, engineers and mortar crews). During prewar and early war field exercises, it was noticed that these troops, when issued the rifle, often found their individual weapon too heavy and cumbersome. In addition to impeding the soldier's mobility, a slung rifle would frequently catch on brush, bang the helmet, or tilt it over the eyes. Many soldiers found the rifle slid off the shoulder unless slung diagonally across the back, where it prevented the wearing of standard field packs and haversacks. Alternate weapons such as the M1911 pistol and M1917 revolver, while undeniably convenient, were often insufficiently accurate or powerful. The Thompson submachine gun was very effective in close-range combat but nonetheless heavy, limited in effective range (50–75 meters) and penetration, and not significantly easier to carry or maintain than the service rifle.
U.S. Army Ordnance decided that a new weapon was needed for these other roles but determined that a weapon for non-combat soldiers should add no more than five pounds to their existing equipment load.[1] The requirement for the new firearm called for a defensive weapon with an effective range of 300 yards, much lighter and handier than the rifle, with greater range, firepower, and accuracy than the pistol, while weighing half as much as the submachine gun. Another stimulus to the carbine's rapid development was a concern over Germany's use of glider-borne and paratroop forces to infiltrate and attack strategic points behind the front lines, forcing support units and line-of-communications forces into combat with the enemy.[2][3]

As a firearms instructor I follow loves to say...If your rifle is too heavy then you need to get stronger.  Our Infantry should get stronger and deal with the added ounces, range benefits and lethality that a full size rifle can bring to the fight.

Nuff said.  The real debate is over. 

6 comments :

  1. Holland completely overhauled and updated its Diemaco/Colt Canada C7's to this, (both 10 and 14,5 inch barrels) -

    http://i25.tinypic.com/111scn9.jpg

    All Dutch SOF have exchanged their C-8 carbines for HK-416 (standard issue) and 7.62mm HK-417s.

    P.S. You still have the coolest background/header pics Sol!

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree. 90% of the issues with the M4 with jams, lethality, and range are because its a carbine and not a rifle. These are issues the full length M16 barrel mitigates if not cures. I think what happened was the Army solved one problem, weight, by creating all these other problems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sol, I think you're confusing two issues here. Neither of the issues with the m4 are truly resolved by using the m16 - the two issues being reliability and stopping power.

    Additionally, a long arm rifle such as the m16 is less than ideal for CQB/MOUT, hence the m4 in the first place.

    The issue with the m4/m16 is the gas blowback system it uses, which recycles heat and residue back into the working parts, inserting dust and evaporating lubricant - so causing stoppages. The replacement of the gas blowback with a reciprocating piston system as with the HK416 removes this problem.

    The second issue is the question of whether or not the 5.56 round is combat effective at ranges longer than the 250m combat zone it was designed for, whilst m4 and m16's are commonly used at ranges exceeding 500m in Afghan. Now, this is an issue which the longer barreled m16 still doesnt really resolve and for which it is the round itself which is the potential problem. To solve this issue (if one considers it an issue) requires either the 7.62 or an intermediate 6.5/6.8mm round. A 20'' barelled m16 may give you slightly better accuracy and stopping power up to around 400m than a 14.5'' m4, but beyond this the 5.56 round simply is pushing its limits and you're dealing with luck more than ballistic science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think the idea to add collapsable stocks to M16s is a great idea--I've been saying that for a long time. Kill some weight and make the rifle more managable with armor.

    There are some great aftermarket stock kits available (Magpul) that could be cost effective.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A very good overview on Brazil`s new rifle. It is just in portuguese, though.

    http://www.forte.jor.br/2014/06/15/sistema-de-armas-imbel-a2/

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.