M4 Weapon System
 

Ok Sluggos, tell me everything I need to know about the current M4 weapon system - to include optics.

Issued or aftermarket?

TR

18X 18B wannabes Sir.

Issue.

Claro, Sargento!

Backing out.

TR

LOL - just trying to stir up a little hip-pocket training Boss. Don't go far...

NDD,
The M4 is a gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, shoulder fired weapon with a collapsable stock. It is a smaller version of the M16, and has apporoximately 80% of the same parts as the M16. It fires the standard NATO 5.56 round. The M4 was first issued in 1994.
It's length varies between 29.4 inches and 33 inches depending on if the stock is collapsed or extended.
The weight without magazine is 5.9 lbs and with a fully loaded magazine is 6.9 lbs.
The barrel length is 14.5 inches.
The muzzle velocity is 2900 ft/sec.
It possessives a NATO m1913 flat-top rail for attachment of optical sights. The issued rear sight is a M16A4 target style sight adjustable for windage and elevation to 600m.
The effective range is 600m.
It can accept the M203 grenade launcher.
The magazine for the M4 holds 30 rounds.

I got google too.

Tell me more.

Deleted due to lack of SA.

Bob:

You are barely old enough to own a rifle, and you live in a state where it is probably illegal to own an M-4.

The question was directed at 18Bs, which you are not.

What you are parrotting is what you read, saw, or heard, not what you know. Please keep in your lane and comment on your personal experience.

I don't need to see pictures of AF pogues posing with PJs weapons, gangsta style. We have our own pics of US with our weapons, downrange.

Mark LaRue does not make a red dot sight, he makes mostly mounts and targets.

Have a very SF day.

Apologies to NDD for stepping on the thread again.

TR

I wish my M4 weighed 5.9 pounds...not 15.9.

Guess I just need to get stronger...:lifter

:p

It's an M16A2 style sight.

The Army used the M4 for almost a decade without having a round suited for it's barrel length and twist, giving the "ice pick" effect up hitting a human target. Only recently did the Mk 262 give adequate lethality. Just in time for SOCOM to select a new rifle.:confused:

It has a chrome-lined bore, and modified feed ramps cut into the upper...

Current M4 is 3rd burst, M4A1 has the fun button....

Original ones used the A2 upper receiver...

It's early on saturday. I'll come up with some better stuff once I've had my coffee.

It is now Wednesday. :munchin

Ghost Recon came out for XBOX 360 this week. My priorities have shifted from real weapons to digital ones.

There's some grand iriony in a 10 year old playing as an SF guy slaying a bunch of real SF guys online...

I don't know any SF guys with the spare time to play online games.

Are you sure?

TR

I wish I didn't have time boss. There's about 20 of us sitting here at SWC waiting for DA to get our orders to us so we can go to group. I've been sitting here since November 2005, healthy as a horse, chomping at the bit. Last thing I wanna do right now is sit here playing games when I could be going to schools or on deployment. If it wasn't for some of the folks I've met here and at SOCnet, I doubt anyone we'd be going anywhere in the next 6. Hopefully that all sorted out, though.

ETA: It was an SF guy from 3rd group that told me to buy the game...they were glad to have something to replace HALO 2, said it was getting boring.

M-4
 

Right before I retired (was at SFAUC) we went to West Point to shoot with their Pistol Team. We put them thru CMMS and CQB. They were only in their 2nd year there. After two weeks with us they all wanted to go SF. We met the Team who was making the Army Video Game. They asked my opinion. I told them when the men are moving or running in the game the sights need to move or get bigger. Make it more difficult to shoot when the heart rate is up. They actually put it in the game. War is no game but I would never say that the realism of some games out there for computers (X-box/P-Station are garbage). It's just like Simmunitions. A training tool.
Doc...About the M-4 I am not a qualified Armalite Tech.

Reaper

I noted your quote "I don't need to see pictures of AF pogues posing with PJs weapons, gangsta style." and agree, but I've seen plenty of "pogues" in the SF world too...to the point we used to call SF "So Fat". All services have their pogues and AF does not corner the market on them...can we agree on that?

I'm fairly sure you did not imply all AF who are armed are "Pogues" did you?

Gunpig

Reaper had a a concern about one of my comments, which came out wrong cause I'm a dumbassed cherry. I addressed it and we can now move with the topic at hand. Oh yeah, take cover...

M4Guru

Your youth is very obvious.

Years of actual miltary training and exposure will define who you are and what you stand for. Fact is, any SNCO who does not stick up for his troops...regardless of the service branch they serve...is a sack of shit. In viewing many of the Reapers's posts on this site, I believe he is a professional, and accepts that tact...but I suppose we will see.

It's a joint world out there...and getting more joint every day. When someone makes a general "supressive fire" statement concenring someone else's troops, I request clarification.

Gunpig

I was just wanting to steer the topic back to where it belonged, the M4 carbine.

Don't pretend to know me, how youthful I am, or anything about me. You don't. I have quite a bit of "military training and exposure". I have led troops in combat. I am an NCO, and I would never fail my guys if they needed sticking up for. I don't think all AF guys are pogues personally, I'm lucky enough to know a lot of great ones. NDD wanted to know about the rifle, let's keep it to that. I like this forum because it's not 5 pages of pissing contests in each thread. If you have any more issues with how you think I view the world, PM them to me.

GP:

This is not a pissing contest about the services, and will not last long as such. Hope you did not come here to look for fights.

Perhaps you are confusing Special Forces with Security Forces? Surely you can't be comparing the physical conditioning of SF soldiers to AF personnel? Having served in two joint headquarters, I have to tell you, that is pretty funny. Love the once a year walking PT test!

The Air Force is an air service. This is a ground war. All services do have their pogues, but the war right now is being fought on the ground by the Army and Marines. We are paying the price. The air campaign is over and the AF is a supporting service at this point in the war. Those delivering ordnance in the cause on the enemy, regardless of branch of service are no more pogues than our own artillerymen.

AFSOC personnel are doing a great job. The AF as a whole has a disproportionate percentage of tail to teeth as compared to the Army. A quick look at the casualty figures will tell you who is involved and taking risk in personal combat.

Being armed is a condition of supply. Being a warrior is not. If you aren't issued a weapon, there is a reason for that, and yes, I think that pretty much qualifies you as a pogue.

Nothing wrong with being a gas pumper or an admin clerk. We have those too. Be the best cook or clerk in the service. Just don't try to beg a gun off of someone who uses it and pose for cool photos like you are a real gunslinger. Next thing you know, you are showing those pics to the local paper back home and giving interviews.

If you have to borrow a gun to look cool in a photo, IMHO, you are a pogue and a poser. If you think that holding two rifles makes you twice as cool, you are an idiot. I have a lot of PJ and CCT friends who are warriors. If I were to stand beside an AC-130 in a flight suit for a photo, that would not make me a pilot, or even a nav. If I told people that I was, I would be a pogue and a poser. Now a nice pic of me doing a dive off the ramp at altitude, at night, kitted up, would be very cool.

Hope that clears my comments up for you. Did you have anything to add to the M-4 discussion?

Have a very SF day.

TR

Reaper

Thanks for the reply...we are on the same sheet...no urinary Olympics here. Everyone has their fair share of "wannabes" and I acknowledge that. We also have operators who want to "force hero" themselves also...very dangerous...and worse than pouges if they are in a leadership postion.

As for AF PT, it's more active now...the "joke bike" test is gone; replaced with a 1.5 mile run, push-ups, crunches, and a tape measurement. Individual units have more stringent standards also...but that issue does not relate to the M4topic...so I will check fire on this topic.

Gunpig

What do I know about the M4?

• It dislikes most ammunition save M855 Penetrator - we tried UK L2A2 and it gets gas stoppages every 5 rounds
• Without all the crap people add to it, it weighs in at a comfortable carry weight
• Adding an M203 and an Aimpoint optic is a great combination; why bother with the other crap?
• The M4A1 has an improved handguard, because SF in the US claimed the M4 handguard was getting too hot. Perhaps, therefore, the user should be managing his rate of fire more effectively and not bursting.
• Everyone is now copying the M4 design
• There is a lot of concern about the wound ballistics of the M4 at medium ranges (200m+) and in Afghanistan the weapon has no place in the mountains (the barrel is too short and you need a rifle)
• The 16" barrel Diemaco is ten times better, if a little heavier. It was the choice of UK SF over the M4 (too expensive and not as good), the G36 and SG550 (side folding stocks don't work for us).
• The rail interface system enables the user to add far too many 'accessories' that add weight, throw out the balance and get in the way.
• Too many soldiers now carry M4/M4A1s in Iraq, who should have the M16A2/3/4 rifle (they are Infantrymen afterall).

Personal opinion - it's my weapon of choice over most every other weapon available for its versatility, compactness and reliability. Unfortunately, we thought that Colt had slipped in its quality assurance - thus we chose the Diemaco.

Sorry Colt - thus ended a relationship with the AR15/M16 family back to 1960 when we had them for Borneo. I think the British Army may have had the AR15 before the US Army - isn't that a strange quirk of events?

Your comments would carry more weight if we knew what your background was. Your list also reads more like what you think than what you know.

My M4s have run fine with all of the ammo I have used except for the Wolf. I have shot about a dozen M193 variants, the M855/856, the Mk 262, four match loads, and roughly ten civilian types without a problem. I have not fired any L2A2.

I bother with other "crap" because it gets dark and we have to enter buildings with darkened interiors. We may also want to designate a target, use night vision, or illuminate with IR light. Frequently, I prefer the Trijicon ACOG over the Aimpoint if engagement ranges are likely to exceed 200 m.

You are wrong about SF requiring the double-heatshielded handguards, I do not know where you got that. Thank you for your fire control advice.

Search this site for 5.56 terminal ballistics info if you are interested. The limited range of the M-4 and the M-855 is well known, and has already been discussed, ad nauseum.

You want the Diemaco, fine, I am no fan of Colt's current production either, but I would like to see you quantify the "ten times better" statement. I prefer a hammer forged barrel like the FN variants have, or better yet, the HK 416.

The rail interface is not the problem, leadership is.

The M-4 is superior to the M-16 for CQB and for mounted soldiers. The majority of our engagements in Iraq have been MOUT, not mountain to mountain. In Afghanistan, you may be right.

I think that most of us here would prefer the HK 416 to the M-4, and either to the SA80.

TR

TR;
I usually stay out of the "pipeline" forum...but wanted to comment since others are weighing in.
-Ammo: as you've found - it pretty much digests it all, the only considerations I usually take concerning selection is what effect do I want on the terminal end...only real problems I've had were with the old keyhole effect you could get from destabilized bullets if the wrong round/barrel twist combo was in play (NB: this was still not a problem at CQC/MOUT engagement range)

-Rail "crap": RGR...I'm from the era when we had to attach Maglites with Hose clamps to our weapons. Vectoring an Apache's gun onto a building/tgt without firing tracers to direct fire makes those small LTDs on the rails is a godsend as well...I don't like people knowing where my OP is at:D

-M4/M16 range: having just a few cbt tours with this weapon system I can say that back in the first gulf war (we had CAR15s) our engagement ranges were as far as 500m and the aimpoint dot covered a good portion of a mans torso - but we were taking 'em out quite well...In my experience during the latest round of tours we have gotten plenty of killing done at range with this system (400-600m) due to squeezing out the wpns capability w/improved sights - the full length m16 is more stable, has alonger barrel and all the advantages/disadvantages that brings(more range etc) but the M4 will more than do the job...beyond the 'average" engagement ranges you may as well switch calibers and plan accordingly...

There was atime when a guy would give his left nut to have CAR15...now every swinging dick has one (M4 is still a CAR15 to me, albeit improved) - and that is absolutely awesome.

regards,
1-0

I agree wholeheartedly that SA80 is an awful weapon; I've suffered it since 1987 when we received them in Northern Ireland and were told to hand in our SLRs and the M16A1/M203 over and unders we carried in South Armagh. No one wanted to give up the 203s, because SA80 did not come with a grenade launching option - it took 5 years before a muzzle launched grenade was introduced and those played hell with the weapons.

Why is the Diemaco 10x better than the M4: Quality and the Barrel. Indeed the superficial design of it is highly similar, the differences appear once you get inside the weapon and look at the features package. Diemaco had made M16 lookalikes under license for years, but they tore that weapon apart and understood its flaws; which were at a core engineering level. Indeed the majority of the features that Colt 'borrowed' to add onto the M4A1 SOPMOD were already on the Diemaco, which was why it was 10x better.

The ammunition problem with L2A2: propellant shape. Do you recall the scandal when the M16 was issued for the first time and the Government changed the propellant specifications, resulting in carbon deposits inside the rifle and the subsequent nightmares of un-clearable stoppages? When we received the M4, we didn't get the information that it dislikes L2A2 Ball (UK Governemnt issue). On a task in Africa we were cursing the M4s because of the gas stoppages; we changed the gas rings in the bolt and it became marginally better, but the ejected cases were limping out of the receiver.

The problem was fired at the Boffins, who concluded it was the ammunition because when you fed it M855 it fired all day.

Now unlike the US where numerous brands of ammunition fly around, we go with what we get and if that was L2 we were screwed.

I agree with your comment vis a vis the ACOG; UKSF chose this over the Aimpoint for a simpler reason - batteries.

I disagree with your comments regarding rifle use in MOUT, unless your soldiers have a rifle available as well? M16 Rifle is not a long weapon, and to qualify I'd like to point out that in Berlin the British Army we regarded as the masters of MOUT - everyone would come to see the skills and train with us. Berlin, at that time during the cold war, was our MOUT honing ground and we trained incessantly using SLR; some people had Sterling SMG but given that the range envelope might be 5 metres to 500 metres we needed a rifle.

The same situation exists in Iraq now.

Check your PM's Barney.

Also - word of advice, LISTEN to what those who run this place ask of you.

It seems that you know some "stuff" but what you do know doesnt seem to balance out.

Lets chat on PM huh.

I'm not an 18b, or an 18 series for that matter, however, since I'm all about learning things, I went researching on the M4 to find out more that what I knew about the weapon (which is relavtively little, given the very small amount of time in which I've held or fired one.)

so here's what I found.

that the M4 fires the 5.56x45mm NATO round, which is equivalent to the .223 remington round; its weight without the magazine is 5.9 pounds, with an empty 30 round magazine it weighs around 6.15 pounds, with a full 30 round magazine it weighs around 6.9 pounds; with the stock retracted its about 29.8 inches in length, and without the stock retracted its 33 inches in length; it has a 14.5 inch barrel length. The bore characteristics are as follows; hard chrome lined; 6 lands and groves; 1 twist in 7 inches going to the right hand. Its gas operated with a locking bolt. the muzzle velocity is 2900 ft/sec; the muzzle energy is around 1645 Joule. It has an effective range of 600 meters, adjustable front sight, adjustable rear size for windage and elevation to 600 meters. the sight radius is 14.5 inches; the cyclic rate of fire is 700-950 rpm; it has safe, semi, and full auto/burst selector switch (depending on "A" model).

that's about it.

if I'm not suspossed to be posting here, then sorry, I was just posting info that I learned, and if anything, at least now I know it.

I better start learning something I don't know from the Sluggos on here or there's going to be a batch of banned asses...

Just kidding, I would never do that, just ask anyone that knows me.

Refreshing the topic . . .

Counselor:

Do you want to discuss M-4 optical issues on this thread, or do you have a separate question?

TR

I am just reading. Refreshed the topic in response to NDD's post.

Just which of us "Sluggo's are you referring to Sarn't. :D

Crip

I don't specify Sluggos. They all come from the same puddle.

I will get right on the request Doc, as soon as I am done learing how to fix my team mates, LBG's, and anyone else that may need it, as well as learning to teach the rest of the Sluggo's how to fix themselves and me, in the event I need a medic. lol. :lifter

Crip

Don't forget...fighter first, fixer second. ;)

My background:

Basic Soldiering Skills with MOUT, M4, Confidence Training, and other Basic Soldiering Task Training. That's my extent.

I've trained on the M4A1, M249 SAW (Airborne Varient) M203, MK-19, and M240B.

But my training is only towards BASIC Soldiering Skills.

But my question on the M4A1, is there any way in which you can modify the barrel to increase the accuracy of it, without lengthening it? (I know that for every inch, it makes that many more rotations in the chamber, increasing spin of the round, and accuracy of the bullet.)

And also, are there any magezine modifications that would be a NO-GO for an M4? (Such as making an extended Mag etc. etc.?)

Frankly, your nomenclature and understanding of the weapon is atrocious. Where have you received your basic military education? Bullets do not rotate in the chamber, increase spin, or necessarily improve accuracy in a longer barrel.

First, the shooter needs to be able to outshoot the issued rifle and ammo. If not, the rest of this is a waste of ammo, and frankly, most soldiers cannot shoot better than the rifle as issued.

IF you were able to shoot better than the system would allow, a limited number of shooters would benefit from:

1. Use better ammo.

2. Freefloat the handguards.

3. Install a better trigger.

4. Install and train on magnifying optical sights

5. Install a longer barrel to increase muzzle velocity and thus have a flatter trajectory with less compenasation or hold over required.

Longer mags mean more weight, increased feeding problems, reduce your ability to get into a low prone, get caught while getting in and out of vehicles, doing CQB etc. IMHO, a good shooter should not have a problem going 30 rounds between reloads. The M-16 and M-4 users are riflemen, not SAW gunners.

HTH.

TR

Sights
 

I came across this alternate back up sight for the M4/M16 series rifles that after some practice looks promising.
http://www.championgunsights.com/Gunsights_News.htm
Although this may be old news to those of you who attend the SHOT shows (unfortunately I do not meet any of the criteria to attend these :boohoo).
There are also other tritium infused sights on the market such as the sets seen here
http://www.midwayusa.com/rewriteaproduct/428560
and http://www.xssights.com/store/tactical.html

Or a gas piston upper. I think the GPU will keep the M4 in the running long after we are gone

Weight of the M4?
 

Question for those who operate the M4 etc...

I've noticed the SOPMOD has a crap load of accessories, are all of them actually needed?

What i mean is, the M4 already weighs roughly 7lbs...

And to my knowledge (and experience on this one) the more stuff you mount onto your M4, the more and more it weighs...

I've always been told best set-up, is an ACOG or Reflex, flashlight, front grip, and that was the max extent you go...

But from what I've noticed with the SOPMOD, there are a lot more things that are put onto the M4...

I have no experience using an M4 with anything else, other then the above listed items... So I have no experience witha ny of the other gadgets...

But is the extra weight actually worth it? And do all of the extra items really make the M4 that much better? NOT talking smack or anything, just wondering about the opinions of those on the board...

Because too my knowledge, it's possible to rack up an M4 to weigh around 30+lbs if enough accessories are added to it... (I've got a pic, I'll see if I can find it... But it essentially was a joke a friend sent me, it's of an M4, with an M203, front grip, five different kind of sniper scopes, two different types of ACOGs, bayonet, two different kinds of flashlights, and the list goes on.... I'll see if I can find it... But it is that pic that got me thinking....)