Another article about the problems with the M4A1
But... this one has suggestions for improvement! Some spring replacements, a better gas block and tube than GI issue, and things are improved.
But what's a four-coil system?
replacing the extractor spring, ejector spring, gas tube and gas plug with more heat-resistant ones, and moving to a one-piece, four-coil system that was engineered from more thermally durable materials to make the gun function better.
Maybe they mean 4-rail.
And how do you know: "this extractor spring is GI and no good, this aftermarket spring, that looks EXACTLY like it, is the hotness and will work forever"?
I think they are talking about the one piece Mcfarland gas rings.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.midwayusa.com/Product/163933/dpms-bolt-gas-ring-mcfarland-1-piece-ar-15
The article is, frankly, shot thorugh with old (and out of date) information, inaccuracies, and basic technical errors.
ReplyDeletePlus, it tries to blame Colt for issues outside Colt's authority to address. If the acquisitions contracts says, "Build to this specification," and Colt says, "But we have a better idea that will produce a better rifle!", Colt is obligated to build it the way the Defense Department contract is written. Even if the DoD procurement contract specifies 45 year old specifications (as the M4 contracts do).
It's a matter of law, and Colt corporate officials (and any DoD acquisitions people who went along with it) can go to jail for defrauding the government if they deviate from the contract.
Colt has offered improvements and modifications to the M16 and M4 contracts from the very beginning -- only to have DoD reject most improvements until very recently.
The article also likes to throw rocks at Colt for. . . designing the M4 to be used in the manner the US Army specified it was going to be used, rather than in a manner that Colt told them it wouldn't take. The M4 was ALWAYS intended to be just a "Personal Defense Weapon" to replace the ancient M3 Grease Guns that tanbkers were still carrying, and replacing full size rifles in the hands of other support personnel whose mission profiles meant they needed a convienient PDW rather than a full fledged rifle as well. It was never intended to be a primary combat rifle for the Infantry, and it sure as Hell wasn't initially designed to be used in roles where purpose-designed GPMGs would overheat and fail (i.e., Battle of Wanat)!
I thought it was interesting this came out a few days before Colt announced it is buying LWRC. Anyone care to guess if the 6.8 is on the .mil's horizon (again)?
ReplyDeleteOn one hand I'd love 6.8 to be adopted, I could use cheap ammo!
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, what a nightmare for the log train if nothing else and even as a fan of the round I am not sure it's a big enough improvement for all of the pain it will cause.
I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money that the Colt/LWRC deal has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteEspecially since the primary source for the article is a guy who is now a full time employee of ADCOR, paid to shill their piston operated upper rifles.
Plus there is the fact that going to any other metallic cartridge, no matter how good, is simply a non-starter for teh forseeable future. For heaven's sake, we are reducing our Army to pre-WWII size, our Navy to pre-WWI size, and retiring proven, already in service, inexpensive to operate, effective platforms in the Air Force in exchange for "sometime in the near future, if nothing else goes wrong in the program" platforms that cannot do ANY of the missions as well as existing aircraft (and cost as much per aircraft, due to program issues, as the F-22s they were supposed to be the "cheap" alternative to).
You really think we are ready to effectively junk our current investment in rifles, carbines, and LMGs in favor of a round that, when looked at as a whole, provides no significant war winning advantage over the mountains of serviceable weapons and ammunition we already have in stores?!?