Just read this article: Weapons: More M4 Mutants Go To Work thought some here might find it interesting. Among other things it states: and *** edit for *** moderators: I wasn't sure if here or one of the sub forums was where this belonged. Feel free to move to a more appropriate place if there is one.
When I first saw this, I was thinking of the M4 Sherman tank..........that might be a little much for a pig, but it would be cool way too take care of em.
I read the article and it's got so many inaccuracies and errors I can't believe the Strategy Page actually put it up. It sounds like it was written by someone that really doesn't understand the subject matter.
Seconded...Where's the darn Sherman Tanks! Oh wait...There they are. The Sherman Tank Site | The place for all things Sherman Tank, By Jeeps_Guns_Tanks
Mind expounding on a few of them? I'm really a novice when it comes to this sort of thing (doubt I'm the only one here either). They are usually pretty good on such so knowing where they went wrong would be useful.
Where to start? "The SURG actually replaces most of an M4 rifle as it includes a barrel and stock thus each SURG costs over a thousand dollars." SURG, (Suppressed Upper Receiver Group) as the name itself specifies, replaces the upper receiver group (which includes the upper receiver and barrel) of the M4 and mates it to the lower receiver. It's half the rifle, not most. Because the SURG is a piston/recoil design the buffer assembly in the stock (attached to the lower) is eliminated. There are a number of stocks that will be available for use to include the MCX folding skeleton stock. (The folding or collapsable stocks are probably preferable but they're a little heavier and would have placed the system overweight, so the fixed skeleton stock is included in the contract price). M4's currently are fielded with a myriad of different stocks, and are easily swapped out, based upon mission profile. "SURG includes a 170mm (6.75 inch) barrel with a permanently attached suppressor." The contract they just signed specifies the barrel must be at least 11.5 inches. First Look - USSOCOM’s New Suppressed Upper Receiver Group (SURG) from SIG SAUER - Soldier Systems Daily "The new trigger would only be on M4s used by marksmen (about ten percent of all infantry) who are trained to be snipers." Designated Marksmen do not receive "Sniper" training, which is much more intensive, involves additional skill sets, extensive training in field craft, camouflage, focuses on longer range, precision slow fire, and function independently of regular infantry formations. Designated marksmen do receive additional marksmanship training in order to engage targets at a greater distance than the other members of the squad or section, normally in the 300 to 600m range. (The M4 is good out to about 300m, the M16 or M27 out to 500m) They are an integral part of the squad and function similarly to the grenadier or squad automatic weapons man, where they give the squad additional capabilities. They are tasked with and equipped to provide high volume, precision fires out to 600m. Targets at greater ranges are normally engaged by actual snipers. "In dusty places like Iraq and Afghanistan you have to clean your M16 and M4 rifles constantly, otherwise the combination of carbon (from the recoil system) and dust in the chamber will cause jams. The army and marines both decided to stick with their current weapons, rather than adopt an easier to maintain the weapon, like the XM8 or H&K 416, because of the billion or so dollars it would cost to switch rifles." Actually the Marine Corps has adopted the militarized version of the H&K 416, the M27 IAR for all its infantrymen. Cost is a factor, it is in all decisions, but that is not why the US Army passed on the XM8, which had it's own myriad of problems from an integrated reflex site that was often inoperative due to short battery life/high drain with no mechanical backup, to synthetic hand guards that melted from the heat generated by firing, being too heavy, and failing to meet developmental requirements. It also went with a manufacturer designated attachment system different from the MIL-STD-1913 rail attachment system (Picatinny rail) so the current inventory of attachments could not be utilized. They haven't adopted the M27/HK 416 because they feel that the 5.56 round is too limited in range and ability to defeat the newer generation body armors. The current generation of rifles are as good or better than those fielded by our enemies/potential enemies, so we still have time to look longer range. Since total replacement is not critical, they're focused on the next generation weapons systems, which at present looks to be a weapon probably cambering a 6.5mm cartridge. As for the M16, M4 comment, it does apply to the M16 and to a much, much lesser degree to the M4, but the problems had basically been resolved with the M16A1 through the M16A4. It was when the US Army decided to go service wide with a carbine (M4) instead of a rifle that the reliability problems again cropped up. This was because they modified the M16's DI gas tube system (20" barrel) to a much shorter length (14.5" barrel). By tapping the gas where they opted to they were pushing much hotter, much higher pressure gasses back on the bolt carrier and into the receiver (17,000psi in the carbine length tube vs 10,000psi in the rifle length tube). Naval Special Warfare Center-Crane did an extensive test on this last item. Modifying the gas tube system back to an intermediate length has been done on many versions of the weapon and virtually eliminates any problems. As an aside I find the Crane stock for the M16/M4 one of the most ergonomically pleasing of the many types available. Much of the article is a diatribe against the DI system vs the piston system. We've been down this road before. As the author states; "SOCOM can buy pretty much whatever they want, the U.S. Army cannot." SOCOM did the whole piston modification thing back in 2006/2007 or so. They did have fewer stoppages, though not markedly so. However, the unintended consequence was that while virtually all the DI stoppages were resolved in 10 seconds or less by the user, the piston stoppages tended to require complete disassembly by an armorer and were NOT clearable by the user. So what did SOCOM do? Went back to the DI system. They also noted a higher incidence wear and broken parts with the piston system. This should not be the case with the SURG because its piston system is a new system and not a redesign/modification of an existing system. "Most elements (except for the short stroke piston system) of the M4A1 were already incorporated by SOCOM for their own M4s" As one of the commenters on the article correctly noted, the M4A1 does NOT have a short stroke piston system, it's a DI system. There is much more, but I don't have the time to address them all.
I'll have to look at who wrote that (if they specified in that article and keep it in mind for the future. I have noticed something of a decline in the site over the last year or so. Thanks for your post.
No problem, I respect your habit of posting accurate, sourced information. I don't mind spending the time to answer you because I know it's not an exercise in futility. Trust me, I've learned a lot from you over my tenure here and honestly appreciate you!
Thanks both of you. This board has been a very good one for some time because most of the regulars are willing to learn as well as help others to do so. I try to live up to that. I think I succeed a good part of the time.
