The M-4 Carbine Is Here to Stay
Despite calls for replacement, the Army’s primary weapon isn’t going anywhere
https://warisboring.com/the-m-4-carbine-is-here-to-stay-fe9012f293f4#.6iywh9l79by KYLE MIZOKAMI
In the January issue of The Atlantic, retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales slammed the United States Army’s M-4 carbine, and called for an entirely new weapon in the hands of the modern American soldier.
Scales describes the 2008 Battle of Wanat—when the Taliban attacked a forward outpost defended by American troops—and his own experiences in Vietnam with faulty M-16 rifles.
In both instances, the M-16 and its descendant, the M-4 carbine, failed in battle and cost American lives.
As a historian and combat veteran, Scales makes valid points. His recommendation, that the Army replace the M-4 with a new weapon, is unnecessary. Much like the M-4 Sherman tank of World War II, the M-4 carbine is a compromise driven by the Army’s global responsibilities.
The M-4 carbine’s future replacement isn’t a new weapon.
The replacement for the M-4 carbine is an upgraded M-4 carbine.
Scales recites the long and tortured history of the AR-15 and M-16 series of rifles, of which the M-4 is a shorter, more compact version. Among other features, the M-4 features a shorter barrel for easier handling in tight spaces, such as inside vehicles and urban environments.
He cites a change in the gunpowder sent with the original M-16 during the Vietnam War as the cause of frequent jamming. Thin barrels also made the M-4 carbine prone to overheating in Afghanistan, particularly during the Battle of Wanat, in which several M-4s became unusable.
In the past, Scales has described the M-4 as “virtually useless” against enemies wearing body armor.
Finally, Scales faults the basic design of the M-16 family. Gas from the gunpowder explosion circulates back into the rifle, which cycles the weapon. But this also injects residue into the guts of the rifle, fouling the weapon at critical moments.
Scales also cites the need for a rifle that can shoot further—to improve an infantryman’s ability to engage the enemy at long ranges.
Such a weapon will need a heavier bullet and longer barrel. The rifle should also have a different operating system, ideally one in which gases push a piston that cycles the weapon, keeping most gunpowder residue out of the rifle’s internals.
Scales even suggests adding a ballistic computer to the rifle—to aid in long-distance aiming.
At top—Army troops train with M-4 carbines. Above—a U.S. Army paratrooper pulls security in Afghanistan with his M-4 carbine. Army photos
The go-everywhere Army
Unlike many armies, the U.S. Army deploys worldwide into every possible geographic setting and climate.
In the decades since adopting the M-16 series, the Army fought in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. It fought in jungles, deserts, cities, flat plains and rugged, high mountains.
One year, the Army has to fight in an environment more suitable for a full-size battle rifle, such as Afghanistan, and an urban environment that favors the smaller M-4—such as Baghdad—the next.
During the past decade, the Army had to fight in those two different battlefields … at the same time.
The possibility of fighting anywhere on the planet means there is no one-size-fits-all solution for the Army. Compromises are inevitable.
Other considerations drove the Army to the M-4.
READ MORE
