Army Times on the M4 and possible improvements
Article here. Proposals include:
• Adding a heavier barrel for better performance during high rates of fire.
• Replacing the direct-impingement gas system with a piston gas system.
• Improving the trigger pull.
• Adding an improved rail system for increased strength.
• Adding ambidextrous controls.
• Adding a round counter to track the total number of bullets fired over the weapon’s lifetime.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
All sound like good ideas except the round counter…who cares? The rifle either shoots well, or doesn’t. My .300 Win Mag precision rifle goes through barrels at a variable rate (1800-3000 rounds, so far) depending on factors I can’t quite fathom (I shoot the most accurate load I can work up for every barrel, but nothing outrageous).
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
What they NEED is a phased plasma adapter in the 40-watt range.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I believe that the technical term is “fun meter.”
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
So, Big Army wants an ACR? Why not adopt it and call it the M4?
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“All sound like good ideas except the round counter…who cares?”
Everyone in the Army maintenance system. If the army wants to know when to replace springs/barrels/bolts. in an M4 they currently have to use complete guesswork. They’re like to have an electronic device that both counts rounds and contains a brief maintenance history of the rifle.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Yeah, yeah, yeah — wake me up when the Army actually makes a change…’round about 2050 or so, assuming we’re not all living on “Waterworld” by then. Then the Army will just splatter a water-resistant finish on the M4 and call it a day.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Would the round counter differenciate between FA and SA fire? Two considerably different wear rates especially the barrel
Eagle 1
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“So, Big Army wants an ACR? Why not adopt it and call it the M4?”
i guess i was too slow to make this comment. Grrr!
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:24 pm
The trigger pull and heavier barrel (I suggest fluted for weight reduction) sound fine. Opt rod? Why not just NP-3 coat the bolt and parts. That seems to make a huge difference.
Round counter. Aw, comeone. What is it gonna attach to? The bolt? The bolt gets racked far more than it’s shot!
Don’t gold plate the rifle. KISS really is a good thing.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:41 am
How about replacing the extractor & spring, gas rings, ejector & spring, and their pins, more frequently?
Somebody —Farnam? I don’t recall— says these parts wear out earliest and cause the most grief to M16 operators. Consider that these parts are packed into a small assembly that is directly blasted with propellant gas, or the part itself is blasted with propellant gas.
Eyeballs can’t be trusted to pass or fail these parts. Just change them on a regular schedule.
I am not saying I’ve been there, done that. But enough folks with good reputation are saying to replace these eeentsy weeentsy key parts often. Has it been tried?
November 24th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Round counter. Aw, comeone. What is it gonna attach to? The bolt? The bolt gets racked far more than it’s shot!
Not to mention that it needs to differentiate between blank and ball. (And maybe tracer as well.)