FEATURE: M4 HISTORY

M4 HISTORY

IT IS BY FAR THE MOST COMMON, AND MOST POPULAR, AEG IN AIRSOFT, IT’S ALSO ONE OF THE MOST WIDELY CRITICISED. SO THIS MONTH, AS MUCH TO SLAKE HIS OWN CURIOSITY, FRENCHIE DELVES INTO THE HISTORY OF THE M4, WHY IT HAS LASTED AS LONG AS IT HAS, AND WHY IT’S PROVING DIFFICULT TO REPLACE.

Every manufacturer will have a host of these in their line up and you can spend from ‘not much’ right up to ‘small car’ sorts of money on them. I am of course referring to the ubiquitous M4 carbine. I have been as guilty as any gun snob of slagging them off but the truth is that they are still one of the easiest long arms to carry and use despite the design being decades old. Even the US Army has the same problem; despite several trials over the years they have failed to find an alternative which offered a significant improvement over their current issue weapon.

FROM GENESIS...

The genesis of what would become the M4 rests firmly with the original M16 rifle. Early attempts to produce a carbine resulted in the CAR-15 series of rifles which sported a 10 inch barrel - half that of the rifle. This made for a very compact weapon but did nothing for accuracy and resulted in massive muzzle flash as the barrel was too short to permit all the power to burn within it. This latter problem was addressed by fitting increasingly large flash hiders, epitomised by the suppressor-like muzzle device found on the XM177-e2.

The name, CAR-15, (Colt Automatic Rifle 15) was an ultimately futile attempt by Colt to associate themselves with the AR series of rifles they produced for the US Army rather than the original manufacturer, Armalite. The term CAR-15 however did become synonymous with all the shortened M16 rifles produced prior to the development of the M4, so you will see the term applied to a number of weapons, some of which were used for decades by various branches of the US military.

It wasn’t until 1982 that the US Government requested that Colt design a carbine based on the M16a1. This resulted in the XM4, with the Picatinny Arsenal producing 40 prototypes. Originally this was a joint program between the US Marines and Army, however the Army withdrew their funding leaving the Marines to request 892 units in 1987 and designating it “Carbine, 5.56mm. M4”. The Army didn’t show any interest in the carbine until after the 1991 Gulf War when it placed orders with Colt for M4 carbines and M4A1 variants for their special forces. The Army’s experience in Somalia in 1993 seems to have prompted greater interest in the shorter rifle as Rangers complained that their M16A2 rifles proved unwieldy in urban warfare. By 2005 the M4 had, by and large, replaced the M16 series in the hands of forward-deployed troops. Despite championing the carbine at first, the Marine Corps would not officially replace its full-length rifles with carbines until 2015.

TO REVELATION

The original M4 had a two-piece receiver, with the fixed carry handle of the earlier M16A1 variants and with a safe-semi-three-round burst trigger group. Experience had shown that some improvements were required and in 1991 the M4A1 variant was introduced. This featured the now familiar removable carry handle, a heavier barrel profile and a safe - semi - full auto trigger group. It was found that the S1F group gave a more consistent trigger pull than the earlier burst variant, thus improving accuracy. The heavier barrel increased barrel life and allowed the use of additional ammunition types which exhibited higher chamber pressures. Although these changes had in

large part been driven by the demands of the various Special

Forces groups within the US Military, by 2011 a program was underway to upgrade some 300,000 M4 carbines to the M4A1 specification. Since 1994, the M4 carbine has undergone some 90 modifications to address issues and to improve functionality, resulting in the weapon currently fielded by all branches of the US military.

Unlike it’s progenitor, the M16, the M4 hasn’t had to face the early problems which blighted the roll out of the longer rifle. This resulted in a carbine which has a reputation for reliability and flexibility and which has received exceptionally high ratings in the 2006 report compiled by the Centre for Naval Analyses which was based on feedback from over 2000 personnel who had used the weapon in theatre. Reliability, accuracy and the ability to easily resolve stoppages featured highly amongst users, nearly all of whom were satisfied that the weapon was one upon which they could rely. Of course, this doesn’t stop the onward march of progress and many voices both within and without the military have proposed improvements or replacements for the current carbine. One consistent feature of these suggestions is the move to a gas piston system to replace the ‘sort of’ direct impingement system designed by Gene Stoner for the original Armalites. In theory, a gas piston system, as used in the HK 416 family, has a number of advantages but the Army’s testing also identified a number of potential problems, some of which would make the resolution of stoppages difficult or impossible for troops in the field as they required the services of an armourer. As currently fielded, most stoppages can be dealt with quickly by the user without recourse to special equipment. I’ll return to this issue of ‘improvements’ at the end of this article.

Airsofters are very familiar with the seemingly infinite variety of M4 carbines available; in military use there are fewer varieties but there is no question that the M4A1 is a singularly flexible platform which can be deployed in anything from a fully tricked out form by Special Forces, or as a far simpler weapon for basic infantry use. It is this flexibility I suspect which has made it difficult for the US military to replace it, although they regularly look at alternatives to their current carbine. This brings me back to the question of improvements. Over decades of service, the vast majority of problems, niggles and preferences have been resolved on the M4 platform. This has resulted in a weapon which is sufficiently accurate, robust and flexible to continue to meet the Army’s needs. Since replacing a weapon system is an expensive undertaking, doing so has to show beyond doubt that there are significant improvements to be had - and at present those improvements simply aren’t there. There are many theoretical issues with the current M4A1 weapons, but the fact remains that the troops who carry it seem happy with it and it’s performance. A change to the standard ammunition does not necessarily mean a change to the standard rifle, and even such mooted changes as the 6.5mm or 6.8mm rounds can be handled by rebarreling existing weapon stocks. Rifles such as the H&K 416 may well find favour with Navy SEALs, but that doesn’t mean that they offer significant advantages to the average Marine or infantryman over their current kit.

The US Military finds itself equipped with an effective, reliable and generally well-liked weapon which has repeatedly proven itself in conflicts around the world. It is unlikely that we will see a replacement for it until there is an overwhelming argument for doing so.

The AR-15 series of rifles have been plagued by a myth of unreliability which has its origins in Vietnam. I have written before about why these arose, and none of them have anything to do with the gun itself, rather they were the direct result of appalling (some might argue criminal) decisions made by the US Army at the time of its introduction. In some respects the M4A1 is the ultimate realisation of Stoner’s vision and although we tend to still see it as a new-boy when compared to the AK, the fact is that it is a better, more flexible and more reliable all round weapon than it’s venerable rival and still holds its own against most if not all currently fielded military rifles. Even I have to stop being a Soviet-favouring snob sometime and simply recognise that the M4A1 is still a great rifle!.AA