M4A1 Product Improvement Program

[TXF15crewchief]

M4A1+/PIP is still an ongoing program (for now anyway). What are some of the currently available/under development products that, if you were a part of the selection group, you believe would offer viable and worthwhile improvements? With the depth of knowledge and experience on this forum from a end user and maintenance/designer stand point, what would you want this carbine look like?

 

[Bronson]

I want a culture shift first. Training, Gunfighting, combat marksman courses and not just qualification.

Technical Stuff:

Quality Optics In Quality Mounts:

Quality Optics: Reliable RDS. Magnification capabilities in the form of Magnifiers or dedicated magnified optics. We need to PID before we can engage.

Quality Mounts: DX all ARMS mounts in the system and dump them all in front of ARMS HQ. Replace them with mounts that have superior zero retention and return to zero capabilities.

Quality Trigger: SSA or similar. SDM's & Snipers with an SSA-E or similar.

Rail System: Free float rail system that extends past the FSB.

Free Float should be the standard. Non-free float rails have no place on a combat carbine.

The bayonet requirement is woefully outdated and not in line with end user requirements. We need more rail space to place our hands and accessories, something that is difficult to do when confined to a 7" rail.

Bayonets are not trained on. They are not even issued out of arms rooms. Show me a bayonet charge in the last 100 years and I'll show you an element with poor leadership, accuracy, fire rates, and control.

Painted Weapons: Black weapons should be abolished. They serve no practical purpose. Camoflauge the weapon system to the AO.

So basically do what SF/SOF has been for years already. (Which should be the motto of PEO Soldier honestly.)

 

[TXF15crewchief]

I guess I'll pick your brain a bit then.

With regards to optics, have the current crop of variable low powered scopes such as the Leupold Mark 6 and the VCOG reached the point where it makes sense to issue them as a general purpose optic to Big Army? Or stick with RDS and have the option for a magnifier?

Additionally, are suppressors issued on a as needed basis or considered general equipment?

As far as free-floating handguards that are longer; will the requirement remain for a detachable bottom rail that allows attachment of a grenade launcher to the barrel, or is a M1913 compatible system the intention? I have little knowledge of the M320 outside of LAV videos, so I'm not certain of it's attachment requirements.

Finally, you mention training, which is very important, but I wonder if the question of actual scheduled inspections for maintenance have come up? I obviously am ground crew maintenance, but on aircraft and general support equipment, we have scheduled inspections after X-number of hours of use in addition to the normal pre and post equipment imspections. Would something adding a round counting device actually help, or would Joes break them and they become ignored and another useless addition to the rifle? I mean changing extractors and springs and bolts after X-number rounds as preventative maintenance seems like a good way to insure serviceability and reduce cost and failures that may cost someone their life.

Then again, I turn a wrench so maybe I'm just talking out of my, well you know...

 

[Bronson]

The variable power optics are there. I know a LTC who fielded MK6 optics to his GPF formation in OEF. The issue there is training, specifically using a different reticle & long range marksmanship. RDS & Magnifier is a good option as it utilizes something a Soldier is already trained on, but even then you find issues in Units where they are not zeroing them properly (issue we just saw they zero both in tandem first, so the T1 by itself will be off when the magnifier is flipped.)

Suppressors are considered special equipment, but can be procured by any Unit. Command teams just need to be briefed why they are needed - lethality, survivability is the way to do that along with hearing loss.

The M320 is designed to be used in standalone configuration. The main reason it was fielded to GPF to be attachable to the M4 FOW was because during initial testing Soldiers were bailing out of vehicles and leaving them behind at JRTC / NTC. So in lieu of leadership correcting a software problem, PEO Offices instituted a hardware fix which ultimately lessens the weapon system's capability. Most weapon systems should not be hung off the M4 as the weight and obtrusive penalties outweigh any potential gains. Far too many revert to Rifleman, a large reason is due to lack of small arms ranges that can incorporate 5.56 and 40mm concurrently. How many dudes in the Army have been on a range with an M4 and GL and were tasked with selecting which weapon to best use in various scenarios?

If it were up to me, all M320's would be in standalone configuration (and the Robocop leg stock left over from the medium velocity grenade requirement that was since stricken would be replaced with a lighter and less footprint of a design similar to the S&S Precision stock.) All M203's would be LMT M1913 rail attachment in lieu of bolting to the barrel.

Electronic round counters are not the answer. Too much money, more stuff hanging off a rail, breakage, et al. Issue a rite in the rain weapons maintenance log with each weapon system, track round counts that way, hold the individuals and leaders accountable for it and their weapon systems. We took the aviation method of tracking round counts vs. time / duration as it was a far better solution that yielded more gains.