How the M4 Evolved and Could Stay in Service till 2040

First 1,000 People Get a Free Month to Skillshare: skl.sh/taskpurpose02221
The US Army is working to upgrade their M4 instead of replacing it with the 6.8mm NGSW possibly. Should we stick with the M4A1 with its full send features and new reliability instead of switching?
Follow Cappy: / cappyarmy
Discord invite: / discord
#M4 #USARMY #MILITARY

[@Taskandpurpose]

Thanks for watching Spare Parts Army! The first 1,000 people to use the link get 1 month free trial of Skillshare: skl.sh/taskpurpose02221

[@trooperodst6880]

Nyet rifle is fine.

[@reserva120]

hints of knife man:).. great Job..

[@holeshotshane6344]

14:09 big ass Samoan dude makes that M4 look like an SBR lol

[@brad506th]

Aint broke, dont fix it. Rifle kill just fine. Not killin enough? Use a heavier and/or hotter bullet.

[@ejharvey2764]

This will be like what happened in WW2. The U.S. Army did not want to change the size of the round because they had tons of .308 left over from WW1. I think going to happen is that the NGSW will be heavily tested with Special forces. Then, the "NEW" M4-A1 upgrades will still use 5.56 for standard infantry. A mass change will happen when the time is "right," and multiple NATO members will change to 6.8mm

[@the3rdid485]

Honestly the fact that Colt had the sole weapons contract with the worlds largest military for almost 100 years, made almost zero improvements to the rifle to help that military, and then went bankrupt almost immediately after losing the contract (saved up zero money, expanded none, and didn't innovate shit.)shows that they're a horribly mismanaged company and thank god they're not my involved in this anymore.

[@ElGranDoTe1]

And what reliance on "funny" Gov tenders do.

[@Isometrix116]

More like 60 than almost 100 years

[@LuvBorderCollies]

Bankruptcy has been Colt's middle name since 1836.

[@davyjones8921]

Colt is now owned by CZ

[@TJSATAN]

I am not sure that zero improvements is accurate. Colt being the sole contractor isn't accurate either. Many of the guns fielded by our guys are contracted and built by FN herstal and obviously we have A1s A2s M4s the LE guns. Colt has done a lot of different things to help mold the platform into the modular "Barbie doll for men" it currently is.

[@justinhansen1328]

It's interesting to see the M4's modernization happening now, probably should have happened a bit earlier.

[@joshuajoaquin5099]

we already did long ago after M16A1 was introduced

[@frankdamsy9715]

A lot of it is happening now because of the renewed civilian intrest in the AR15. Those civilian improvements are spilling over to the military

[@iKAZAKHSTANgaming]

@@frankdamsy9715 Especially in upper receivers of a GI Block 1 vs a civilian's Block 3

[@Martin.2]

The Acog and Foregrip will always have a place in my heart

[@tristanc3873]

Well, whats 'good enough for government work' differs when the target we plan on using the gun on changes from an untrained Afghan dirt farmer, to a trained PLA/Russian soldier and their combined arms.

[@johntack1049]

M4 is like a humvee. Started out a capable package as is, but then people decided to load it down with all this weight. It became front heavy and cumbersome. It started shooting rounds and doing tasks it wasn’t designed for. Finally, it has started to get better with lighter parts and smaller attachment methods. Different uppers entirely.

[@tomschmidt381]

Interesting hearing about the M4 problems, epically jamming. I was an avionics tech back in the late 1960s during the transition from the M14 to M16. It appears some things never change.

[@blackcatgats]

3:30 The main purpose of the moderator wasn’t to reduce sound, but more to increase back pressure to make the gun more reliable. Short barrel ARs like the xm177 have a very short dwell time and they needed a way to get more gas into the action to cycle the bcg.

[@lucistired]

The Forgotten Weapons video on this weapon said it was to make it sound more like an AK, which it effectively does until it's had a few thousand rounds run through it

[@hairydogstail]

No it wasn't, The long flash suppressor was a light noise suppressor to match the report of the 20" barrel. The small internal suppressor became useless after a small round count as the internals filled with carbon mitigating any noise suppression..

[@rogermcbadlad2812]

Honestly if the Army upgraded the gas system to be a longer one like the mid length and free floated the hand guards the M4A1 would already be that much better.

[@blackcatgats]

@@hairydogstail exactly, hence it wasn’t really used as a suppressor

[@blackcatgats]

@@rogermcbadlad2812 or develop a robust adjustable gas block

[@Rudizel]

The biggest problem with the m4 was that the ones we got were so worn down from being issued over and over. The amount of play between the receivers was absolutely insane. Another major issue was the absolutely crappy beat to hell magazines, that is where majority of malfunctions originated from. It was so bad that we started buying our own magazines and having them shipped to us. The 6000 round limit was never observed, we would put 500 rounds through the gun in a single range day and being infantry we did a lot of ranges. My personal “m4” guns that are assembled with high quality materials from reputable manufacturers are a night and day difference from what i ran in the military.

[@thatrealba]

When I was a unit armorer I took a hammer to so many sh*t magazines. The company commander and First Sergeant came back to see what the frick was up and why so many new magazines were being requisitioned. They were pretty pissed. They walked away from my armory no longer pissed when I calmly asked if they would rather write letters for deceased soldiers in the next deployment due to sh*t magazines, or spend a bit of money on some damn magazines. Then I continued hammering away at magazines.

[@doyoumakeittotheclouddistr4132]

With our 2nd amendment laws idfk why they dont issue a new one for each soldier and let them take said rifle home after their individual service so we dont have used armaments lying around waiting to malfunction when they need to work. They are relatively not that expensive, any American can fucking afford one.

[@jrodproductionstudios9587]

@@doyoumakeittotheclouddistr4132 agreed, letting soldiers keep issues weapons would also bolster recruiting stats. And so far in countries like Switzerland that do just that, there indicates no rise in crime associated with said weapons

[@tackytrooper]

@@doyoumakeittotheclouddistr4132 There are too many people in high places in the government and military that believe guns have no place in the hands of anyone not wearing a uniform, even veterans, i.e. they actively hate the 2A. Maybe 70 years ago a policy like this could have had traction. Now, they are too busy treating soldiers like 6 year olds to do anything to bolster traditional American culture.

[@josephrogers8213]

@@doyoumakeittotheclouddistr4132 no one would reenlist

[@jasondufresne7005]

I had a weapon modified from M4 to M4A1 and had a chance to qualify with it on both sides of the modification. The rifle was more accurate after. Tighter groups for sure. Of course that may simply be because it was a new barrel and fire control group.

[@Theshadoow666]

You know your shit 💯💯

[@williampinner1893]

The 4" extention on the comando carbine actually is clasified by ATF as a sound suppressor. It changed the report of the carbine but also helped the weapon to cycle properly by holdind the preassure longer.

[@ludewigmariendorf268]

If I remember right, from Chris Bartocci of Small Arms Solutions, the M4 was supposedly designed to be a sort of rear-echelon carbine but somehow it's been used as the primary rifle for the frontlines. It somewhat reminds me of the controversy regarding HK G36 rifle in the German Military, Bundeswehr, regarding alleged problems with accuracy deteriorating due to heating having shot so many rounds in such a short time, but thing is, as Ian McCollum (Forgotten Weapons) pointed out, the G36 was being attacked for failing something it wasn't designed for or required originally with such recent demands that are unrealistic.

[@leonardwei3914]

Actually it reminds me of the M1 Carbine being designed for support and rear echelon use, but got pressed into front line service way too many times, making it's reputation suffer a bit during the Korean War.

[@joshuapowell2675]

In all fairness, I think that's just a common problem when faced with actual war. Parts and ammo are at a premium and countries are forced into a situation where they just have to use what's available because they can't afford to wait for more of the primary rifle. Plus the M-4 did fit the CQB in the Middle East better, so it had a tangible upside

[@17nirmalya]

Agree. NATO needs to focus more on having 7.62x51mm MBRs for its frontlines.

[@johnwalenski3475]

@@17nirmalya Well, maybe, in as much as they need the face to face ground troops, but the next big war will be much different from the old Jungle fighter days in Nam, where the 16 shined. The new human styled and sized 'bots' will be strong enough to carry any sized caliber and 20 times the ammo and grenades. And, of course, the actual main battlefront tactics will first be dominated by drones, Long Range smart artillery, missiles, and stealth tanks with almost impenetrable armor. Then stealth fighters and bombers. The individual human soldier would be less likely to engage one on one in CQB with small arms to the extent they did in past wars. Ao it simply won't be used as much. Which is the real reason the M-4 platform will 'remain' until 2040. And By then it will be pulse energy weapons weapons anyway.

[@17nirmalya]

@@johnwalenski3475 The US is still struggling to afford M27s over the M4A1s. Other NATO countries are worried with US testing out the 6.8 over the 5.56, what if they lobby 6.8 into NATO usage, how will they then budget the switch? What you say will happen. 2040 is just too early for that.

[@ryanthorne5432]

Last I heard, the NGSW is only going to be issued to cool guys, and all the POGs (including me) are going to keep using the M4A1 (or A2 or A3) until after everyone reading this has retired.

[@Taskandpurpose]

I'll be surprised if the NGSW ends up being issued at all

[@ryanthorne5432]

@@Taskandpurpose me, too. There is a long list of higher priorities for the Army, SOCOM and the other services are each doing there own thing for small arms, and NATO compatibility is back in vogue.

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

At least it could be rechambered for 6mm arc. More range and possibly reliability.

[@k9officerft434]

@@Taskandpurpose not gona be issued right now with the volatile Ukrainian and Russian situation

[@Justowner]

@@Taskandpurpose You having served likely have a better view on this, but I've always told people that until someone invents a rifle that can do everything including handjobs, the US gov't wont buy it. The reason being is perfect is the enemy of good enough, and frankly the AR-15 was WAY ahead of its time when it was invented. Very capable platform which readily accepts adjustments and modernization. I suspect the real issue here is the one that plagued the AR at adoption; its old know-nothing fogies who cant accept than regular riflemen shouldn't be expected to take out individual targets beyond 600m. We knew prior to WW2 that most infantrymen never even bother to try hitting enemies beyond 350m. The fact is, basic rifle training can only really get your average person to be so good of a marksmen. Sure, modern widespread optics helps a lot. But I don't think planners realized that heavier bullets are WORSE for average riflemen because they start losing altitude faster than light bullets, IE you need better training with heavier bullets because your range estimates need to be more accurate to account for less forgiving bullet drop. The fogies harped on riflemen having trouble in mountainous regions of the middle east because they wanted riflemen to be taking out targets that no country should reasonably expect riflemen to engage. They blamed the gun for their own planning errors. I actually think the better solution for countering the insurgent long range pot-shot guys was would have actually been the XM-25. If you can find the target then having an air-bursting grenade launcher with an integral range finder is probably the weapon for the job. Treat it a little like a cross between a mortar and a marksmen. I think the fancy new sight that adjusts its aim-point for range by itself, combined with the new Microsoft goggles will be the real game changers. Larger bullets are not the solution to fixing the range issues, and I think they will also cause problems with beating armor too. Large cross-sections are not helpful for beating armor and the 6.5 or 6.8 I expect may actually have more trouble with armor than 5.56.

[@somerabbit6909]

The major change for M4A1 was a heavy barrel to mitigate over heating. As for 6.8, I can see that used for SAWs and retiring the 7.62 for vehicle mounted belt feds. But the 5.56 ain't going anywhere anytime soon. Our major threats (Russia & China) just adopted 5.56-ish rounds, validating the 5.56 as a viable infantry round.

[@radeon8461]

The XM177 and CAR15 buttstock is non-adjustable, only collapsible. There are only 2 position notches, fully extended and fully retracted. Also, the flash hider was to help the rifle cycle because the AR platform is direct impingement and therefore a drop in pressure at the gas port causes major reliability issues, the flash hider has a gas expansion chamber in it for this purpose. Sounding like an AK is just a happy side effect. Also, enemies can easily tell an AK report from an AR, just from the different rate of fire between these rifles.

[@sparky979]

XM177 and CAR-15 are the same kid

[@radeon8461]

​@@sparky979 by calling people kid, you make it abundantly clear you are in fact under 18. don't worry, we all did it once. kid.

[@sparky979]

@@radeon8461 ok, but the CAR-15 and the XM177 are still the same

[@radeon8461]

​@@sparky979 False, all XM177 are CAR15s but not all CAR15s are XM177s. Some are Model 605A's, for example, or the 9mm Colt submachine gun is also part of this weapon family.

[@jessesellers9873]

I spent almost my entire career in the Army listening to, “ The M4 is gonna be replaced!” Only to always hear “ Our studies concluded that the M4 is still well suited for combat into the foreseeable future.” Hundreds of millions of dollars spent on rifle studies and ammo replacement studies. It’s a great platform, period! Easy to modify the design, or completely revamp based on the similar design. Don’t even get me started on the amount of time and money they’ve wasted on dress and duty uniforms!!!!😂😂😂😂

[@jcoolG192]

We spent $578 mil for a freaking pistol when there were plenty on the market that could have done the job for a fraction of the price.

[@jessesellers9873]

@@jcoolG192 yep and the pistol turned out to be sub standard.

[@jcoolG192]

@@jessesellers9873 absolutely!

[@davidgoodnow269]

@@jessesellers9873 Yeah, we could've just asked for a copy of the French tests for their P250 contract, and bought those. Or left it to individual soldiers, with the caveat that it had to run issue ammo.

[@davidgoodnow269]

Every decision they've made about uniforms has pissed me off. Such flagrant waste, just because they don't want to pay a patent-license fee! While I think there's a lot to improve/replace/discard on the whole M-16/M4 family, one of its best features is the fact you can change the upper--or the lower--and have a substantially different firearm.

[@thekeytoairpower]

Not sure why the Air Force involvement in the improvements is a surprise... the whole family of weapons only happened because the air force backed them over the m14.... and the xm117/gau-5 was largely an air force thing. I mean we still had gau's in inventory when I retired and I joined in the 90s. Side note... my second deployment I was given a rifle from storage with a 1 in 14 rifling, tear drop forward assist, three prong muzzle device and triangular hand guards. Why? Because I qualed on an m16 not an m16a1 so I was not familiar with three round bust. Basic training rifle didn't even have a forward assist.

[@hoppinggnomethe4154]

that sounds like an XM16E1, and M16A1 never has burst idk if you're stolen valor or not still doubting

[@alaljarensi6990]

Just wait until the Spaceforce gets picky about their equipment.

[@theodorebennett7938]

Well noted Air Force.

[@larry648]

@@hoppinggnomethe4154 The Air Force rifles were the original M16 without forward assist until the A2 was issued in mass in the 90’s. A lot of units still had the old ones longer. Our M16’s were semi or full auto. No burst. When I was in in the 80’s, my unit changed out the three prong flash hiders for A1 hiders. We’re also had a lot of chrome bolt carriers around. I think they worked better and my butt number always ended up with one.

[@SaturnVII]

It can't be understated how ergonomic and natural the AR15 platform is. It's the same reason why the 1911 has fanboys to this day, the weapon just feels right. Can't just toss the AR out like that.

[@ashleymarie7452]

Excellent. Entertaining and factual. Extremely relevant and insightful. Thanks!

[@six2make4]

I'm still curious what the fallout is gonna be from the US officially switching to 6.8mm as the only NATO member but also the biggest contributor. Will we see other countries protest, will they spend the money necessary to switch too, will the US pressure them to or will nothing happen at all? There have been a lot of radio silence but I know that is the standard here in Denmark since the military is basically broke. We pretty much have zero AA capabilities and I hope the recent switch of the Defense Minister will change things, since the last would just say Cybersecurity like a parrot, like being asked what about our Frigates who are missing missiles "Well we concluded spending money on cybersecurity is important", thanks Nord VPN but I didn't ask you...

[@Brimwald]

Pretty sure they will use it for specialized groups for a while at first but you're right it's a logistics disaster for NATO nations with much smaller budgets.

[@maledetto1221]

That's why I see the proposal of TV as the best one: you just need to change the barrel for 6.8 and the rest of the gun is the same as 7.62 NATO

[@Brimwald]

@@maledetto1221 the Sig cant do that too? Change barrels to use a 7.62x51 or 6.5 Creedmoor?

[@maledetto1221]

@@Brimwald During the presentation they never told about that, probably requires different gas settings and headspace, plus questions on the magazines compatibility. TV was the only one to talk about that and show the M240B(on the field, shooting both 7.62 and 6.8) and the minigun converted to 6.8

[@maledetto1221]

@@Brimwald The video that shows the swap: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH2UqHljo6h6mZY

[@Bustin_cider00]

I think 6.8 is a good idea but seeing the CQB version cemented in my mind why the M4 was so perfect.

[@samuelbishop3316]

CQB of sig sure. The GD is already CQB

[@fun2916]

Eugene Stoner publicly told the entire United States military back in the early 60s what the AR-15 should be in order to be effective, have a long service life, and be dependable for soldiers on the battlefield. Per the usual, the military brass didn’t listen to him. Hence our current situation

[@fatmilf1498]

tbf i wouldnt trust a guy named stoner for multi-decade/billion dollar decisions either

[@fun2916]

@@fatmilf1498true, but for decades, even after the man passed away, they keep coming back to his original concept. Because it just works.

[@12gauge1oz]

Good analysis. Thanks.

[@harryh5620]

Imagine DOD skirting the rules on procurement. I'm shocked. Simply shocked.

[@potatoradio]

Wha? F 35, original Bradley, Sgt York, No Zumwalt cannon ammo... Never happened either. Grin.

[@Justowner]

@@potatoradio IIRC the Zumwalt ammo was more a congress issue. When the order of ships was reduced, the number of shells was reduced with it. Result? Fucked ammo cost.

[@franciscopadilla4525]

The real question here is why aren't unit armorers being held accountable for weapon maintenance

[@tobiasfunke3357]

The 240's and 249's in my company were fucked. I dont think they ever changed a spring in those guns, ever. Constant stoppages from clean and well lubricated machine guns. Same story for the M2, but I know *SOME* of problems came from people who say they knew how to headspace & time the M2 properly, but in reality, they didn't. The M4 magazines we were issued didn't have the anti-tilt followers and the springs were old. We would buy our own gen 2 P-MAGS. The only weapon that seemed to be in good condition in our armory was the M110. We did also have like new drones that we never used. This was in 2011. I dont remember what the nomenclature was for the drone. The M9's we had were really beat to shit and the magazine springs were toasted in all of them.

[@arctic_shrew_87]

You mean the guy the unit dumped in the arms room cus he was fired from whatever is original job was?

[@franciscopadilla4525]

@@arctic_shrew_87 That's a good point. The armorer should be a squared away person, not some shitbag

[@mynameissang]

Probably the HHC fucking them up. We went to the field once, and our Battalion HHC (HHT for us) abused the fuck out of 249 and 240 at the range to the point that the barrels pretty much melted and actually developed a visible angle bend. I was the driver for the 91Fs, so I was there when he just flipped his shit when he saw what they did. Investigations and statements of charges soon followed. Like there's only so much the armorer can do.

[@mynameissang]

mind you, this was the same group of people that decided to fill up a HMMWV's fuel tank with water from jugs labeled "water" and completely fucked up the engine. So...

[@prdubi]

Thanks for the video. I think the m4 can still evolve with just minor product improvements such as a mid length gas system to improve dwell time along with better materials for the bolt carrier groups and trigger assemblies to prevent carbon build up and dirt.

[@robthaham3408]

The 6k round life expectancy is laughable. I got mine "well loved". It wasnt uncommon to use a sharpy to replace bluing ...in 2000. 6 months in I could tell there was an accuracy drop from when i had mine issued. Feed errors, bent brass, etc were "well you'll get use to it".

[@charlesmartin1121]

Modifications to the direct gas impingement system have greatly improved the reliability of the M4 (and even the Mk18). These chiefly center on the bolt carrier group. That said still love the HK416.

[@theangrycheeto]

Interesting. Anyone know where I can find out more about those modifications? Just curious.

[@m1a1abrams3]

u mean the m416? hk416 is copyrighted

[@theimmortal4718]

@@theangrycheeto Adjustable gas blocks, higher grade steel on carrier and bolt, H3 buffers, cold hammer forged steel and stellite barrels that reduce port erosion, etc.

[@charlesmartin1121]

@@m1a1abrams3 No. I meant HK416 (MR556 for the civilian version). Colt got all over Heckler & Koch for originally calling their weapon the HK M4.

[@pilot778spartan3]

@@acoustic296 fudd

[@Matt-xc6sp]

If I’m not mistaken that extended engagement in the mountains is documented with real footage in ‘The Hornets Nest’. Being cut off from air support seems to be a recurring problem since Nam

[@FumblsTheSniper]

Because it seems like there is a proclivity to order troops to hold back so that air “support” can drop expensive bombs. This is why FOB’s are full of broken vehicles while the Air Force drops 50k bombs on sand and bushes.

[@joshuapowell2675]

The US has become totally reliant on air support. It's one of the few consistent advantages during asymmetrical warfare of any type and the US has pumped a ton of funding into air elements. On top of that, we do it better than pretty much anyone else, so of course we're going to lean on our advantages. The side effect is that we almost can't operate without it anymore

[@MbisonBalrog]

TBan nor AQ have any AirPower. Murica no excuse getting cut off from air support.

[@joshuapowell2675]

@@MbisonBalrog MANPADs and other options are a legitimate threat. It doesn't have to be interceptor aircraft

[@cm-pr2ys]

We've got to get back to the basics of operating without it.

[@rimes3719]

Very informative, thank you sir!!

[@JCTheSniper15]

The M4 can also put a catastrophic amount of rounds through it before overheating is an issue. No fixed barrel firearm can handle a significant amount more without a different profile of barrel.

[@sevrent2811]

I think the M4 still has a role to fill even if NGSW becomes adopted, I can see the M4 still being useful in urban environments, where range and bullet energy don't matter as much, and the lighter, smaller M4 can still be more effective

[@SenorGato237]

"Some people are skeptical about using a 100 year old weapon system." *stares in M2* EDIT: Also, I had an FN M4 down range. It was fucking fantastic.

[@recondo886]

snidely smirks in 1911A1

[@glenndean6]

All hail Saint John Moses Browning.

[@cpK054L]

Is the M2HB really 100 years old already? I thought the first issue was in WW2?

[@glenndean6]

@@cpK054L 1922...

[@cpK054L]

@@glenndean6 absolute unit

[@SlavGod47]

Colt recently got bought out by CZ, so it'll be interesting to see what the company's future has in store. I also find it ironic that FN also got the M4 contract, considering they have the 240 and 249 as well

[@cageordie]

Funny how it took the US getting into a war outside the jungle before they discovered the FN-MAG might be worth having. One of my friends carried one in 2 Para back in the 1970s, as the GPMG in British service.

[@Pidalin]

I am afraid that CZUB doesn't have people and factories to really do something with Colt license, all their capacity is now used for making new Bren 2 rifles, because older CZ 805 Bren 1 had many birth problems, so all people want Bren 2 now, they had to even stop with making air guns because of that, there is low unemployment in Czech Republic, they can't find enough people who can work in gun factory. Only future for them is probably open new factories in other countries where it's not so hard to find some workers. I'd like to see some civilian guns using colt patents, like modernised 1911 pistols or something interesting.

[@zipper978]

FN had the M16 contract for a long time

[@tomhenry897]

$

[@tomhenry897]

No it took letting the M60s fall apart

[@OldMusicFan83]

I carried the M16A1 in the 80s in Europe. I never had to fight with it, but I prefer the 20” barrel that Eugene Stoner intended. My first AR build was a clone of this with a surplus A1 upper and old school A1 furniture. I could go with the A2 configuration, it’s probably superior

[@simarpreet7144]

The years in service and life expectancy of the M4 is undeniable because many great rifle designs have ended up dead in the modern climates like the famas ,type 95 , g36 all ended up being completely replaced with something different but the M4 lives on .

[@swordsman1137]

And AK somehow is eternal rifle

[@vonvomit5666]

And yet the American soldier is brainwashed into thinking this is the greatest thing since ice cream. See since the inception of the M16 rifle the rifle has had problems that were never fixed. Sure they changed the propellant for the 5.56 round but that did not fix the issues with lethality or accuracy at ranges beyond 300m. Those issues still persisted up to the battle of Wanat and now includes the M4 series weapon. The 5.56mm round is now obsolete. Enemy forces like the Russians and Chinese now have body armor that will defeat the new and improved M855A1 round. ISIS fighters were found to also have used body armor that defeated the 5.56mm round. What really pisses me off to no end is there are better weapons, better ammo out there. The US military even helped developed some of the new rounds to his the market during the last 20 years. But when you have a combination of mega defense corporations, corrupt politicians added into the mix you have the failure which has been known as the M16/M4 family of weapons. There have been 3 attempts to replace the M16/M4 series of weapons since the 1980's. First there was the ACR. Next came the SCAR. Then the XM8. And now the NGSW. And with Colt holding the keys to getting a different weapon (even tho colt lost part of its contracts to Remington then to FN and the Army owning the patents and licensing Colt still carries clout enough to have any new weapons system for ground troops blocked. ) will never happen. Then comes the cost of getting NATO and other allies on board with switching 5.56mm round d to the new 6.8mm round. That right there will never happen. So the only thing our military has left to do is silence the nay sayers and continue brainwashing our troops into thinking they have the world's best rifle when in reality it I'd no better than a rubber band and a paperclip.

[@scratchy996]

Or it's just Colt bribes.

[@MattExo-Dynamics]

I wonder though with rifles like the famas, g36 etc. do they end up dead as the companies that produce them cant find customers other than there own countries military and police so then once theyve made enough rifles for the military, they go bust or have to drop the weapon. Im pretty sure the famas factory shut down quite a while ago, so did enfield after producing the l85 (badly), HK basically dropped the g36 but continue on with 416s etc which they can sell to the US and other markets easily. Also now these companies have shut down they basically only have the AR platform to turn to for replacement rifles.

[@scratchy996]

@@MattExo-Dynamics HK has the HK433, which is a beefed up G36.

[@kingvlad8569]

The NGSW that are coming out from Sig are simply amazing. Glad to see us moving from the basic m4. Especially with the new 6.8x51 ammunition

[@ZackMarrs556NAT0]

Yeah, so glad we adopting what is essentially a modernized BAR. Lol

[@xthee_0nly_1x11]

Such a stupid idea and a complete step backwards.

[@aalhard]

Love your detail and humor. Both sharp

[@Motoboo_Marine]

Hey Cappy, some things to note about the M855A1 cartridge: Pros: It was primarily adopted to be lead-free, but it's main advantage is increased accuracy due to the way the bullet is constructed. It has a steel tip, vs the steel core of the original M855 round. A steel tip in much easier to be perfectly centered vs a steel core that has to be centered inside a buch of lead. This means that any slight deviation, no matter how small, becomes greatly exaggerated when spinning fast as shit because of rifling. You can see this by shooting normal green tip M855 back to back with any solid lead projectile like M193. It was also supposed to be better at penetrating body armor, but I fail to see any evidence of this. Cons: Due to the exposed steel tip and more rigid body it severely increases barrel wear and will destroy your feed ramps unless you're using the new EPM magazines. I really don't like how TACOM handled this, because they really didn't all they did was release a new barrel erosion gage for armorers, that added a new wear line if M855A1 is being used which is waaaaaaaaaay above the failure line for normal ammunition. So in essence, their solution wasn't to upgrade the barrels or anything, but just change the definition of what "deadlined" is so the barrel can be much more shot out before an armorer is required to replace it. You can even see it in PS magazine's Feb 21, 2020 article on it (just go on PS magazine's site and search for "barrel erosion).

[@92HazelMocha]

The "enhanced penetration" was never referring to body armor, it was in reference to penetration of cover and obstacles. The rigidity of a steel core meant that not only could it go through thicker or harder materials, but also made the critical angle of deflection far more favorable. Edit: also technically aluminum magazines have always been "single use" which is why the Army never split hairs over damaging or destroying them. I personally always ran HK steel mags or polymer ones.

[@Warthog71]

The army recently updated its rifleman’s manual. Specifically around the M4, and the 5.56x45 cartridge. All of which is no small task and includes the purchase and testing of each and every single thing one can imagine surrounding it all. Optics, mags, ballistics, etc. Until you see the competition teams compete with a different rifle and cartridge the M4 in its current config is here to stay.

[@Bioshockaholic]

It’s weird that after realizing the m4’s flaws, their immediate reaction wasn’t to just swap at least some of a squads weapons back out for the m16, assuming the longer length fixed he lifespan and overheating issue. Would have been a pretty natural test to see what soldiers preferred anyway?

[@geronimo5537]

I've asked many many active and retired servicemen which weapon they preferred more, the m16 or m4. The vast majority prefer the m4 simply for less weight. Very few chose the m16 for better reliability and better ballistics on target. If I were to put a number on it. I would say out of 100 people 90% of them would take the m4 simply because its lighter. I have asked about 50 or so people this question over the past decade now. Knowing this information, amazes me how the army thinks the 6.8 that doubles weight in every category in favor of better range ballistics. Somehow believes the 6.8 is needed. When it was the army that reduced the capability of the 5.56 moving to a shorter barrel... Troops want less crap to lug around. Not more weight for even less operational capability in combat (less ammo, heavier gun, with more weight).

[@pdaniel97675]

I think the M4 in the future will probably take a role similar to that of the M1 Carbine in the 40s and 50s, where soldiers in the field have the larger caliber M5/M1Garand, and support personnel have M4A1/M1 Carbines.

[@usmc24thmeu36]

Another problem the military has they go to the big gun manufacturers for a solution instead of going to the gun industry where most of the innovation comes from.

[@jic1]

You mean that a trial to replace the AR-15 platform/5.56 will likely result in them being retained, just like it did the other three or four times? I'm shocked!

[@Seth9809]

Last three times they said the new rifle wasn't different enough.

[@bradenmchenry995]

All the other trials had no chance because they weren’t that much better. These rifles are a drastic improvement

[@jic1]

@@bradenmchenry995 A drastic improvement in armor penetration no doubt, but I suspect the reasons they probably won't be adopted are the same as why full-power battle rifles were ditched in the first place: harder to shoot accurately, heavier and bulkier ammunition, and the average soldier can't shoot well enough to take advantage of the range increase.

[@aaronorr5586]

@@jic1 I can't wait for the peer force on peer force training exercises where the New Hotness still gets smoked by the Ole' Reliable. Thereby proving out what we have always known "You can't fix software issues with new hardware."

[@Justowner]

@@jic1 That last point is the real reason for why the NGSW is happening in the first place. The US Army planners cant get it through their heads that regular riflemen will not engage targets beyond a certain distance. This has plagued US rifle procurement since WW1. This is why intermediate cartridges were the statistically superior pick over full sized rifle rounds.

[@buellboy007]

The actual reason for the extended sound moderator as it was called was to help mimic more comparatively the 762 by 39 this giving the special forces the guys of being indigenous to the area in which they were working or more of a Clandestine atmosphere. Chris at small arms solutions did a fantastic review of this as he had worked for Colt on other companies in development of even the M4 program

[@warmonger2500]

Seriously impressed watching you fire that on full-send with eyes open and no blinking.

[@jacobjohnson4697]

Having been issued both, I still think with a few minor tweaks, the M27 is the ultimate evolution of the AR platform… again it’s not perfect as issued now, but still an amazing rifle.

[@cm-pr2ys]

What would you change about the m27? To me, id add the slim line hk stock, mlok handguards, and maybe a 14.5 in barrel

[@shadowmamba95]

@@cm-pr2ys Ain’t that an HK416?

[@levibarnor311]

@@shadowmamba95 it basically is my good sir. But HK 416 is just an M4 with the short stroke gas piston instead of the the direct gas impingement. So we're switching from the M4 to the M4 again

[@shadowmamba95]

@@levibarnor311 Funnily enough, when the HK416 was first announced, it was called (literally) the HK M4. Of course, Colt happened.

[@levibarnor311]

@@shadowmamba95 exactly did you watch Small Arms solutions video on it. Colt is one of the worst firearm companies ever

[@fairlanemuscle]

Because the platform and caliber has shown to be a competent platform, with a high level of customability

[@chrissearls2435]

thanks for the video

[@dareka9425]

11:44 I couldn't stop rewatching those ejected casings bouncing off the guy's helmet.

[@francismarionswampfox3468]

Being able to go full send with an M-4A1 should be experienced by EVERY American.

[@xkavarsmith9322]

In 10mm caseless, no less.

[@landonedwards2034]

Yessir

[@darthhodges]

Ian McCollum at Forgotten Weapons, citing the US military's history of seeking replacements for the M16 and M4, doesn't think the NGSW program winner (if there is one) will actually be adopted. Every other prior competition, Project Niblick, Project SPIW, the Advanced Combat Rifle program, the OICW, and the XM8, all failed to make a rifle better enough than the M16 or M4 to justify reequipping the whole military. He does think True Velocity's hybrid polymer case design will be adapted to 5.56 and become the norm for military ammo if they can produce it in enough quantity.

[@arewe9647]

Potential enemies are getting better body armor. m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/qn6whHRppNV1oZY To match this

[@Venator631]

@@arewe9647 That's what many 5.56 supporters ignore unfortunately.

[@AppleJaxc]

I think the circumstances are different today than they were for all of these previous projects. Russians have modern body armor, 5.56 works in Europe and North America but not at big distances like the Gobi or the middle east, optic technology has gotten cheaper/smaller/lightweight/reliable. Previous projects looked at things like "improve hit chance" (SPIW) or "be modular" (XM8). NGSW is trying to improve every category. Accuracy, engagement range, armor defeating, reliable, terminal effect, weight, accessories, etc etc etc.

[@darthhodges]

@@AppleJaxc But will the next war be in that kind of desert environment? Buying perfect equipment for the last war that sucks in the next one is a pattern in military history that happens to many nations, not just the U.S..

[@CircaSriYak]

I respect Ians opinion as a historian but he's missing the big picture. Things are fundamentally different now than they were then. We're entering what is essentially a new cold war with China, and we're in an almost toe to toe arms race with them. China leads us in hypersonic weapons, their army is transitioning from a conscript army to a professional fighting force. They're developing and fielding 5th generation stealth fighters. They're fielding modern body armor as standard. Everything is being re examined by the US military, not just small arms. Everything from helicopters to tanks to artillery to air defense to body armor are being phased out and replaced at a sudden and accelerated pace. The MHS program (Which succeeded and imparted far less benefit than the NGSW) was one small part of this sweeping remodernization. All of these reasons and more are why I personally believe that a new rifle and caliber will be chosen. The army isn't just looking for a new weapon. They *need* a new weapon. As a piece of equipment, the M4 would be out of place and time.

[@hlgb2014]

11:44 lol at that brass deflector.

[@odisclemons9700]

I was so excited to shoot my first m4 with the CCO. What a huge step up from the m16.

[@GoldenGod69]

I used/carried the M4 2014-2018(2016 I was a Saw gunner), I loved it. Once you understand how to properly maintain, group and zero and the shooting ballistics. It legit felt like an extension of my body. Still trying to scoop up a Colt 6920 to fill that empty void in my heart

[@crappiekiller1981]

I was feeling the same. I found a NIB 6920 on armslist in 2019 for 1200. Check on that site

[@Chiller01]

CZ recently bought Colt so perhaps the new owners will bring some of CZ’s innovative culture with them.

[@danielhenderson8316]

At the very least, CZ actually listens to customers and improves their product.

[@Gangster88232]

Czech crap nobody is buying, bro.

[@WaterZer0]

I was gonna say this video feels like it's 3+ years old. Colt went under a while ago now.

[@dayshon124]

Dude , m4s that spit as fast as Scorpion Evos, yes please

[@davidduafala3050]

The original flash hider on the XM117 also had a built in booster. That booster would increase back pressure to enhance reliability. That accounts for the M4 carbine having a 14.5 inch barrel and the original XM177 having a 14 inch barrel with the gas tube in the same spot. When running 10 inch barrels without the booster they found it was to unreliable for the ammo(M193) of the time. The booster was required to overcome that.

[@nosafetyswitch9378]

When serving at the Greek army, the expandable stock had a great advantage during patrol, if you expanded it in the first position only and wore the gun in the front, you could hide the flame of a cigarette at night so noone would see it you were smoking, great times...

[@shibblesshalzabot6320]

I preferred the M16A2 over the M4. Maybe because I’m an old timer and that’s what I originally trained on but I get better accuracy over longer distances

[@Venator631]

The m16a2 is a rifle as well the m4 is a carbine so that accuracy and range difference shouldn't be surprising.

[@shibblesshalzabot6320]

@@Venator631 the M4 has a twist rate of 1:9 (I believe) where’s the A2 has a 1:7 twist. The slower twist rate is to compensate for the shorter barrel. That’s supposed to put them on an even keel. Now for anecdotes I will get a solid 1.5” MOA on the A2. On the M4 I could never get any tighter than a 2.5” MOA. You tell me??

[@Venator631]

@@shibblesshalzabot6320 The best I can do is say that I've never heard of a carbine matching a rifle in range ever. as for accuracy you or someone like Ian have a lot more authority.

[@shibblesshalzabot6320]

@@Venator631 I totally understand having better range on a longer barreled rifle, it makes sense; longer Barrel gives you better velocity thus the range. But accuracy… I truly believe the accuracy factor all comes down to training. My fundamentals were developed on the A2 platform. Perhaps it’s just that or a subconscious bias I have for the A2?? 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@Venator631]

@@shibblesshalzabot6320 Do you mind if I mention barrel condition too your going to get worse grouping with worn out barrels as for the m16a2 bias that's natural it's what you were trained on.

[@woltews]

Upgrades I want 1- 12 inch gas tube with cooling fins to help shed heat and reduce stress 2- Aluminum outer for the barrel to help Shead heat better 3- S,R,A Fire selector 4-Some way to store the batteries for sights and lasers and lights in the but stock and not have them out front (move the centre of mass back ) 5-A video camera sight so I dont have to stick my head in line with the enemy in FIBUA and I can just watch it through the display from my NOD or other display 6-Better Mags !!!!!!!!! 7- A free floated Barrel

[@davidgoodnow269]

(1) short-stroke piston-operation with a self-regulating gas system (see the Ruger AR-556, the $2,500 model not the sub-$1,000 discount version) (2) (" above Ruger model) (5) I'm with you, bro, there was a version of that tested by the Army back in the early '90's, it worked, still not issue. (6) P-MAG Gen. 4, what the USMC adopted like a decade ago. (7) They keep shooting that one down for military service because the barrel gets knocked around and the way it is attached leaves it vulnerable to bending and warping. Daniel Defense has a solution, or at least a work-around. Yeah, I've been telling all of those for nearly thirty years. A lot of my suggestions for improvement given to a USMC Major General resulted in the M27, some stuff didn't make it that would have lowered weight, etc., but he got most of the things above done, and the AR-10 as a DMR, and the GE CAL.50 (tri-barrel), the Barrett as a Squad Support Weapon, Mossbergs with the 14" barrel, permission for personal sidearms; he did a *lot.*

[@woltews]

@@davidgoodnow269 got to keep cost in mind hear . Also once you go to a new operating mechanism congress is likely to see it as a new weapon and demand a full competition

[@davidgoodnow269]

@@woltews Already trialed, I'm not sure if this because I haven't asked, but I think it became the Marine Corps M27. As to cost . . . the USMC doesn't have the same contracts as big Army. The Army was paying $3,000+ each for M16A2, $4,000+ each for M4. The Marines, in 2003, were buying M-4A1 from Knight Armaments for one heck of a lot less, I think it was about $1,000 each. When I got out in 2004 with brain damage I lost track of things for a few years . . . literally.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

The gas tube should fail before the barrel. If you help cool the gas tube you can induce damage to the barrel.

[@davidgoodnow269]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD WT . . . How?

[@deangoodall7411]

An interesting vid Chris, thank you, for someone from across the pond, where the mantra across most of the U.K. military is that the M4 is God and nothing can touch it, this highlights some it the systems flaws. You mention about a standard test for what the military expect the rifle to do. Have a look at the “Battlefield Mission” that was designed by the British Army’s ITDU (Infantry Trials and Development Unit) to test if the upgraded SA80/L85A2, modified by H&K was up to the job. Trial weren’t only done with ITDU, but they also used a whole Bn of infantry in order to gain enough statistical data. Test were done in the U.K. the Arctic, the desert and the jungle and the rifle was compared with other competitors such as the AK, the M4 and the G36. Have a read, the results will astound you.

[@tedeitel8060]

Very interesting channel I sub a week ago and love the content.

[@blackace7782]

The M4 is nice but we need a rifle without a buffer tube...ya know, that way we can make a moduler stock clearly

[@ruinedrx8]

I wish the 1913 rails to attach stocks/braces really caught on and became the norm. Not too late though

[@blackace7782]

@@ruinedrx8 I heard the m40a7 might have a similar stock

[@EdwardOrnelas]

@@ruinedrx8 I mean in the civilian market it is very prevalent, 2 of 5 of my guns have 1913 rail for braces

[@redenginner]

The US military is single-handedly keeping Ian McCollumn of Forgotten Weapons in business by getting these new weapons developed and then just going "lol lets just keep the AR-15 Derivatives"

[@Jrplatt]

The M4 was never intended as a front-line weapon it was supposed to be a rear line support weapon kind of like how the M1 carbine was supposed to be during World War II, it's Barrel is too thin that's why Socom gets their own m4s with thicker barrels

[@fredcollins8919]

Yes, true but now both US SF and Infantry etc finally all get & use (superbly, unlike most other nations) the new highly upgraded US-Military only (Army&USMC) superior M4A1 Sep++ Mk IIIs & prob to be upgraded soon once again. Amen. That aside Army should simultaneously purchase decent # of even more superior & combat proven upgraded Hk416 (aka M27) used now mostly by USMC Infantry troops. Army would be wise to purchase some of these like ASAP as they are without doubt truly fine rifles that shouldve been purchased & put into active duty front line Infantry service over 15-17+ Years ago. Cheers!

[@oneballwizard406]

Not true at all. We switched from m14's to the m16 because in jungle warfare whoever has the most ammo typically wins a gun fight and it worked very well. Now that we've been fighting in the mountains and desert for 20 years they finally switched back to larger caliber weapon. Different weapons are needed for different environments, it's all mission oriented

[@user-of1iq8lc3i]

Ak47 superior

[@AshishAcharyaalex]

In Benning, I actually was trained in M4 A1 with iron sights. We were only given ACOGs after we were stationed.

[@diligentone-six2688]

Personally speaking, the Bullpup Design for the 6.8 looks unattractive. The AR Platform is more appealing and easy to reload.

[@Bear10174]

Bullpups are just as quick and easy to reload. its just takes practice and building muscle memory, like most physical activities.

[@JohnnyZenith]

The Bullpup is my choice.

[@saltysaty8686]

I mean I see what you mean but what the heck does looks have to do with not getting killed and also being able to kill more people at longer range? Idk seams retarded to keep the same caliber we've designed and used in dense to mid range on long range applications like Iraq. Different purposes should have different guns. I mean the 4x acogs we're awesome over iron sights, how much more to have 6.8 machine guns with LPVOs?

[@JN1-506]

I agree. Bullpups are weird and there's no reason to make such a drastic change.

[@geographyinaction7814]

@@JN1-506 I will give you one, shortening the length and making the rifle shorter overall while maintaining the same barrel length.

[@noobepro_7146]

Why the weapon jamm? Well... It's the new way to help reduce ammo consumption. The M4 designer should watch Skillshare so the weapon didn't jammed or overheating

[@just-incase3483]

I like these videos keep them coming

[@andrewgordon235]

Every soldier I've ever talked to loves the M4A1 and they want to keep it Direct Impingement. Using an adjustable gas block will allow you to send more gas pressure back when the gun is dirty and less when it's clean and you want less recoil. That should be standard equipment on the new M4A1 PIP rifle.

[@geronimo5537]

I've asked many many active and retired servicemen which weapon they preferred more, the m16 or m4. The vast majority prefer the m4 simply for less weight. Very few chose the m16 for better reliability and better ballistics on target. If I were to put a number on it. I would say out of 100 people 90% of them would take the m4 simply because its lighter. I have asked about 50 or so people this question over the past decade now. Knowing this information, amazes me how the army thinks the 6.8 that doubles weight in every category in favor of better range ballistics. Somehow believes the 6.8 is needed. When it was the army that reduced the capability of the 5.56 moving to a shorter barrel... Troops want less crap to lug around. Not more weight for even less operational capability in combat (less ammo, heavier gun, with more weight).

[@davewebster5120]

When shooting the m855a1 i believe the m4 is going to need stronger barrels and other working parts to avoid parts breakage and aggressive stoppages over time. I shot army competitions with a m4 firing m855a1 and my gas rings didn't hold the bolt up if i set it on the bolt face, carrier up. I borrowed a buddies upper because i believed mine was unsafe with shot gas rings but after shooting and cleaning his, his gas rings were worse. To shoot hot ammo the army really should get the new mettalurgy barrels sig made for the spear to maintain barrel life when shooting ammo at such high pressures. This will only exacerbate the decent but imperfect m4a1 reliability. I'm just a retired idiot but i think chasing hotter ammo will come at a cost unless big army shores up the standards for the weapon components. They're really better off adopting an ngsw prototype which is designed for high pressure ammo. Or, frankenstein the m4a1 to fire 6.8 somehow with corresponding upgrades.

[@josephk.4200]

Big parts of the problems you’ve referred to are related to improper maintenance and parts replacement intervals. The armourers would see and know these problems, but they might not have the funding for parts to fix them.

[@davewebster5120]

@@josephk.4200 My guy. Nobody does proper maintenance. You keep them clean, issue them out for ranges and pray anything that happens is someone else's problem. After awhile in the armory you couldn't care less about if the guns work because range scheduling and paperwork bogs them down. They don't actually get fixed unless they blow up. If pfc snuffy fails his qual they blame him and then don't give him remedial training to correct his poor shooting. The army cares about PT and looking good in uniform, not marksmanship. My brother in the air force qualified on m16a2 with barrels entirely shot out. Nobody fixes them.

[@TheJake365]

I was always taught even as a boy with a former CAG operator as my father, clean the bolt and firing pin after every range trip. Scrape and clean the firing pin for proper primer engagement using dental picks, scrape all the carbon off the bolt plunger side by the gas rings. The carbon builds up heavily after just a few rounds, and hardens into a rock in just a few hours. the hardened carbon scrapes the inside of the BCG and prematurely wears it down. Same concept as running your car on no oil, lol. The M4 will love you if you love it back!

[@attilathegod]

The way I see it, that General Dynamics bull pup ar with the plastic munitions is literally the future of warfare. I think the US would be making a mistake by just constantly upgrading the m4. I get that it wants to save money but the NGSW is literally the future. Innovation is key for the future of any military force.

[@theflyingwelshman5338]

Not for the U.S. They don’t go to war with near-peer adversaries, just civilians and freedom fighters.

[@mmclaurin8035]

LOL the military wants to save money. They will throw bad money after good because it isn't their money.

[@woah5546]

@@theflyingwelshman5338 You never know.

[@bradenmchenry995]

The United States is not adopting a bullpup

[@theflyingwelshman5338]

@@mmclaurin8035 they’re not saving money, they’re just funneling it into buying more drones to blow up civilians.

[@AniwayasSong]

I own three (Soon to be four) AR platforms. I cannot think of another rifle/platform that is so customizable and 'Serviceable' across such a huge range of tasks. You don't replace something that just works this well. You can upgrade 'em, sure!

[@bytecode5834]

Could you do a video about the G36? Thanks for the videos man!

[@panzer6tiger]

NGSW makes more sense as a squad support weapon/ Battle rifle/ DMR. From the SAW to the 240, EBR to the MK17, the military was always looking to bridge the gap between these, more specialized weapons. Hence why they explored belt-fed and rifle prototypes. The M27, and the M110A1 can also be replaced with the NGSW. Which is why I think the procurement for those was to look at already existing platforms available. They are stop gap measures. While it seems the M4, will take the block 2 route. Additionally the NGSW Program was really more about replacing 7.62x51mm NATO, it also experimented with smart scope and optics and various types of new suppressors. These can all be transferred to the M4. The optic alone would vastly increase hit probability and effective range of the M4. While the M855A1 may see more general use. Seems like the barrel on the New M4 is closer to a socom profile. with this is mind, I feel that the Military will actually be achieving most of its goals from the NGSW program, while following the procurement of the air force with a high-low mix. The M4, being a general purpose issue multi role, while the 6.8mm, a more specialized support role. The fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq did prove that a mix of battle rifles, belt fed weapons, DMRs, and assault rifles are necessary to conduct ground operations. A common system in 6.8 would greatly simplify the procurement, and standardize these weapons with a common specification. It is typical for small arm programs to be ambitious. The goal of replacing the M4 seems to be a strong desire of those involved in the program, however it is not practical.

[@Brimwald]

This is the best comment here. Great analysis.

[@willybober2]

Your content is getting better and better, I actually really look forward to new video drops now a days

[@mro2352]

I have a PSA AR in a mid length system. I was going to buy in bulk eventually for my family and am glad to hear that even the military prefers the mid length system.

[@halfluckhalffate571]

Very informative videos

[@hairydogstail]

No it wasn't, The long flash suppressor was a light noise suppressor to match the report of the 20" barrel. The small internal suppressor became useless after a small round count as the internals filled with carbon mitigating any noise suppression.. Colt paid for the R &D for the M-4, not the government which is why they won their lawsuit in court. FN has to pay Colt a royalty for every M-4 sold. The shorter gas tube changed the dwell time and pressure curve which Colt solved by adding the H-1 buffer and upper receiver feed ramps. The M-4 barrels didn't melt because they were shortened, it was because the M-4 was not designed to be a high sustained machine gun. The problem was solved by changing the pencil barrel to a heavier barrel. The problems with many M-4 rifles was because the military was using questionable parts when repairing them instead of Colt parts. This was documented by Chris Bartocci when in Afghanistan, much like the Beretta hand gun... The rifle's life is not 6000 rounds but the bolt which can be changed on a regular basis.. With improved magazines "thank you Magpul" and other upgrades the Stoner system is still one of the most reliable and rugged weapon systems used to this day...

[@joshuab7737]

Best part of the NGSW is that either ammo manufacturers will be able to put their cartridge design into the M4A1. Similar to the ACR program what we will likely get is the new optic system and cartridge in the 5.56 M4A1.

[@jehoiakimelidoronila5450]

7:21: wtf--NO. Don't ever think of a collab between the two cappy...!

[@philmarks4254]

Nice video on the CAR-177.

[@cm-pr2ys]

Honestly, I think there's still a few kinks we need to workout when it comes to the ngsw. It really seems like we haven't figured out if we're okay with the recoil, weight, barrel life, ammunition production, and so on. I think the engineers are gonna need a little bit more time before they can really make something that will make people feel more confident. But, at least we're doing the work for it now, as opposed to later. With that being said, the HK416a5, as well as the m4 sopmod urgi are some pretty darn good weapons. We're already coming with things like the IVAS, Smart Scope, and so on that will enhance our warfighters effectiveness no matter what weapon they use. If we can't figure out what 6mm caliber we want to use, I say we at least get a good, solid fighting carbine with good attachments, then work on polymer cased telescopic ammo. If I had to guess, 6.5 grendel seems like the right round to choose because it's not as rough on the weapon as 6.8 spc, it performs well in closer engagements (which is where most fights with rifles/carbines happen anyway), you wouldn't need to buy an entirely new weapon, just a new upper, it has less recoil than the 6.5 creedmoor/ 6.8 spc, it weighs less than the other 2 ammo types, and it's smaller which is good for logistics. Polymer cased telescopic 6.5 grendel is probably going to be the best bet in my opinion because you have to consider logistics of equipping your force. But that's just my .02 cents. EDIT: Or a 6mm ARC polymer cased telescopic round.

[@AppleJaxc]

I don't know that 6.5 grendel 30 round mags are reliable enough for the military. Other than that issue, I think it's a compelling round, and it transforms any AR lower into a capable hunting and precision weapon. But if we move to case telescoped polymer ammo, I don't know that any round we have today is as simple or as useful as just transferring the bullet over. We should look at what this new case design technology lets us do

[@Brimwald]

@@AppleJaxc where are you finding 30 round mags, arent they usually 25 or less? Grendel mags arent very reliable in general

[@Brimwald]

First they would need to redesign bolts and extractors to improve reliability on the 6.5 Grendel's biggest failure points.

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

6 arc mate. It's the best compromise available and was developed just for it.

[@cm-pr2ys]

@@AppleJaxc good point. It seems like cased telescopic ammo is going to be the biggest advancement we can make in small arms ballistics, at least until we figure out caseless ammo.

[@tsafa]

Every civilian should have "full send mode". Shall not be infringed - means exactly that!

[@angrydingus5256]

I fully agree, even though I know I would be broke and homeless within about 2 days if I had it.

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

REKREATIONUL NUKK

[@NikovK]

Current events are really driving that home.

[@danielmackormack8524]

Thank you

[@skraggybones]

It wasn't a 4 inch flash suppressor, it was a moderator, that changed the sound significantly, and made it sound more like an AK. Due to the design of the moderator the atf classified it as a suppressor. But it most definitely was not just a 4 inch flash suppressor.

[@mrkeogh]

Blast moderation wasn't the entire reason for it. The shorter 10" barrel played havoc with the gas system's reliability, so Colt needed to design a muzzle device that would keep the gun cycling _and_ hopefully reduce the flash & concussion to acceptable levels. That's why the "flash hider" is so long at 3.5" up to 4.3". It made the CAR-15 sound less like the distinctive 20" barrelled M-16 "chatter," but the design intent wasn't to make it sound like an AK 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@kamronrasberry381]

The “Full send” switch is definitely funnier but these new FN’s have their fair share of problems right out of the box! My first time Qualifying with weapon with this new FN it didn’t even make it one full mag before it went down and had to be repaired!

[@Taskandpurpose]

yikes thats a big not at all good. are you talking about the weapon jammed or?

[@kamronrasberry381]

@@Taskandpurpose Negative, I made it 28 rounds into the first mag and the detent pin that holds the buffer tube and spring in had came loose! The pin it’s self ended up in the trigger group and the spring that holds tension on the spring had gotten wrapped around the tip of the next cartridge as it was entering the chamber!

[@Steve_643]

@@kamronrasberry381 that just sounds like a faulty detent. Sometimes parts fail, better it happened on the range than in the field.

[@moonasha]

NGSW = front line troops. M4 = rear echelon / truck drivers / etc. It would take at least a decade to equip everyone with a new gun. The M4 isn't gonna magically disappear in the meantime. Hell you still got national guard using A2s

[@murphy7801]

Yeah but the m16a2 looks cool

[@honza1988.]

I sent a message to Försvarmakten (Swedish Defence force) about you video, be prepared, i loved it!

[@EricTheBody]

I have a full size AR and a CAR-15 from the 80’s. Both have thousands of rounds through them and they’re still running strong. Sure, they need maintenance and parts once in a while, but that’s true of any machine. Part of being a professional soldier is understanding your kit, and sometimes playing field armorer. I always have a ziplock bag will pins, springs, and parts in my ruck, just in case. The platform has proven itself, and will be around for a long time.

[@BammmYourDead]

I've used the M27 IAR, the m4 with tube, and currently use the mk18. M4 by far was my most hated, although the mk18 is close 2nd.

[@codyayres]

I used it in Iraq north of Bagdad for a couple deployments and loved it. I think using magpul mags really makes it one of the best.

[@arctic_shrew_87]

I did find that dumping the army issued green follower mags and using PMAGs fixed most of the jamming issues I've had. That fact the mags only got and anti tilt follower 10 years ago is nuts

[@11ccom]

Good stuff.

[@refaiabdeen5943]

Cheers Mate.

[@samsonsoturian6013]

All I remember of the M4 is how sand got everywhere in it even if we didn't go anywhere.

[@carlorazzeto]

I mean I get it you can solve some of the problems by working out the problem area's of the M4. But since the US Military broadly speaking is in the process of realigning to deal with a near peer battle what you don't end up solving is the problem of potentially facing off against an enemy equipped with Level IV equivalent body armor. I'm certainly no operator at all but at least based on what I've seen that type of body armor do it certainly seems like you'd have to get many multiple hits, where as it seems reasonable to believe even if the 6.8 didn't get through in the first hit it would still be thumping way harder and chip through more quickly. So yeah like any red blooded American I love our M-16 derivative designs. But its probably time to move on with the NGSW.

[@Venator631]

The m16 had it's day and the original was beautiful but it's day is gone a new generation needs to take over for the reasons you stated.

[@joshm3484]

Around 10% of casualties in modern warfare are the result of personal firearms. I agree, a larger, faster cartridge design is needed, but I believe the primary benefit would be in allowing bullets to keep up with optics development, ie accuracy at longer range, over armor penetration.

[@kameronjones7139]

@@joshm3484 you do understand that when you make a faster,longer range bullet that most of the time that bullet is going to have better armor penetration. It also doesn't make sense as to why you still wouldn't want to be able to go through body armor if you are designing a new round to begin with

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@kameronjones7139 Going through armor isn't that beneficial. Let's game theory this: if your rounds punch through armor, your enemy has no use for plates. He'll simply wear soft armor for fragmentation. If your enemy's ammo doesn't penetrate plates, you'll wear them because it saves your life. So in your search for lethality, you allowed your enemy to get weight off his shoulders, or to carry more ammo/equipment. Meanwhile you saddled yourself with a heavier round (less ammo for same weight) and you don't want to stop wearing plates.

[@kameronjones7139]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD that is a made up theroy that isn't likely to happen. First off you completely missed my point physic tells you that if make a faster, heavier, longer range round it will by default have better armor penetration. This isn't a video game were you can just put your skill points into one thing. Plate armor is also better at stopping fragments which is why you have countries like Russia looking to add more armor

[@wryytard]

pretty cool how there are so many timeless designs in gunsmithing

[@restlessfox2739]

If the M4 lasts for 100 years, it would be up there with the M2. That's been around for over 100 years, and we're still using it to this day.

[@wrenchrat]

It prob will. The AR platform is the best weapons system for the money ever invented, all things being considered.

[@piosanchez2937]

If the 1911 can be around for over 100years then the M4 style rifle will stay along with it. IMO

[@arctic_shrew_87]

Sure but the 1911 was replaced by the Army in the 1980s and no country used it as a general issue sidearm anymore

[@arctic_shrew_87]

@kevin pierson we are talking about standard issue firearms for 11B types. Not limited issue.

[@alancranford3398]

Silly, but the Tommy gun weighed more than ten pounds empty--and was "replaced" by the Garand rifle (which also "replaced" the Browning Automatic Rifle). Then the M1 Carbine was developed quickly as a replacement for the pistol and the submachine gun and for rifles in the hands of non-riflemen; there were more Carbines produced during WW2 than Garands. The Carbine's design goal was 5 pounds but came out a little heavier. The prototype AR-15 weighed in at 6 pounds. The issue M16A1 weighed 6.5 pounds. The M4A1 weighs more than the M16A1 but less than the M16A2. "smaller and lighter" to the US Army is replacing horses with elephants--white elephants!

[@shmike3775]

Are you insane? The garand didnt replace the thompson, nor the BAR. Completely different weapons for different roles.

[@alancranford3398]

You are correct in that the Garand didn't--couldn't--replace the Thompson or BAR. However, get your hands on a copy of the 1940 Small Wars Manual (USMC). I also have a vintage 1940 four-volume Infantry ROTC manual. The Garand was touted as a replacement for both automatic weapons. Two decades after adoption of the Garand, the M14 "replaced" the M1 Rifle, M2, Carbine, M3 submachine gun, and M1918A2 Automatic Rifle. The M14 was also fitted to attach either the IR "Snooperscope" (later Starlight Scope) or an optical sight to fill the Army's sniper mission. What the Army says and what the weapon does won't always match up.

[@leifhoklin2681]

Smaller and lighter does not mean better. Sure I’d prefer to hump a lighter rifle, but the evolution of the AR-15 and its many variations have added considerable utility to the platform. The M-16 A1 was 6.5lbs…It also had a 20” pencil profile barrel that warped when it got hot, had very limited provisions for accessories, and suffered from severe reliability problems in its early lots. The M4 may be heavier, but it’s shorter and easier to maneuver, more reliable, built of better components, and allows for the mounting of force-multiplying accessories.

[@alancranford3398]

@@leifhoklin2681 Sometimes the US Army gets things wrong--smaller and lighter than the M2 Carbine resulted in the M14 Rifle. The HMMWV replaced a number of vehicles including the 1/4-ton truck (aka Jeep) and 3/4-ton weapons carrier--and was larger and heavier than both. At the time of the M16A2 adoption the idea that the Soldier would have the ability to configure the standard service rifle for mission conditions was sacrilege. Just hanging a second canteen on the ALICE gear (1980's) was treasonous behavior. Times have changed.

[@leifhoklin2681]

@@alancranford3398 agreed. The army gets a lot wrong. However, the evolution of the m-16/m4 platform was not one of them.

[@joezhangmd]

I enlisted long ago enough that my first issue weapon was a m16a1 (full send version). I was instructed in boot with the three round burst m16a2. I fully support the full send version. While true you can run out of ammo fast, you get training to know when and how to do it.

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

The M4 Carbine is a beautiful military weapon, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the new military weapon ngsw.