Talk:M4 Carbine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M4 Carbine article.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 United States military history task force
Weaponry task force

Contents

[edit] Ammunition discussion

There is new ammo being devolped to replace the 5.56 in M-4's. It is the 6.8 SPC. Remington and USSOCOM are in joint devolpement with and some SEAL teams and DELTA teams already have had there M-4s and M-16s changed over --Gwatson0008 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Gwatson0008

Since when? The 6.8x45mm Remington SPC compatibility requirements were dropped even from the SCAR-L/H requirements. Saying SEAL and Delta teams are using it without reliable sources is about as effective as saying that the mythical Blue Ninjas of Quai are also investigating the 6.8mm cartridge. They may have trialed them, and this is very likely, but there's no evidence they're in widespread use even among elite units. Its definitly been steadily falling off the military radar as it became clear the improvements in 5.56x45mm ammunition made the cost of converting to an entirely new caliber with debatable performance increases prohibative. Notice no serious mention of it at all in any of the 2006 proceedings of the annual NDIA conference here. I can't even find it in the 2005 proceedings here. If you can find me a reliable source for such statements then by all means do so, but I think that you're a little behind on the times. -- Thatguy96 17:47, 13 July 2006


The MV is overstated. 5.56mm x 45 SS109 fired through a 36.8cm (14.5") barrel can make about 850 m/sec.

I've never heard about the M4 getting a new cartridge developed to remedy the power, but that doesn't mean it's not true. To my knowledge, the M16/M4 family of weapons has always used the same 5.56x45(with small exceptions if you want to count things like the SR-47). However, the AK-47 definitely uses 7.62x39, not 7.62 NATO which is 7.62x51. Why would the primary assault rifle of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact being using a NATO caliber? 128.253.147.125

Uh no. LAPD85

I know that the M249 uses a higher powered version of the 5.56x45mm, so I wouldn't consider it far-fetched that the M4 uses it as well, but it seems like there'd be better ways to increase lethality. Haven't seen a reference either way.

ASWilson 02:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The M249 SAW uses the exact same improved NATO standard 5.56x45mm round as the M16a2, M4, etc. In fact, this is a large part of the reason for the SAW's existence... the ammo is interchangeable with other NATO standard weapons, and it can accept the standard 30-round M16a2 magazine.


yup, in fact, the m249 saw can accept standard m16 magazines loaded with m855 rounds, though it jams a lot. Swatjester 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Fox1 06:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the reference in the article to a new round. If someone can cite a reference we can put it back, but I think this probably came from confusion over the change from 55 grain M193 ball ammunition with the M16A1 to the 61.7 grain M855 (NATO SS109) heavy ball ammunition for the M16A2, SAW, and M4. I'm familiar with no further changes to cartridges since the general switch to NATO certified rounds.
Fox1 06:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, remember to add 4 tildes ("~~~~") to the end of your post to sign it, makes a lot more sense to other editors then. I've gone ahead and back-attributed existing posts to their editors.

Fox1 06:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I think the legal staus needs changing.

[edit] Naming

In the infobox I used the phrase "Assault Rifle" to describe the gun rather than "Carbine". I think this is appropriate, but let me know if you think I'm wrong please. Surgo June 30, 2005 07:28 (UTC)

It's incorrect. Rifle implies full length weapon. Carbines are shorter weapons, like the M4. Please someone change it back. Swatjester 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it certainly is an 'Assault Rifle.' Assault Rifles are NOT full powered battle rifles. The first one, the Stg44, had a barrel length of around 16 inches.

There is also nothing wrong with calling it a selective fire carbine.

What are you talkign about? So the m16 isn't a full powered battle rifle? The g3 and fal aren't full powered battle rifles? Why not, they're considered assault rifles. There is a reason the M4 is called a CARBINE...because it is smaller and more compact. It can trace its lineage back to the cavalry days. Hence, it is realistically incorrect to call it an assault rifle, or even really a rifle in general, technically it's just a "long gun" or "carbine". ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that, while G-3 and FNFAL are battle rifles, M16 and M4 are both assualt rifles. This is a desinction based on cartridge type. 7.62NATO is a slow, heavy, and heavy recoil bullet. 5.56NATO is a small, fast, low recoil bullet. Hense the difference b/w assault and battle rifles. The M4 certainly does what an assualt rifle is supposed to do: to fight the infantry's kind of War in short ranges, against entrenched or fortified enemy. So as the weapon's preformance, M4 should be considered an assaultrifle. Howver, to addfess the carbien issu,many shooters over there often call their M4 seapons "tacitcal carbines". I think both "assualt rifle"and "tactical carbine" are very suitable alternatives instead of jsut calling them carbines.

to definitely end this argument, both colt and bushmaster refer to the m4 as a carbine, not an assault rifle. the manufacturers' designation should be the most important factor in deciding this. Parsecboy 13:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaken caption on feature picture

A reader has sent the following e-mail to the Wikipedia help desk.

The M4 Carbine is a shorter and lighter version of the M16A2 assault rifle, achieving 80% parts commonality with the M16A2. The M4 has select fire options including semi-automatic and three-round burst (like the M16A2), and the M4A1 has a full auto option in place of the three-round burst. As with many carbines, it is handy and more convenient to carry than a full-length rifle. Here an M4 is shown just after firing, with an ejected ammunition casing in mid-air.

However your photo shows a M4 Carbine with a M203A1 greneade launcher attached which makes the weapon system shown a M203A1. The grenade launcher is the primary weapon so a rifle in this configuration is a M203A1.

I would be grateful for any response I could give him as I have referred him to this page. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Its simply not how things work. Not only is it not nessecarily the "primary weapon," its not how systems are described in US Army nomenclature. Each system is designated seperately, and any weapon with another weapon attached is not known by that systems name even if it is the primary system. The caption should read that it is an M4 carbine with an M203A1 grenade launcher, but M203A1 is not a designation for the complete system. The US Army does not have a composite designation for the complete system as far as I know. There's a reason that the complete official designation for the M203 reads something like "grenade launcher, 40mm, M203" because the designation applies only to that system. The designation is not "carbine with grenade launcher, 40mm, M203A1." Thatguy96 21:15, 26 November 2005

Also note that the photo itself has a caption provided by the US Department of Defense/US Air Force. This identifies the weapon as an 'M-4 rifle'. However last night an anon editted the caption to read 'M4A1', although I can't verify that that variant is correct. -- Solipsist 08:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be a M4 since the soldier in question is Regular Army not Special Forces. Regular Army troops are not issued the M4A1. --D.E. Watters 21:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks I'll chang it back. Its no longer widely visible, but the POTD might get reused sometime in the future. -- Solipsist 09:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


Some anon changed it back to m4a1. I reverted back to M4. Stop doing this. Swatjester 07:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if part of the problem we are having is due to the way the M4A1 is written up in the 'Variants' section. At first, it makes it appear that the M4A1 is a flat-top M4, when in fact except for a very small, early production run, all issue M4 are also flat-tops. With the increased issue of M4 RAS to regular Army troops, the only real external differences between a M4 and M4A1 are the roll stamps for the designation and selector switch markings (Burst vs. Auto). --D.E. Watters 23:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Well the bigger problem is people rewriting the article incorrectly stating that regular units receive the m4a1 which is absolutely not true. I've reverted probably 3 or 4 edits like this already. Swatjester 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Exactly! I was trying to explain for part of the reason this might be happening. This is why I reorganized the Variants section. --D.E. Watters 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, the picture in the box is of an M4 without 203, but the caption states its an M4 with M203 grenade launcher. 68.77.253.102 11:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The caption in the infobox image only states that the weapon is equipped with an M203 quadrant sight, not an M203 grenade launcher. —Squalla 15:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] big picture

The picture at the bottom of the article that was the featured article yesterday was very big when I tried to print it. All that came out was a picture of the guy's head! Mabye somone could get it where it would be smaller. I don't know if there is any copyright stuff that will make that wrong, please tell me.

schyler 08:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

If you check the Image description page, you can see that it is licensed as Public Domain. As such there should be no issue with you downloading the image and reducing the image size to print it out however you like. If you don't have any image editing software, you might squeeze by changing your user preferences to adjust the image sizes under the Files tab. -- Solipsist 09:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M4 with a full stock

Does anyone know if such a thing exists? I would imagine so, but I am not sure... thanks.

I seeme to have seemed some oddities like that one. many acessory manufacturor are able to make fixed stocks. They in anyway shouldn't be isued.

i also have seen plenty of strange cominations, mostly while i was in iraq, such as an m16a2 upper reciever attached to an m4 lower reciever. i can't recall specifically seeing an m4 upper on an m16 lower, but i'm sure someone has done it. although actually, now that i think about it, i once came across two brit mercs with heavily modified m4s, and i believe one of them had a custom fixed stock. however, i can't recall the maker of said stocks, so i can't verify it. Parsecboy 13:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operating Traits section

I don't see any need for this to be in the article, it reads like a how-to guide and conveys no additional technical information. -Objectivist-C 04:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be re-written, not deleted (maybe a new tag is in-order specifically for when this problem in firearm articles). How firearms function are integral to their technical nature. The way they function is as critical as a plot to a movie- such as what cocks first, or what way a lever is turned. Ve3 04:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, 2 reverts is not in danger of 3RRR- 3 would be, as one more would be more then 3. Ve3 04:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it needs to be re-written. In its present state, it's not written in the proper grammatical person (it's using 2nd person) and encyclopedic tone (it's written as a "how-to" guide). I agree that an Operation section is crucial to understanding the firearm's functioning, so the best thing to do is probably follow the M1 Garand's Operation section as an example of how the M4's operation can be better described. The M1 article also had a "how-to" type of section, and was re-written to fit the Wikipedia guidelines. --Squalla 19:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should create a tag specifically for this issue, and mark it as such so somone can re-write it into a more encyclopedic format. Even if we don't need it right now for this one (such as if we re-write it right now), it will be usefull for the future. Ve3 23:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed in the article on the m4 that there are alot of generalizations of the m4 series or remarks made about the weapons through second hand knowledge or just plain BS. I want to correct some of these remarks. The naming the m4 by our Military forces as either Carbine or rifle is done by indvidual soldiers based on personal opinions. In the amry and marines the call the m4 and m16 series rifles even though they are carbines because is a generalization and a tradition to call your personal weapon by that name. For example m16 or m4 would be called a rifle not a gun or machinre gun. A handgun would be called a pistol. While a fifty, a pig, and a saw would be called a machine gun. The reason for this specific use of names is because most ifantry units, (caution foul language}, see a rifle is for fun while a gun is for pleasure or the the gun is a slang for penis.

Technically there is no debate. The US Army official designation for the system is Carbine, 5.56mm, M4, not anything else, regardless of what anyone else calls it. -- Thatguy96 17:45, 25 June 2006

As for who uses the m4, it currently used by most infantry units including national gaurd and reserve 11 series units since as early as the mid 90s. Though the army and reserve componets have not fazed out the m16 series it has moved most of its m16 series to none line units and given the m4 to 11 series companies thus the m4 is not just for special forces units.

As for the m4 used of the grenade launcher attachments, a lot of m4 and m16 have over periods of time while in army and other military companies have recieved new parts and upper and lower recievers and thus you will on accosion find m4 or m16 with launchers when the rail system was not designed to take one. The military always keep a weapons no matter how messed up it is and usually jerry rigs new parts for it by canniblizing other weapons.

As for the person who asked is there an m4 with a full stock, no there is not because then the weapon would not be an m4 it would be an m16. Most people seem to think that just because the weapone has a certain name and number by it its a completely diffrent weapon when in reality there is hardly any diffrence between the m16 and the m4 other then the stock, weight, and range. THis is for a military grade m4.

It would be neither. A M4 style carbine with a full stock is not a officially designated system in the US military. It is neither an M4 or an M16. The differences between the M16 and the M4 extend to the buffer and buffer assembly, gas tube, and furniture, as well as, the obvious changes in range and weight. -- Thatguy96 17:45, 25 June 2006

In the article some on pulled an abrreviation for military operations in urbans areas out their ass, the proper term is mout or movement over urbanized terrain.

In parts of the article people stated the soldiers complained about the malfunctioning of the rifle, well the weapons malfunctions when its not cleaned. It will not break or mess up unless you try to break it on purpose or the weapons is taken very poor care of. TO army and tm stardards you have to clean the barrel and use clp to oil the upper reciver. Examples of what happens when you do not mantian your equipment is jessica lynch which is another story entirely.

How i know this stuff is beacuase i am an Army 11bravo

There seems to be some conflict about how long the m4's range is and the m4a1's range...in my experiance, later models of both the m4 and m4a1 have had an effective range of 600 meters and a maximum range of 800 meters...of course each weapon vary's and the gun is often changed to suit the mission, but I would say that the earlier models of the m4 had an effective range of only 300 meters as proven here -- Forward Sword 12:19, 19 October 2006 (PTC)

24.60.104.71 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)the maximum effective range of any gun is the distance a trained operator can hit a human shaped target 50% of the time. Whether or not a target has been hit at longer ranges is a different story.

[edit] How-to (Operation)

I have removed this section, because it violates Wikipedia polices (see WP:NOT), specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that explicitly names "how-to" information as undesirable. Deon Steyn 09:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expert tag

Can we remove this? Which issues still need to be resolved? From the official site the muzzle velocity is listed as 884 m/s so the 850 m/s is pretty much correct. [1]

What else needs to be cleared up before we can remove the "expert" tag?

--Deon Steyn 06:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FN Contract M4s

To my knowledge there were never any FN M4s, or any type. There were some COTS purchases of Bushmaster carbines during the early '90s, but Colt continues to maintain that it is the sole source for M4s to the US military. Its recent largely frivalous lawsuit against HK's use of the M4 moniker was based heavily on this justification. Also, while FN managed to wrest away the M16A2 contract, Colt and FN share the M16A4 contract (or whatever the situation, there are both FN and Colt property marked M16A4s. I have not seen any pictures of FN M4s, and their websites which feature information about the M16A2 and M16A4, make no such claims. -- Thatguy96 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Under a 1997 amendment to the 1967 Technical Data Package Licensing Agreement, the US Government cannot legally second-source production of the M4 Carbine until July 1, 2009 (one source claims 2011). The government was effectively blackmailed into accepting these terms when Colt threatened to sue and terminate the US government's TDP rights to the entire M16 rifle family. Colt's leverage was that the M4's TDP was improperly released to the US Navy (NSWC-Crane), who then sent copies to other manufacturers, including FNMI, during solicitations for SOPMOD accessories. While all of the copies were returned, only FNMI refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
FWIW: FNMI won all but one of the US government's M16A2/M16A4 production contracts since 1988. D.E. Watters 01:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colt Model Numbers

The RO977 is a commerical model to the same specs as the M4A1. The military models, as clearly stated further down the page were the 920 and 921/HB. -- Thatguy96 19:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/4/_/Talk%7EM4_Carbine_daaf.html"