The M4 Carbine getting a heavier barrel [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The M4 Carbine getting a heavier barrel


RMTactical
01-18-2010, 16:25
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/m4-and-m4a1-guns/

Interesting test videos in that link.

Not sure I am going to change to a heavier profile barrel anytime soon personally. I wish I were merely limited to 3 round burst though. :supergrin:

Remington700VS
01-18-2010, 16:39
Those poor colts

faawrenchbndr
01-18-2010, 16:44
:faint:

crazymoose
01-18-2010, 17:22
The M4A1 (full auto, heavy barrel) has been in use by various special forces outfits for some time. A lightweight barrel is a piss-poor idea for any automatic rifle, and the government profile and M4 grenade launcher cuts have gotten more than a few soldiers killed because their rifles could not sustain the necessary firing rates.

I personally detest the government profile. A constant medium contour is far preferable to a barrel that's lightweight in one part and heavy in the other. With the widespread use of rails and grenade launchers that mount to them, there is no reason for this ridiculous barrel profile.

RMTactical
01-18-2010, 17:33
The M4A1 (full auto, heavy barrel) has been in use by various special forces outfits for some time. A lightweight barrel is a piss-poor idea for any automatic rifle, and the government profile and M4 grenade launcher cuts have gotten more than a few soldiers killed because their rifles could not sustain the necessary firing rates.

Got any documentation of that?

I love the M4 profile. I think it is good enough for the M4, but in my case I have no select fire options... so even more appropriate for civilians.

The AR15 was never meant to be a machine gun. It was made to be an assault rifle. Use the right tool for the job.

furioso2112
01-18-2010, 18:19
I prefer the mid-weight profile that came on my BCM SS410 barrel - good combination for weight and accuracy. I don't mind the extra ounces - I weigh 215 (no, not kilos) and am tall and relatively athletic, so maybe I don't notice weight as much as some others. The gun I have that upper on is still lighter than my Sig556, by my estimation.

lawman800
01-19-2010, 02:50
Good for the military who might need it for sustained fire, non-issue for LEOs and civilian users.

As for using the right tool for the job, sometimes a small unit behind enemy lines use what they got. Not every man of a SEAL element can carry a M249 or M60 and when they have to engage, they have to engage. If a few guys have their M4 and they need to pour on fire, they pour on fire.

reaper8154
01-19-2010, 09:51
I watched the videos about a week ago. Seems the heavy barrel has it's advantages, but I highly doubt there have been even a handful of soldiers killed by an M4 barrel melting. To believe that would mean that you are just buying into the M4 bashing hype.

If you have to run 500+ rounds through an M4 in 2 minutes, then maybe it was just your time to go...:dunno:

internal
01-19-2010, 11:41
Umm I thought it was figured out years ago that if it has a full auto switch, it needs a heavier barrel.

This is nothing new.

Andrewsky
01-19-2010, 14:24
I always thought there was the M4 and the M4A1. The only difference between the two was that the M4 was 3 round burst and the M4A1 was full auto.

I thought that the only variation in barrel weight was the "SOCOM" barrel that was installed on some M4A1s.

vafish
01-19-2010, 14:37
If they retrofit the hundreds of thousands of rifles in the system now what are the chances of those barrels showing up on the surplus market?

Aurora
01-19-2010, 15:30
I forgot where I read it,.... but I was reading a discussion on some forum about how thin barrel may actually be better since it cools faster,..... or some such thing.

I think these people cycle ideas around every few years just to get us to spend money.

Of course, I could just be cynical.

V.

Alex g30
01-19-2010, 15:35
Excellent info

High Altitude
01-19-2010, 16:41
The AR15 was never meant to be a machine gun. It was made to be an assault rifle. Use the right tool for the job.

Yup, can't turn it into a belt fed machine gun no matter how much you want to.

Keep adding weight and sustained fire capability and it won't perform it's primary use that well.

Andrewsky
01-19-2010, 17:01
If they retrofit the hundreds of thousands of rifles in the system now what are the chances of those barrels showing up on the surplus market?

Don't want 'em.:whistling:

I would only buy a new barrel.

RMTactical
01-19-2010, 17:17
Umm I thought it was figured out years ago that if it has a full auto switch, it needs a heavier barrel.

This is nothing new.

The M4 isn't full auto though. It is 3 round burst.

45reloader
01-19-2010, 17:20
No one is carrying that much ammo.And soldiers are trained to cool weapons or swap barrels.

internal
01-19-2010, 17:22
The M4 isn't full auto though. It is 3 round burst.

That's all fine and dandy but that has nothing to do with my comment.

MDLibertarian
01-19-2010, 18:12
Yup, can't turn it into a belt fed machine gun no matter how much you want to.

Keep adding weight and sustained fire capability and it won't perform it's primary use that well.

Have you ever heard of the Shrike (http://www.aresdefensesales.com/index_files/Page1122.htm) made by Ares Defense Systems?

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/Shrike556-CQB-LMG-003.JPG

Remington700VS
01-19-2010, 18:54
Have you ever heard of the Shrike (http://www.aresdefensesales.com/index_files/Page1122.htm) made by Ares Defense Systems?

http://www.aresdefense.com/images/Shrike556-CQB-LMG-003.JPG


Thats bad AARSSSSS :wow::supergrin:

lawman800
01-19-2010, 21:34
I'd hit it.