Talk:M4 Carbine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M4 Carbine article.
Article policies
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

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

If that is the case then your knowledge is wrong. The M468 is an M4 only chambered for the 6.8x43 mm round. Hence the name M468.

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)

All: Just to clairify some stuff here. First I would not count on seeing a new 6.8 for several reasons. 1 it is not NATO approved. 2 There is no marked improvement in a heaver rounds leathality at average range (0-300M) in fact the only real advantage to a larger round is its increased accuracy at "long" range. 3 The bigger the round the heaver the ammo and the weapon.

The M855 (Ball) and the M856 (Tracer) are the standard duty loads for all the M16 family starting with the M16A2. To date there have been no other modifications to this round... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjames3701 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (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)

Rifle has to do with the barrel. The M4 has a rifled barrel so it can be called a Rifle.

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)

What do you mean by "regular units" don't recieve the M4? If you mean any non-special ops unit you would be incorrect. The 82nd Airborne is issued the M4 (You can even see the unit patch in the picture with the caption "troops..."). Also, what about Air Force Security Forces or other such units.

No he not saying the m4 isnt issued to regular troops just the model M4A1. the original M4 is issued just not the A1(Esskater11 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

In the picture of the MWS the caption reads: 'M4 MWS (Modular Weapon System) shown with various accessories including M203 grenade launcher, RIS foregrip, removeable carry handle/rear sight assembly, AN/PEQ-2 laser system, and several optional optics." there is no AN/PEQ2 in this picture. it is a PAC-4, a smaller IR laser i dont remeber the exact designation for that item but it should be changed. the pac-4 is smaller and does not have the fetures that the PEQ-2 does. hence it is usualy only issuded to Squad leaders and Team leaders, wiht the Pac-4s going to the team members.

[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)

As far as official military production/issue goes, Colt doesn't produce M4s with fixed stocks; All M4s have telescoping stocks as M16s have fixed stocks...Of course that doesn't keep individual soldiers from customizing their rifle, but companies like Wilson Combat [1] do sell M4 Carbine copies for civilian ownership with the option of a fixed stock, as far as I know of... SouthernStang93 16:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as both rifles have the same mounting pin type and both have the military bolt carrier type, any combination can be made in about 30 seconds. You can also mount any upper with military standard pins to any civilian lower to produce a semi-auto. If you mount a civilian upper to a military lower, you will, depending on what bolt carrier, have either a semi-auto or an unreliable selective fire model.
The only major differences between most models that cross the upper/lower line are:
  • Recoil buffers - The collapsing stock models have a shorter tube and therefore buffers.
  • The feed rails in the M4 are cut lower in and continue into the bottom of the upper.
  • Cited bolt-carrier differences. - Military models have a full circle cross section at the rear and a longer rear portion to allow it to connect and trip the sear. Civilian models have either an abbreviated circular portion at the rear or a "C" cross section. Deathbunny 03:13, 15 January 2007 (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. [2]

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)

[edit] What is the range of the M4?

What is the effective range of the M4? The article says:

"Although the M4 does not have as great an effective range as the longer M16, many military analysts consider engagement with a non-specialized small arm above a range of 300 meters to be unnecessary. It is effective at ranges of 150 meters or less. It has a maximum effective range of about 400 meters."

Meanwhile, the Colt page here on the M4 shows the effective range at 600 meters. So, is this an inconsistency?

I also recommend a photo comparing the M4 with the telescoping buttstock in differing positions as a comparison.

Also, why isn't the effective range listed in the infobox like, say, the MP5? --Blue387 18:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Effective range is PURELY subjective. Each round is different, each soldier, each situation. The maximum AVERAGE range might be two or three miles. That is, the projectile will fly that far and may inflict casualties at that range. You give a good marksman an M4 and he might be able to consistently strike man-sized targets at 600 yards, however that does not mean that the rifle is considered effective at that range. Were it me, I'd leave this subjective and arbitrary figure out completely. --Asams10 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The effective range of the M4 is 500 metres.

Uncle sams definition of max effective range is "the range at which the average soldier should be able to engage a target 50% of the time.

The military max effective range for the M4 is Point target 400M Area target 500M Max range 3600M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjames3701 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cites

Where are the cites? I thought it was Wiki policy to require cites. Borat55 00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people do not have thier source or its something thats common knoweldge. Of course people will evetualy cite them(ForeverDEAD 13:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Not having a source makes it sound like WP:OR and the "common knowledge" statement is something that I don't believe passes muster with WP:VER. Arthurrh 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflicts

the M4 served in the hands of Special Ops in the battle for Mogadishu in 1993 as seen in Black Hawk Down, so you should add that to the list of conflicts its served in.

Negative, the carbines used in Somalia were pre-M4. M4 is adopted 1994. Dates simply do not match. -- Thatguy96 06:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading the Mark Bowden book "Blackhawk down" I belive most of the rangers and deltas was equiped with Car-15s as he almost exclusively talks about this rifle througout the book -Reigstad

In the battle of mogadishu as in the movie deltas used M723 and M733 while most of the rangers used M16A2 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mayr (talk • contribs) 21:36, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lebanese Army

Just read that the US Government will donate around 3.000 rifles (both M16 and M4) rifles to the Leb. Army. Should it be included in the "operator" panel?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/21/lebanon.haddad/index.html Then to the left there is a video called "U.S. to ship humvees, rifles and ammo to Beirut".

[edit] Article title?

I know this is a very minor issue, but do you think the title should be renamed 'M4 Carbine' (carbine is capitalised)? The weapon seems to be actually called the M4 Carbine, not just M4 with carbine tacked on the end so we know what type of weapon it is. Compared to XM8 rifle, that title is correct because the gun is called the XM8 and has rifle added so readers know what the article is about (the title XM8 would be too short and simple to understand). Because M4 Carbine is this rifle's name, it deserves capitalisation. X360 07:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel it shouldnt be capitatalised as carbine capitalized is techincaly correct. Yes it makes a good title name but its wrong. im prettyyy sure the M16 rifle has an argument on the section weather the rifle should be on it, and if it doesnt im pretty sure the M1 Garand does.(ForeverDEAD 23:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC))

M4 Carbine is actually the gun's name, the M16 name's as is. Rifle is just added to the title to stop confusion between other similar designations. Hayden120 02:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] M16/M4 in Delayed Blowback: Possible?

Is it possible to manufacture an M16/M4 rifle in Lever/Roller delayed blowback?, Becouse it would be more powerful/reliable/accurate/reload faster and be a better weapon altogether. Wasnt there also complaints about the M16/M4 gas port fouling and corrosion problems?

Also, The FAMAS and the highly sucsessful TKB-517 uses Lever delayed blowback and have had exellent reports. User:Jetwave Dave

(sigh)... this isn't some forum for you to ask such questions, but thats why you've been band, is that not so.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Tawaazun, this is a post from 2007 prior to his being banned. His question sophmoric and betrayed a deep lack of understanding about the basics for firearms operation. Gas ports don't foul, corrosion problems were solved in the late 60's, and the TKB-517 was a dead-end prototype, not highly successful. The FAMAS had such problems with its delayed blowback system that the French use Steel-cased ammo to prevent the rims from being ripped off the cartridge. No, you could not manufacture an M16/M4 to use lever or roller-delayed blowback without changing the design of the gun such that it would be a comletely new firearm. Why not buy an FAMAS or G41 if you're going to do that? Jetwave Dave had mental issues and I hate to make lite of it by feeding him anymore. --Asams10 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, my bad. Thanks.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Currrent Colt model numbers

The article states this: The current government standards are the Colt Model 920 (M4) and 921 (M4A1). Is that up to date?
Colt's web site lists "RO977/979" for the M4 and "RO933/935" for M4A1 (Commando) now. Thanks. -Fnlayson 02:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are the Commerical/Export model numbers. The way Colt does this is that there are differing Model numbers for government contracts vs. sales to foreign militaries, police organizations, or other organizations. The numbers listed are correct. Furthermore, on the matter of the RO prefix, Colt currently uses the RO prefix to denote military weapons, using R, AR, and now LE for non-military weapons. The truth of the matter is that both series are seperated by the fact that the RO series is the prefix followed by three digits, while the R/AR/LE series is followed by four digits. The RO prefix only comes into usage during the 1970s. You can put it in or take it out, the model number is still basically the same. -- Thatguy96 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining. Yea the law enforcements pages list similar model numbers. The 920, 921 numbers seem fine without the RO. -Fnlayson 04:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
For a more detailed look at this you can check the table in the CAR-15 article. -- Thatguy96 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barrel Length

Is there any loss of power from muzzle flash due to the short barrel not giving the M-16 regulation powder time to fully ignite inside the barrel? AThousandYoung 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Somalia

The M4 Carbine was used by elite forces in the operations in Somalia, 1993 including the battle of Mogadishu. So you might want to add Somalia to the list of wars in the infobox up top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.5.35 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


I belive those were CAR 15's not M4's. Our own article states it want issued untill 1994. Though it is highly possible elite unit had them. Esskater11 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
They were CAR-15s, and in the case of Air Force units, GAU-5s (AF designation for CAR-15). No M4s were in the hands of Special Forces units.--LWF 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Defiently CAR 15's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.253.170 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It was CAR-15 colt models 723,727 and 733--Blain Toddi (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I found this article which says that the M4 was introduced to service in 1991 !!!!! http://www.army.mil/-newsreleases/2007/03/29/2471-army-position--m4-carbine-is-soldiers-battlefield-weapon-of-choice/ --Max Mayr (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but I will point out that all sources on our operations in Somalia specifically state that CAR-15s were carried, not M4s.--LWF (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll find some confusion over the introduction dates, but the 1991 purchases were Colt 720s (sometimes referred to as XM4s, some times not), and their deployment was limited. Pictures of these M16A2 carbines can be found in the hands of personnel in Somalia, but their use was extremely limited at best, and is largely before the adoption of anything actually called an M4 into US military service. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the Book Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden it states it was CAR-15 --Blain Toddi (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full-auto and burst designation issues

Just to reiterate, the differences between the M4 and M4A1 designations are officially that the former is S-1-3 and the latter is S-1-F. That Colt and other manufacturers offer weapons using various iterations of the M4 designation does not change the official military definitions, which is what this article is about. There is no official M4A3 carbine, nor is there even an M4A2 carbine. A section for M4-type carbines produced commerically and the usage of the term might be a helpful addition to this article. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh, "M4 series carbine" was meant to cover the M4 and its mil variants. Seems like a leap to throw commercial versions in there too. The last editor was trying to make it a more general comparison between the M4/M4A1 and the M16 mil variants it seems. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Saying the difference between the M4 and the M16 is that the former is full-auto (oops, A1 version only!) and the later is 3-round burst (except, well, you know the A1 and A3 don't really count) is misleading. Yes, as worded it is very technically correct -- but I feel it is misleading. I'm not going to re-do my edit, but if others agree with me they are welcome to. --WhyTanFox (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
      • These distinctions do need to be added, by the article isn't about "M4-type carbines" its about the M4 Carbine, and that is technical. It perpetuates a common misconception that all M4's are S-1-F, and I agree it needs to be explained in this article, but where it was was misleading in the opposite direction. I would like to see it readded myself, but in a way that properly addressed the nomenclature confusion between US military and commercial designations. This is even more that case since the trade mark section could also be expanded to note this as the term "M4" is used by a variety of manufacturers as well. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
        • First, my edit did not read "M4-type", it read "M4 series". If you are talking about the M4 Carbine, then we are talking about a weapon that goes S-1-3, as only the M4A1 goes S-1-Fun.
          The section we are talking about is comparing the carbine to the rifle, and as the mode-of-fire varies between different carbine models and different rifle models it should not be included in that list. The bullet point is only true when compared to the M16A2 -- which has been superseded by the M16A4 anyway.
          I am taking that point back out.
          --WhyTanFox (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
          • I have to agree that edit is both clearer and prevents the section from being misleading. I was also working on the assumption that you were continuing from the earlier talk about commercial M4A1 and M4A3 weapons as part of the "M4 series," and misinterpreted what you were saying. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
            • Great, +87's for everybody! --WhyTanFox (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cost of Manufacturing

Shouldn't this be added to the information presented at the beginning of the page along with length, weight, variants, ect.? --Whtwlf888 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users section

[3] Colt's website has a complete list that should be transfered over here. I'd do it myself but I don't know the 3 letter country codes. SpartanPhalanx (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reference does not support the info. It says the use Colt products, not the M4 specifically. You'll have to do better than that for reference purposes. --Asams10 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of the M4 in the Iraqi Army

You know, I'll admit right here that the revert was based a little on what I "thought at the time," but I can't seem to find any graphic evidence. I distinctly remember seeing some "elite" Iraqi soldiers with US weapons (not just the units that have converted to M16s), and I distinctly remember them carrying M4s or similar carbines as part of the package. Perhaps someone can provide a source either way? -- Thatguy96 (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

here ya go: SOURCE - Tmaull (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Great article. Looks like they are doing this for two reasons. First, it is easier to track M16's and M4's than it is AK's from an accountability point of view. Second, as a Military Assistance program, it is Cheaper and Easier for the US to supply surplus and perhaps new weapons we already have and institute our own training programs than it is to develop something new and 'foreign' to us as we are doing the training. --Asams10 (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
From [THIS article, it looks like more of an image/morale thing. - Tmaull (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PLAGIARISM

The following line is pulled directly from the source that is cited:

"If all goes well in testing, the improved magazines could be ready by next spring."

The whole section on the 2007 "dust test" needs to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.77.135 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention Replacement by FN SCAR?

The FN SCAR L and H (Mk 16 and Mk 17) are replacing SOCOM's fielding of the M4. I think we should mention that in the article.24.15.64.119 (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)jake

Done БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 6.5

I saw on (some of you are gonna hate me for this) future weapons that the us military was testing an M4 chambered in 6.5 grendel (or whatever they called it). Don't know the name of the weapon or much about it aside from the use of a larger round so more sources would be nice. Should this get a mention in the article?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Arms is the only company that I know of that makes 6.5mm AR-15 rifles and upper receivers. It shouldn't be mentioned in this article as the military is constantly testing new technology, this is not particularly related to the M4 itself, and we need a reference too. Hayden120 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine but that doesn't look like the one I'm talking about. I'll see if I can find it.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the company makes 14.5" barrelled rifles that look exactly the same as conventional M4s... Hayden120 (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about the M468,which uses the 6.8mm round. This weapon has its own page.SpartanGlory1983 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) SpartanGlory1983

Please don't comment on subjects you have absolutely no clue about. 6.5 mm Grendel is not the same as 6.8 mm Remington SPC. And by the way, the Barrett M468, now known as the Barrett 'REC7', is not the only rifle (or AR-15 even) that uses the 6.8 mm round. Unless of course 13Tawaazun14 is getting mixed up with the 6.8 mm, then I give my apologies for my abruptness. Hayden120 (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No apologies are needed because I'm not getting them mixed up. Both the REC7 and the 6.5 Grendel one were featured on future weapons, the difference is they were on 2 different seasons, 2 different episodes etc, etc. Oh, btw, it is alexander arms that made the weapon I was refering too.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sabre Defence see video This company was also involved in development of the Grendel 6.5 round. The competition version is fantastic, expect steep ammo costs though, as a result most people hand load. [at least in the UK] Twobells (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen Proving Ground Dust Test Legitimacy?

Why is there no mention of the fact that the results of the 2007 "Dust Test" at Aberdeen Proving Ground have been brought under question, when this was brought up in the FN SCAR article? --209.244.30.40 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, given the fact that the Army back-pedaled extensively after the tests, it's probably a good test. The Army generally fixes tests in the favor of Army desires, not the opposite. The Army wants to kepe the M4 because, well, that's what they say. Why would they fix the dust test to prove their golden gun is inferior? Uh, they DID fix the first test in which the M4 performed much better. The problem was, there was too much scrutiny to fix the second test. Any 'questions' about the test have come from conspiracy theorists and M4 apologists. No matter what the process, both sides will cry foul... that doesn't need to go into the article. Are there legitemate questions? I don't think so. The Army ran the test the same way for everybody and they got egg on their faces. Frankly, virtually everybody else knew the M4 wasn't the best thing going, the only question was what was the value of switching from good enough to better? --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming (again)(sry)

The M4 is not an Assault Rifle it's a Carbine. Both the military(ies that use it that I know of) and the makers (Colt, Bushmaster, etc.) refer to it as a Carbine, so why does the info box say assault rifle.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The M4 is a assault rifle in carbine form. Its still falls under the basic characteristics of a assault rifle. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 02:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, "Assualt rifle in Carbine form"... that doesn't make sence. A Carbine is basicly a smaller, *weaker* Assault Rifle or Rifle... that would mean any Assault rifle in Carbine form is a Carbine, thus, the M4 Assault Rifle in Carbine form=Carbine. So how does M4 Assault Rifle in Carbine form=Assault Rifle?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok The M16, Ak47, m4, and FAMAS are all assault rifles. Yet only the M4 is a carbine. What im getting here is that a carbine is sort of a "sub-catagoery" as assault rifle which is the general category. Also please preview before saving it gets a lil annoying after everytime i try to reply you make another edit. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 02:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll use the preview button more, but are you saying we arn't using Carbine because the term is technical?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • The point is that an assault rifle need not be rifle length. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "assault rifle" is very non-specific. There really is no definition other than "scary looking gun". I don't think it should be used on wikipedia. The M4 is a select fire or semi-automatic carbine with a box magazine and adjustable stock. Tmaull (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are thinking of assault weapon. Assault rifle is a common term literally used to define certain types of rifles used by militaries for assaulting a position. On the subject of the name, it is clear to someone reading the page that the M4 is a carbine, it's in the page name after all, but it is not as clear that it is still an assault rifle. Hence the use of assault rifle in the infobox.--LWF (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Price?

how much does one of these bad boys cost in American dollars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.239.31.197 (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)