There is nothing much
cooler at the range than a short barreled rifle especially a M4 with all the
latest new gizmos hanging off of it but has the cool factor actually become
more important that the effectiveness of the current U.S. service weapon. The U.S. military has always prided itself as
being a force of riflemen and has fielded some of the best weapons in history
the M1903 Springfield, the M1917 Enfield (made in greater numbers than the
M190A3), the M1 Garand and arguably the M16 (which is technically a carbine
with its 20” barrel). However the last few years has seen the U.S. military
turning into a carbine armed force. Even
the Marine Corps which until recently resisted the M4 urge is deploying more of
these weapons to troops headed to Afghanistan.
It is a fact that not all military forces have a need for
a full sized rifle. “It was recognized
that the officer, medic, military policeman, and the tank crewman needed a
weapon that could be carried constantly and safely for emergency self defense (Lewis, 2004).” This was weapon was to replace the handgun
then in issue (it never did). This
weapon was plagued by complaints of poor stopping power and poor
reliability. Fast forward a few years
and now the military requires a “weapon to be issued to units and personnel with
a requirement for an effective but compact highly portable/sling able hands
free weapon (Lewis, 2004).” This weapon was to initially replace all M3A1 .45
caliber submachine guns issued to tankers, and selected pistols and
rifles. This weapon is plagued by
complaints of poor stopping power and poor reliability. The first weapon was the M1 carbine of WWII
fame and the second the current M4. What
makes this debate even more thought provoking is that both of these essentially
personal defense weapons (PDW) made it to large scale front line usage. With more than six million M1 carbines made
it became the most produced weapon of WWII.
The M4 became the U.S. Army’s standard individual weapon in 2005 with
most Special Operations units began use much earlier and as stated previously
the Marine Corps acquiring significant numbers of them currently.
The popularity of the M1 carbine was due to its light
weight and short length verses the heavy, long but very effective M1
Garand. The M1 carbine is only 5.2 lbs
and 35.6” longs compared to the 9.5 lbs and 43.6” long Garand. This is a huge difference for rear echelon
troops whose job does not require the use of a rifle on a daily bases. It is an even bigger difference to combat
troops who are most of the time encumbered with a ton of extra gear even back
in WWII. The M1 carbine was plagued by
mechanical issues especially in cold weather, the fully automatic M2 was also
prone to jamming. The other issue was a
lack of stopping power as the 110 grain full metal jacket bullet was only
effective out to approximately 100 meters.
This is good enough as a personal defense weapon for supply troops,
officers, and close in urban combat front line troops found this weapon and
round wanting.
Anecdotal evidence about the M1 carbine
complained of a lack of stopping power and reliability. Marine Lt. Joseph in a 1950 interview with S.L. A.
Marshall after the defense of Hagaru –ri, Korea is quoted as saying “About 30
percent of our carbines gave us trouble, but the main reason my men lost faith
in the carbine was because they could put a bullet right in a man’s chest at 25
yards and would not stop (Lewis, 2004). The M1 carbine has been used effectively by
hunters and police departments who are able to use expanding ammunition that
the military is unable to use do to the Hague conventions. This history lesson takes brings us to the
U.S. military’s current carbine the M4/M4A1.
The
M4 and the 5.56x45 round struggles against targets especially in Afghanistan
where engagement ranges often exceed 300 meters. “The infantry’s ability to fix or kill the
enemy with organic weapons systems beyond 200 meters is limited by his equipment
and training. The incapacitation
mechanism of small caliber bullets such as the 5.56x45 comes primarily from
bullet fragmentation. Bullet
fragmentation occurs only at sufficiently high velocity. All 5.56 weapons are most effective when employed
within 200 meters (Ehrhart, 2009).” The M4 with its shortened barrel may have a
much shorter effective range. This lack
of organic weapon effectiveness means fewer weapons in a fight if only
Designated Marksmen (DM), medium 7.62x51mm machine guns, and 60mm mortars have
the range to engage an enemy in the middle distance.
While
there is no doubt that the 5.56 rounds and the M16 family of weapons will be
with the military for the foreseeable future (for cost reasons if nothing else)
is the M4 the most effective weapon to fire this round from. The 5.56 round due to its small size relies
on velocity to do its damage. The yaw
and break of up of the bullet only happens when the bullet strikes the target
above a certain velocity which is in the 2700-2750 fps range. The 20” M16 with the 62 grain M855 ball round
maintains this velocity to approximately 100 yards where it is moving at 2765
fps. The 14.5” barreled M4 maintains the
required velocity too approximately 50 yards.
So what does the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine gain for the loss of
performance between the M16 and M4? The
M4 loaded weighs about a pound 7.36lbs than the M16 8.5lbs the big difference
comes in length of the weapons were an M4 with the stock fully collapsed is
only 29.75” long verses the M16 at 39”.
This makes the M4 handier when getting into and out of vehicles and in
urban combat but is it really worth the effectiveness loss? Where the M4 doe excel is in urban and close
quarters battle situations it size is similar to submachine gun. The SEALs that took down Osama bin Laden
where using M4s and the weapon performed flawlessly while clearing the
compound. However even in urban combat
shots of over 50 yards may need to be taken this will again show the weakness
of the 5.56 rounds out of a short barrel.
While
the M4 is super cool and has a place in urban
or close quarters battle environment it may actually make units weaker. A historical example is again the M1/2
carbine. S.L.A. Marshall had this to say
about small caliber fully automatic carbines. “The carbine, made fully
automatic has provided no additional power to the infantry line in virtue of
the change but to the contrary in hard terms of tactical practicality has
served but to weaken the infantry firebase (Lewis,
2004).” The current lack of an
effective medium range infantry weapon has necessitated the addition of the
Designated Marksman (DM) and his weapon system either a rebuilt M14 or the M110
both 7.62x51 mm weapons. This was
actually foreseen back in 1963 in a Guns and Ammo article about the military’s
adaption of the M16. “Possibly, evolving combat doctrine will in the future
make room for one or two sharpshooting snipers per squad, armed with long
ranging rifles, perhaps even the M14 (Beecher,
2011). This is a prophecy that
has come true. With the addition of the
DM to a squad it actually might reduce the effectiveness of a squad in an urban
area as it takes a weapon out of the stack that is helping clear an area.
After
WWII it was discovered that most military engagements took place a ranges of
300 meters or less. Afghanistan is the
exception to this engagement ranges are commonly 300 meters and approach 500
meters (Ehrhart, 2009). The enemy knowing our troops engagement
ranges will shoot at US forces with a medium 7.62x54 caliber machine guns that
out ranges anything but a squad DM, a M240 gunner, or a vehicle mounted weapon
leaving most troops out of the fight.
Enemy forces can then maneuver closer while US troops are pinned by the
longer range fire. The US military is
excellent at long range engagements with precision weapons, artillery, and
air. The current carbine oriented
military is also very effective in the short range 0-200 meters it is the
300-500 meter range band where most weapons systems organic to an infantry
squad are ineffective.
The
military has not however sat on its collective hands and done nothing to
counter this problem it has issued two new 5.56 rounds that to increase the
effectiveness of the M16/M4 family of weapons there is the M262 Model 1 round
that is basically a 77 grain Sierra Match King bullets with a lower yaw
velocity that increases the effective range of the M16 to 200-225 yards and the
M4 to 125-150 yards. The new M855A1
round that started equipping US troops in 2010 according to the Army this round
will be able to alleviate most of the complaints against the old M855 ammo and
resolve the Carbine issue.
“Also notable is the EPR's excellent performance against softer intermediate
barriers such as car doors, windshields, or Kevlar fabric. The thinner metal
found on car doors poses no problem. When engaging targets behind windshields
with the EPR, ARL has shown an increase in the probability of hitting the
occupant, due to both the steel penetrator and the copper slug remaining intact
through the glass. Furthermore, ARL tested the round against 24 layers of
Kevlar fabric out to 1,000 meters, but discontinued the test as the Kevlar
showed no sign of being able to stop the EPR. The EPR also penetrates some
lesser-quality body armors designed to stop 7.62mm ball rounds.
Another benefit Soldiers will see from the new round is its effectiveness when engaging soft targets at longer ranges.
As a small-caliber projectile's velocity decreases, it eventually will reach a point at which it can no longer transfer most of its energy to its target. Below this velocity, which equates to range, the round is more likely to pass through its target with little effect. The M855A1 can maintain consistent, desired effects at a much lower velocity, resulting in excellent effectiveness at far greater ranges along its trajectory.
In addition to the above-mentioned performance improvements, the EPR is more accurate than the M855. Accuracy testing during production lot acceptance has shown that, on average, 95 percent of the rounds will hit within an 8 x 8-inch target at 600 meters. It also uses a flash-reduced propellant optimized for the M4's shorter barrel (Woods, 2010).
Another benefit Soldiers will see from the new round is its effectiveness when engaging soft targets at longer ranges.
As a small-caliber projectile's velocity decreases, it eventually will reach a point at which it can no longer transfer most of its energy to its target. Below this velocity, which equates to range, the round is more likely to pass through its target with little effect. The M855A1 can maintain consistent, desired effects at a much lower velocity, resulting in excellent effectiveness at far greater ranges along its trajectory.
In addition to the above-mentioned performance improvements, the EPR is more accurate than the M855. Accuracy testing during production lot acceptance has shown that, on average, 95 percent of the rounds will hit within an 8 x 8-inch target at 600 meters. It also uses a flash-reduced propellant optimized for the M4's shorter barrel (Woods, 2010).
Since
it is yet to be seen if the new ammunition can perform as advertised there has
to be a middle ground where the average line infantryman can get a compact
weapon with a barrel length adequate enough to propel the 5.56x45 round at high
velocity. Early in the War on Terror the
SPR (Special Purpose Rifle) was put into use it had a collapsible stock and an
18” free floated barrel this is similar to the Marine Corps IAR (Individual
Automatic Rifle that is replacing the SAW).
Both of these rifles are very accurate, Marines assigned the IAR are not
allowed to use them during rifle qualifications because the rifle offers
advantages over the standard M16A4. Also
with the collapsible stock a somewhat shorter barrel will allow for more
handiness getting into and out of vehicles and in close quarters battle. This will give the infantryman a weapon that
can engage from 0-500 meters. The
military can then use the M4 for what it was intended Special Operations who do
to the nature of their work need a smaller weapon and as a personal defense
weapon for everyone else.
Bibliography
Beecher, W. (2011). Fantastic New Weapons That May Replace
it. Book of the AR-15 , pp. 120-126.
Ehrhart, M. T. (2009). Increasing Small Arms Lethality in
Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer. Fort Leavenworth, KS:
School of Advanced Military Studies.
Lewis, J. (2004). The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons:
The What and Why of Carbines. Iola, WI: Krause Publications.
Woods, J. K. (2010, November 26). Evolution of the M855A1
Enhanced Performance Round. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from www.army.mil:
http://www.army.mil/article/48657/evolution-of-the-m855a1-enhanced-performance-round/
