Colt M4 prototypes (M4 PDW and piston action)

[major.rod]

I am an exhibitor at the NCO Symposium (Ft. Benning GA). Went by Colt and saw some interesting prototypes.

USMC Auto rifle replacement. USMC asked Colt to submit a prototype weapon to supplement/replace the SAW. Seems that squad fire and manuever being slowed somewhat by the SAW (emplacement/movement). Request was for a weapon that could provide automatic fire for the fire team/squad from magazines (don't know why). The weapon weighs about 11lbs and has a heat sump (looks like a honeycomb with round holes and multiple layers) under the heavy barrel. Interesting.

Army asked for a PDW. The stock was very interesting. I have several photos showing how its folded. Felt very sturdy and was very compact. Requires a different buffer and some changes to the bolt carrier to mitigate recoil with the shorter buffer.

The bottom PDW also sported a Colt version of the piston operating system. The sales staff showed me the piston which has a pivoting joint. According to the staff the joint minimizes shock competitors weapons have impacting accuracy somewhat.

Finally I have a hybrid Colt piston system. Instead of near the front sight assembly the piston is halfway down the barrel further isolating the piston from impacting the barrel and enhancing accuracy.

Whether its as good as the 416 remains to be seen. I liked it and the concepts. The pistons were also smaller than the H&K variants. Hope this helps/interests someone besides me.

Sorry about the one fuzzy photo and poor write up. I'm smoked. Maybe I will post some pics of my booth later. Nothing that would excite you guys.

[pukingdog]

Not a thing wrong with the write-up. Great shots, all into me goody file. Only downside: everyone's going to whine until Soldier Story does these.

Much obliged.

[major.rod]

true but not until they get adopted.

[Pivot]

If you have a look at some of the smaller PDW systems on the market (the Adams Arms piston drive PDW comes immediately to mind) keeps the full length receiver extension intact, and instead brings the barrel down to about 7.5". Long barrel on a PDW does make sense to me. It's a "pray and spray" mission profile. You don't need sub-1" MOA groups from a PDW, you need to lay the hurt on bad guys who have ventured a little too close to you for your comfort level.

From a fashion over function point of view, they're fugly too.

Great photos, Rod. Great technical reporting. Opinions?

[major.rod]

Thanks. I'm no weapons design guy though. Personally I wouldn't spend money on something with less than a 11" barrel. Even the 10" barrel impacts accuracy. BUT IT DOES LOOK COOL! For those that have "cool" as a criteria.

I like stuff that increases "overmatch" (from the chat last night). Overmatch = increeased accuracy, reliability and/or lethality versus the enemy's weapon systems. The piston, and super folding stock were the kind of things that interested me.

Until these get some feedback from the testers I can't speak knowledgeably. I will try and speak with the guys from the lab.

[Avtomat]

Looks like Colt's a day late and a dollar short, finally catching up on the short stroke gaspiston.

Even though they did experiment with it back in the day, adopting the AR18 system to the AR15/M16. Didn't make it back then. Hindsight is 20/20 because almost every military firearm except the M4/M16 uses a variant of that system. Exception being the Kalashnikov's and close related variants.

[billabongglobe]

Wasn't LWRC contracted to come up with an M4 design weapon to replace the SAW. Basically operating like the M4, but open bolt on full auto, and closed bolt on semi-auto?? Saw it on futureweapons and the gun had the Marine logo on the lower receiver.

[russcal]

Heya, Billabongglobe, and all!

The LWRC version of the IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) is their M6A4:



Other entries are from Colt:



and General Dynamics with a variant of the Ultimax 100:



Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

[billabongglobe]

Ah I see, thanks for the clarification russcal, and for the pics too!

[goaltendah1]

You know, I'm not a weapons expert nor a Infantry guy from my time in the Marines, but when I went through Marine Combat Training and Boot Camp, they always talked about the SAW being the base of fire in a squad. The nice thing about the SAW in my experience was the amount of firepower that could be brought to bear on the enemy in a quick amount of time. Going to a magazine fed weapon will be counter productive to that IMO, but like I said, I'm not an infantry type. Could anyone in the infantry side of the house comment on what they think the ramifications of a magazine only fed weapon in the Automatic Weapon position would be?

Jeff

[major.rod]

From my discussions with the Colt reps they explained the Corps was looking for a replacement to the SAW for offensive ops. The feedback was the SAW was too heavy and they wanted a magazine fed weapon to cross level ammo within the squad. Sounds like this is coming out of the CQB environment prevalent today. My concern is the next war might not be like what is being experienced now.

[goaltendah1]

What scares me is when they get deep in the shat and get into magazine changes. There is going to have to be a lot of coordination at the fire team level with ammo changes.

Another thing to think about is that they are going to increase weight and probably drop the amount of ammo that can be carries. I think a SAW pouch can currently carry 6-7 mags if I remember right. That's approximately 160-210 rounds depending on mags and how loaded you make each magazine (30 always seemed a little rough on the springs when I was in).

I think that there has got to be a better alternative. I always like the Stoner LMG. That seems to be small and uses the same belt as the SAW. I never fired or handled one, so I wouldn't know.

Jeff

[russcal]

Originally Posted by major.rod

My concern is the next war might not be like what is being experienced now.

Sounds like the lesson that the Pentagon and civilian leadership DON'T want to learn. Every war is theoretically fought using the tactics and procedure learned hard during the previous war... but it's amazing how much is quickly forgotten or ignored. You would think that something was learned during the Vietnam War of how to protect typically unarmored, lightly armed softskinned vehicles in a insurgent heavy enviroment... so where did the idea of the gun truck and protected convoys go?

The Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) seems like a step backward to me. Sure, its based on the service rifle, so there could possibly be a simplification in supply due to parts commonality. But the parts that would most likely need replacing (fire control) won't be common because this weapon fires from the open bolt, unlike the M16/M4 series. The barrel is different (thicker), and I bet the buffer is also heavier.

As to rate of fire, this is also a step backword. This weapon will not be able to provide the same base of fire as what is replacing. It firing from an open bolt will provide a slightly higher rate of fire than the common rifle, but, will still heat up and possibly cook off earlier than a dedicated light machine gun would.

Going back to lessons learned and quickly forgotten, when the M14 rifle was first adopted, an automatic rifle variant, the M15, was also developed. As soon as the weapon was type classified, saner minds prevailed: the M15 did not bridge the gap between the M14 rifle and the M60 GPMG. It had most of the same limitations of the M14 in automatic fire, so what was the point?

This rifle is not actually going to replacement the M249, but supplement it. So that raises other questions... what weapon do you take with you?

Russ
Proud son of Rose and Wes

[major.rod]

As I stated, right or wrong the Marines are "asking" (doesn't mean they will buy it) for a weapon that can provide automatic fire for the rifle squad in the assault.

Key Criteria
Lighter than the SAW
Max ammo commonality with the squad (Caliber & Magazines, NOTE: USMC specifically did not want a belt fed weapon because of the longer reload time)

IMHO - This is a knee jerk reaction to the current CQB fight. I don't think it will actually see daylight because Afghanistan will prove to be a different fight.

Russ - What do you take with you? Easy, whatever the squad leader tells you to take. Seriously though, if you are in Falluja this weapon may be the choice or you go with one SAW, two ARs or vice versa (Marine squad has three teams). You have solid points in trying to turn an assault rifle into an AR. Never been done successfully.

[goaltendah1]

I forgot about the belt loading times. Ugh!

The C-Mag always seemed like a good concept, but I have heard horror stories about their reliability. Not sure if that is accurate or not.

Major.Rod, your point of taking one SAW, 2 Automatic Rifles would probably work better. I almost think that the Marine Corps would be better off issuing both weapons to the Automatic Rifleman. I know that it would be a PITA to upkeep, but hey, that's what the assistant is there for, to help out the AR.

If they issued both then the unit could make a decision of what weapon to employ on a mission based on needs. The only problem is if they get into a situation where they are patrolling and it may be better to have the SAW and then get into a situation where they come across a hamlet or village that they are taking fire from and the situation evolves into a close quarters battle.

Anyways, I've taken the main discussion off track. The new weapons and concepts (folding stock) from Colt are nice. Thanks for the information Major.Rod. Much appreciated.

Jeff

[iampoch]

Originally Posted by goaltendah1

I forgot about the belt loading times. Ugh!

The C-Mag always seemed like a good concept, but I have heard horror stories about their reliability. Not sure if that is accurate or not.

Major.Rod, your point of taking one SAW, 2 Automatic Rifles would probably work better. I almost think that the Marine Corps would be better off issuing both weapons to the Automatic Rifleman. I know that it would be a PITA to upkeep, but hey, that's what the assistant is there for, to help out the AR.

If they issued both then the unit could make a decision of what weapon to employ on a mission based on needs. The only problem is if they get into a situation where they are patrolling and it may be better to have the SAW and then get into a situation where they come across a hamlet or village that they are taking fire from and the situation evolves into a close quarters battle.

Anyways, I've taken the main discussion off track. The new weapons and concepts (folding stock) from Colt are nice. Thanks for the information Major.Rod. Much appreciated.

Jeff

I agree with you regarding the C-Mag. It's really such a good concept, but based on what I keep reading, is notoriously unreliable

http://www.defendamerica.mil/article.../a072803b.html

There's also another company taking a jab on these kind of magazines, MWG:

http://www.defensereview.com/mwg-90-...ar-15-carbine/

Their snail magazine is 10 rounds shorter than C-Mag's but seems to be more reliable. Ergonomics leave a lot to be desired, though. I like C-Mag's ergonomics better.

Regardless, both of these magazine concepts, once ironed out, would be perfect for IARs. I bet a 30-rounder won't cut it for IARs as it'll eat the round up like there's no tomorrow.