AR Sponsor
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17221
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
Posted: 7/15/2022 4:24:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DocApocalypse][Edited]
|
If you were issued, or encountered, early versions of the M4 in your military service, I have some questions. Referencing this promotional video, what was your experience with the M4 configuration(s) shown in the video. 1. If the carbine(s) you encountered had an N1 stock, did the receiver extension have only the two-position slots, or more? 2. Did the early carbine(s) in your experience have the fixed carry handle, or only the flat top receiver? 3. Did you encounter M4's exactly as they were presented in the video, or had that configuration with the fixed carry handle and N1 stock largely already been superceded by the time the carbines were actually issued? 4. Did any unit ever actually see combat with M4's only using iron sights, or did they pretty much always come with some type of optic?  The ORIGINAL Colt M4 Carbine Video 1993 Here's a photo I found of an M4 with carry handle, carbine handguards, and an N1 stock. Typical configuration for a certain era? Or completely oddball configuration? (The handguards look tapered, but on second and third look it may just be the angle the photo was taken--could be standard M4 handguards). Attached File And here's another photo, more or less with the standard M4 furniture, but with the removable carry handle. Attached File I want to clone an early M4, but I'm stuck on exactly which furniture/sight combinations were common and actually issued, versus ones that might have only been installed on prototypes, or represent field repairs, etc. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
|
Hey Doc, check this thread out if you haven't... https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/XM4-Clone-Information-thread/127-740736/ |
WTB : KAC FF M4 RAS P/N 20208
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17225
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
Originally Posted By HipSh0T: Hey Doc, check this thread out if you haven't... https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/XM4-Clone-Information-thread/127-740736/ Cool. Thank you. I couldn't remember if there was an old thread on it or not. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
|
The early M4s appear to have grey anodizing. Not sure when this changed to black but I was told after 1995-1996. I was also told waffle stocks didn't arrive until 2002-2003, so I assume everything had N1s up to that point. Good info that some earlyM4s had 2 position tubes. |
|
Bosnia 1998, I was a slice element attached to 3/2 CAV HHT. The FST "Fisters" were carrying M4 with removable carry handles and no optics. It was first time I'd seen M4 in the wild so it stood out to me. Occasionally you would see others with identical M4 but they were not common at all. The rest of us still had A2. Only optics I ever saw on that deployment were the guys with M24 rifles (or PVS-4 when mounted or used, pretty much only in guard towers on crew servered) I don't remember exactly but IIRC they were the N1 stocks because I dont remember seeing the newer style until later, probably after 9/11. I may have a 35mm pic or two of it, somewhere, in a box of old photos, maybe. One thing I do remember was it was the first issued removal carry handle upper I'd ever seen and when I asked if it could be removed so i could take a look I was told "they were torqued to spec in place, we grouped and zeroed the sights and were told to never remove it". Dont know if it helps, about all I remember |
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17232
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
Originally Posted By ROMAD-556: Bosnia 1998, I was a slice element attached to 3/2 CAV HHT. The FST "Fisters" were carrying M4 with removable carry handles and no optics. It was first time I'd seen M4 in the wild so it stood out to me. Occasionally you would see others with identical M4 but they were not common at all. The rest of us still had A2. Only optics I ever saw on that deployment were the guys with M24 rifles (or PVS-4 when mounted or used, pretty much only in guard towers on crew servered) I don't remember exactly but IIRC they were the N1 stocks because I dont remember seeing the newer style until later, probably after 9/11. I may have a 35mm pic or two of it, somewhere, in a box of old photos, maybe. Originally Posted By ROMAD-556: Bosnia 1998, I was a slice element attached to 3/2 CAV HHT. The FST "Fisters" were carrying M4 with removable carry handles and no optics. It was first time I'd seen M4 in the wild so it stood out to me. Occasionally you would see others with identical M4 but they were not common at all. The rest of us still had A2. Only optics I ever saw on that deployment were the guys with M24 rifles (or PVS-4 when mounted or used, pretty much only in guard towers on crew servered) I don't remember exactly but IIRC they were the N1 stocks because I dont remember seeing the newer style until later, probably after 9/11. I may have a 35mm pic or two of it, somewhere, in a box of old photos, maybe. If you could scan and upload those pics that'd be a heckuva post! One thing I do remember was it was the first issued removal carry handle upper I'd ever seen and when I asked if it could be removed so i could take a look I was told "they were torqued to spec in place, we grouped and zeroed the sights and were told to never remove it". Wow. "Torqued in place." I always thought the carry handle nuts were supposed to be only hand tight. Is that not the case? I know in my own experience if I don't tighten them down all the way with a large screwdriver they eventually work loose. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
|
There was discussion of this point in one of the other M4 threads here. A small arms repair guy said he saw 3 of the first 20 M4s come through his shop for inspection at Ft Polk. He said they were gray with fixed handle, 4 position stock and did not have the double shield handguards. He said he couldn't remember any other details. But, at least that fits with the assumption that the first 1000 M4s delivered had the fixed A2 handle. I was surprised about the handguards as part of the XM4 program ended up with the 4 position stock, feed ramps, and double heat shield HGs. Colt using old parts again ..... |
"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people." William Rawle
|
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks: There was discussion of this point in one of the other M4 threads here. A small arms repair guy said he saw 3 of the first 20 M4s come through his shop for inspection at Ft Polk. He said they were gray with fixed handle, 4 position stock and did not have the double shield handguards. He said he couldn't remember any other details. But, at least that fits with the assumption that the first 1000 M4s delivered had the fixed A2 handle. I was surprised about the handguards as part of the XM4 program ended up with the 4 position stock, feed ramps, and double heat shield HGs. Colt using old parts again .....  ).Also bear in mind there were quite a few COTS carbines in DOD that "looked like an M4" but were not, such as late 723s and 727s (unsure if Army SOF had the 727, or just NSW). Edit: He could've seen an XM4 delivered in February 1986. By April of 1986 they were being delivered with M4 handguards, per TBR2, although I'm not sure why they'd have prototypes at Ft. Polk "for inspection". |
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17238
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
Originally Posted By KitBuilder: Colt wouldn't be allowed to use old parts on a type accepted model such as the M4 Carbine. They'd have to use what the contract (TDP) called for, so it would've had M4 handguards (unless some soldier swapped them out and stuck their old skinny handguards on there ).Also bear in mind there were quite a few COTS carbines in DOD that "looked like an M4" but were not, such as late 723s and 727s (unsure if Army SOF had the 727, or just NSW). That promotional video shows handguards that are definitely not the later accepted M4 handguards. Could it be the specs for the double heat shield handguards changed over time?E |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
|
Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: That promotional video shows handguards that are definitely not the later accepted M4 handguards. Could it be the specs for the double heat shield handguards changed over time? I think Colt simply demonstrated the wrong handguards in their video at the 4:20 mark. The narrator says they have a double heat shield, but the old single shield CAR handguards are shown. Mostly that video does show M4 handguards. I think where CAR handguards are shown, it's old footage of Rangers and Airborne troops, who are known to have been issued the 723 carbine prior to adoption of the M4. |
|
I know a former Marine officer who used a lightweight Colt carbine in Africa in the 90's. ETA: In 2013, leaving Fort Hood, there was another unit in the airport w/ M4ish carbines w/ the little stocks. Sadly, I didn't get any pics and I can't remember if the carry handles were fixed or bolted on. |
Let's go Brandon!
|
Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: Wow. "Torqued in place." I always thought the carry handle nuts were supposed to be only hand tight. Is that not the case? I know in my own experience if I don't tighten them down all the way with a large screwdriver they eventually work loose. That could easily be something the 1SG said right after they issued them out and he saw guys starting to remove carry handles, because they could. He may have just had nightmares about dudes loosing their rear sights or jacking up their zero and having tons of NoGo on qualification day. Dont know that it was something the armorers would have said, but it made an impression because the E6 I knew was absolutely certain he was not allowed to remove it and had been told it was torqued in place". Beats me, people make up all kinds of crap in efforts to make their lives easier. |
|
Originally Posted By KitBuilder: Colt wouldn't be allowed to use old parts on a type accepted model such as the M4 Carbine. They'd have to use what the contract (TDP) called for, so it would've had M4 handguards |
|
Originally Posted By curlew: Would this also apply to 2-position receiver extensions? I think they were always 4-position on the M4. TBR or TBR2 should state definitively. Edit: The Black Rifle II states that all M4 Carbines had 4-position receiver extensions. Even the XM4 had 4 positions. Attached File Regarding the double heat shield handguards, it states: The first XM4s, delivered in February, 1986, were fitted with standard handguards, and later that year in April, 1986, XM4s were equipped with the new double-shielded handguards. This pattern then became standard on all M4 and M4A1 carbines produced for the US government.
|
|
Originally Posted By KitBuilder: Colt wouldn't be allowed to use old parts on a type accepted model such as the M4 Carbine. They'd have to use what the contract (TDP) called for, so it would've had M4 handguards (unless some soldier swapped them out and stuck their old skinny handguards on there ).Also bear in mind there were quite a few COTS carbines in DOD that "looked like an M4" but were not, such as late 723s and 727s (unsure if Army SOF had the 727, or just NSW). Edit: He could've seen an XM4 delivered in February 1986. By April of 1986 they were being delivered with M4 handguards, per TBR2, although I'm not sure why they'd have prototypes at Ft. Polk "for inspection". Ordinarily I would agree, except he remembered the SNs because they were remarkable and attracted his attention because the SN with the W was introduced with the M4 and he recalled seeing #4, #11, and #19 in that batch in for annual. |
"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people." William Rawle
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17245
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
Some Observations on the Colt M4 Promo Video There are a few things worth noting in the video: *Reference is made to the NATO rifle trials, where the organization once again failed to standardize on a weapon. The Colt video claims that the M16 proved to be “the most reliable and effective weapon evaluated.” *Colt advertises both SAFE-SEMI-AUTO and SAFE-SEMI-BURST fire control groups, saying the former is available in the M4A1. However, the rifle shown with the fully automatic fire selector is the fixed carry handle variant, not the flattop that the video later specifically designates as “M4A1”, so even Colt may have been confused as to exactly what terms meant what. *The M4 advertised here is the original carry handle variant, not the later flattop. “Colt-ology” of this period is a little murky, but essentially these are Model 727s but with the “fat” double heat shield handguards. Later in the video, the flattop is shown “for use by special forces” under the name “M4A1”, which later would designated the fully automatic flattop variant, specifically. *The M4s in the video all have the transitional type polymer CAR-15 contour stock, not the later “M4” stock. *Compatibility with the M16A2 is emphasized in the video, and initially the M4 was marketed as the “M16A2 Carbine”, before being type classified “M4”. In practice, compatibility with the M16 is fairly modest, as barrels, receivers, gas tubes, buffers, buffer tubes, and stocks were all different than the M16A2 in the mature M4 Carbine. *The sliding buttstock is not advertised to have intermediate positions – and it may not have had them. At the time, it was common in SOF units to take two-position buffer tubes, size them to the shooter by moving the stock to an intermediate length, and then mark and drill a new position for the stock. However, in The Black Rifle II the author mentions that the nylon buttstock was developed with the four-position buffer tube, but one assumes that if the intermediate positions were present they would be advertised in the promo. Later, the familiar six-position tube was introduced. |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
|
Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: Some Observations on the Colt M4 Promo Video There are a few things worth noting in the video: *Reference is made to the NATO rifle trials, where the organization once again failed to standardize on a weapon. The Colt video claims that the M16 proved to be “the most reliable and effective weapon evaluated.” *Colt advertises both SAFE-SEMI-AUTO and SAFE-SEMI-BURST fire control groups, saying the former is available in the M4A1. However, the rifle shown with the fully automatic fire selector is the fixed carry handle variant, not the flattop that the video later specifically designates as “M4A1”, so even Colt may have been confused as to exactly what terms meant what. *The M4 advertised here is the original carry handle variant, not the later flattop. “Colt-ology” of this period is a little murky, but essentially these are Model 727s but with the “fat” double heat shield handguards. Later in the video, the flattop is shown “for use by special forces” under the name “M4A1”, which later would designated the fully automatic flattop variant, specifically. *The M4s in the video all have the transitional type polymer CAR-15 contour stock, not the later “M4” stock. *Compatibility with the M16A2 is emphasized in the video, and initially the M4 was marketed as the “M16A2 Carbine”, before being type classified “M4”. In practice, compatibility with the M16 is fairly modest, as barrels, receivers, gas tubes, buffers, buffer tubes, and stocks were all different than the M16A2 in the mature M4 Carbine. *The sliding buttstock is not advertised to have intermediate positions – and it may not have had them. At the time, it was common in SOF units to take two-position buffer tubes, size them to the shooter by moving the stock to an intermediate length, and then mark and drill a new position for the stock. However, in The Black Rifle II the author mentions that the nylon buttstock was developed with the four-position buffer tube, but one assumes that if the intermediate positions were present they would be advertised in the promo. Later, the familiar six-position tube was introduced. Naming the M4 was a political thing as was getting the US Army to switch from the M16A2 to the M4. Colt had lost the US Army M16A2 contract and on top of that, to a foreign owned company. Several things happened as a result of that. The Us president had the, Mil Spec' requirements changed, so if a designing company lost a military contract to another company, the designing company would still retail some rights to the design and profit more for another company's production of their product. This was, "said" to stimulate growth in the defense industry, but the lobbying of Colt and friends was already in motion. Colt had designed an M16A2 carbine, which was less reliable with NATO spec ammo than the M16A1 type carbines with M193 ammo, even though that carbine was somewhat less reliable than the M16A1 rifle. Colt had lost the US Army M16A2 contract. Colt wanted to make a change. Colt improved the reliability of the M4 with a different size gas port, buffer weight, feed ramps and extractor spring. Colt filed several new patents on some M4 features. Colt got the Army to adopt the M4 as the M4. Colt then tried to copyright the M4 name, but wasn't allowed to copyright a military designation. The M4 is part of the M16 line of rifles and carbines and has nothing to do with the M1, M2 and M3 carbines. Colt wanted the Army to change designation, in an attempt to better protect their product designs, as M16 patents and naming were not protected. Note that little change to the rights of Mil Spec production right be the production of the M4, that insured that even if Colt was to lose the M4 contract, Colt would still be making a profit. Before all of the lobbying and political pressure, it would seem very odd to have a major army adopt a carbine with a 14.5 inch as its standard service rifle. All of the pieces went Colt's way, except being able to copyright the M4 name. |
|
Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: Some Observations on the Colt M4 Promo Video Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: Some Observations on the Colt M4 Promo Video There are a few things worth noting in the video: *Reference is made to the NATO rifle trials, where the organization once again failed to standardize on a weapon. The Colt video claims that the M16 proved to be "the most reliable and effective weapon evaluated." *Colt advertises both SAFE-SEMI-AUTO and SAFE-SEMI-BURST fire control groups, saying the former is available in the M4A1. However, the rifle shown with the fully automatic fire selector is the fixed carry handle variant, not the flattop that the video later specifically designates as "M4A1", so even Colt may have been confused as to exactly what terms meant what. Colt just wanted to sell stuff. They'd sell carbines configured in a variety of options. As you can see from these vintage data sheets, all 4 of these production models were considered by Colt to be M4 Carbines. Attached File Attached File *The M4 advertised here is the original carry handle variant, not the later flattop. "Colt-ology" of this period is a little murky, but essentially these are Model 727s but with the "fat" double heat shield handguards. Later in the video, the flattop is shown "for use by special forces" under the name "M4A1", which later would designated the fully automatic flattop variant, specifically. Colt was still offering the 723 and 727 models at this time, but they dropped all marketing literature for the 727 in preference to the new 777. Attached File *The M4s in the video all have the transitional type polymer CAR-15 contour stock, not the later "M4" stock. *Compatibility with the M16A2 is emphasized in the video, and initially the M4 was marketed as the "M16A2 Carbine", before being type classified "M4". Attached File Before the debut of the 723 with its 1:7 twist, many of those same units had Colt's model 653 (M16A1 Carbine) so it's not like 14.5" barrels were new to special units. In practice, compatibility with the M16 is fairly modest, as barrels, receivers, gas tubes, buffers, buffer tubes, and stocks were all different than the M16A2 in the mature M4 Carbine. *The sliding buttstock is not advertised to have intermediate positions and it may not have had them. At the time, it was common in SOF units to take two-position buffer tubes, size them to the shooter by moving the stock to an intermediate length, and then mark and drill a new position for the stock. However, in The Black Rifle II the author mentions that the nylon buttstock was developed with the four-position buffer tube, but one assumes that if the intermediate positions were present they would be advertised in the promo. https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/XM4-Clone-Information-thread/127-740736/ |
|
When the early M16A2 carbine came out, it had 7 inch rifling for M855 ammunition, but M855 wasn't in full production or use at the time. It was later found that M16A2 carbine was much less reliable with M855 ammunition than M193 ammunition. The M16A1 type carbines had already been somewhat less reliable than full length M16A1 rifles, but was considered reliable enough. The M16A1 type carbine originally had a 14 inch barrel. This was a full six inches shorter than the M16A1 rifle and could still accept a bayonet, sort of. The US Air force bought several f these and the Army tried them. The Army didn't like that the bayonet ring was supported all the way out on the end of the flash hider and not over the threads f the barrel. The Army requested that the distance from the bayonet lug to the flash hider be made the same as on the M16A1 rifle and Colt complied with a 14.5 inch barrel. To make the M4 more reliable than the M16A2 carbine with M855 ammunition, Colt changed the gas port size, the buffer weight, the feed ramps and the extractor spring. In response to FN having the US Army M16A2 rifle contract, there was a big behind the scenes campaign to get the Army to adopt the Colt M4 carbine. |
|
There is another way to praise this: "... It was later found that M16A2 carbine was much less reliable with M855 ammunition than M193 ammunition..." It could be said that early US M855 was not of the same quality as the original Belgian SS109 early testing (including lethality) was conducted with, and decisions based on...just say'n... And one more time for this. The M4 was a designation Marine Lt. Col. Jack Muth III made when he embarked on a replacement for RECON's M3A1 submachine guns. This resulted in the M4 Carbine with an M16A2 upper receiver, etc. We had draft manuals printed, and all that before the Army stepped in as Jack departed the scene... and the Corps let Picatinny take over in a gesture of inter-service cooperation. |
|
Originally Posted By Air_Soft_Contractor: Naming the M4 was a political thing as was getting the US Army to switch from the M16A2 to the M4. Colt had lost the US Army M16A2 contract and on top of that, to a foreign owned company. Several things happened as a result of that. The Us president had the, Mil Spec' requirements changed, so if a designing company lost a military contract to another company, the designing company would still retail some rights to the design and profit more for another company's production of their product. Originally Posted By Air_Soft_Contractor: Naming the M4 was a political thing as was getting the US Army to switch from the M16A2 to the M4. Colt had lost the US Army M16A2 contract and on top of that, to a foreign owned company. Several things happened as a result of that. The Us president had the, Mil Spec' requirements changed, so if a designing company lost a military contract to another company, the designing company would still retail some rights to the design and profit more for another company's production of their product. No, Colt’s lost the production contract to FN, they did not lose the rights to the design of the AR-15 and all of it variations. FN produced M16A2s under license, in the same manner as H&R and Hydramatic did in the 1968. To this day the design (the TDP) of both the M16 and the M4, and all derivations of them are the sole property of Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Inc. Originally Posted By Air_Soft_Contractor: This was, "said" to stimulate growth in the defense industry, but the lobbying of Colt and friends was already in motion. Colt had designed an M16A2 carbine, which was less reliable with NATO spec ammo than the M16A1 type carbines with M193 ammo, even though that carbine was somewhat less reliable than the M16A1 rifle. Colt had lost the US Army M16A2 contract. Colt wanted to make a change. Colt’s lost the second production contract for the M16A2 in 1988. This was six years AFTER development of the XM4 carbine started. In 1982, the Army began to show an interest in a short barreled M16 of the XM177 type, and it seemed that with the M16A2 program ongoing, it would be a good follow-on. In late 1984 the first of several meetings at Hartford were held, where the Army detailed the features and requirements for this carbine. On Jun 12, 1985, contract DAAA21-85-C-0192 was signed that officially started the XM4 program Originally Posted By Air_Soft_Contractor: Colt improved the reliability of the M4 with a different size gas port, buffer weight, feed ramps and extractor spring. Colt filed several new patents on some M4 features. Colt got the Army to adopt the M4 as the M4. Colt then tried to copyright the M4 name, but wasn't allowed to copyright a military designation. The M4 is part of the M16 line of rifles and carbines and has nothing to do with the M1, M2 and M3 carbines. Between 1985 and 1987, Colt’s identified several areas were commonality between the M16 series and the M4 Carbine would not be possible, and made changes to address these issues. Test firing began in the fall of 1985 at Colt’s, and delivery of 40 Carbines for test firing at Government’s facilities began in April 1986. At this point, gas port, feed ramps, and burst cams were altered to account for the difference in pressures and timing between the rifle and carbine. The 0.062" gas port tested in both temperate and cold climates with both M193 and M855 to ensure proper operation. Various other sized were tested, but the 0.062" was found to be the best. The original buffer proposed was a steel body with three steel weights, for a weight of 5.4 oz. This buffer experienced bolt bounce issues, to the point of hampering other tests. The standard three steel weight, aluminum body (2.98 oz) buffer was substituted so further firing test could be carried out while a new buffer was developed. After several buffer designs were tested, it was concluded that a 0.062 port and a standard weight buffer was the best choice after 6000 rounds of near flawless operation. Originally Posted By Air_Soft_Contractor: Colt wanted the Army to change designation, in an attempt to better protect their product designs, as M16 patents and naming were not protected. Note that little change to the rights of Mil Spec production right be the production of the M4, that insured that even if Colt was to lose the M4 contract, Colt would still be making a profit. Before all of the lobbying and political pressure, it would seem very odd to have a major army adopt a carbine with a 14.5 inch as its standard service rifle. All of the pieces went Colt's way, except being able to copyright the M4 name. There were three different handguards tested during the XM4 development in 1985-1987. Type A – same basic type as the XM177E2 except made from the M16A2 type plastic. Type B – Modified M16A2 handguard. An M16A2 handguard had the front wall cut out and epoxied to the back half so that the length was that of a Type A, but the diameter was that of the fattest part of an M16A2 handguard. This was fitted with a double liner, the vent holes in the liner positioned such that they do not align with the holes in the plastic handguard. Type C – Same as Type B but purpose molded plastic handguards. This was intended to be the production version. Due to delays in molding, these mostly missed testing. The configuration of the XM4 carbine as of September 1987 was as follows: - 0.062” gas port - Barrel extension with 52 degree ramps - Upper receiver with 45 degree feed ramps, to match extension - 2.98 oz aluminum buffer - Plastic buttstock - Double lined handguards - 14.5 inch barrel contoured to fit both the M203 and the Miles laser xmitter - Modified three-round burst cam Why Colt’s got sole source contracts for M4s for ten years In 1997, a few people in the Navy did something stupid with information some people in the Army should not have let them have. And Colt’s had the Government’s M4 license separated from the M16 license after a court battle that cost the Government a lot of $$. You can read the full report here: https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/ Or, the official report: https://media.defense.gov/1997/Jun/17/2001715448/-1/-1/1/97-165.pdf But basically, it is the reason you can buy interchangeable parts for ARs today. Copies were made. Sometime in the 2010’s someone in the Government again improperly released the TDP, but the cat is so far out of the bag, it’s pointless to try and sue again. And one last thing, the USMC by 1990 was planning to dump pistols for M4s, in the same manner as the M1 Carbine was issued in WW2. So, they were on-board the M4 wagon fairly early. |
|
Originally Posted By lysanderxiii: No, Colt’s lost the production contract to FN, they did not lose the rights to the design of the AR-15 and all of it variations. FN produced M16A2s under license, in the same manner as H&R and Hydramatic did in the 1968. To this day the design (the TDP) of both the M16 and the M4, and all derivations of them are the sole property of Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Inc. Colt’s lost the second production contract for the M16A2 in 1988. This was six years AFTER development of the XM4 carbine started. In 1982, the Army began to show an interest in a short barreled M16 of the XM177 type, and it seemed that with the M16A2 program ongoing, it would be a good follow-on. In late 1984 the first of several meetings at Hartford were held, where the Army detailed the features and requirements for this carbine. On Jun 12, 1985, contract DAAA21-85-C-0192 was signed that officially started the XM4 program Between 1985 and 1987, Colt’s identified several areas were commonality between the M16 series and the M4 Carbine would not be possible, and made changes to address these issues. Test firing began in the fall of 1985 at Colt’s, and delivery of 40 Carbines for test firing at Government’s facilities began in April 1986. At this point, gas port, feed ramps, and burst cams were altered to account for the difference in pressures and timing between the rifle and carbine. The 0.062" gas port tested in both temperate and cold climates with both M193 and M855 to ensure proper operation. Various other sized were tested, but the 0.062" was found to be the best. The original buffer proposed was a steel body with three steel weights, for a weight of 5.4 oz. This buffer experienced bolt bounce issues, to the point of hampering other tests. The standard three steel weight, aluminum body (2.98 oz) buffer was substituted so further firing test could be carried out while a new buffer was developed. After several buffer designs were tested, it was concluded that a 0.062 port and a standard weight buffer was the best choice after 6000 rounds of near flawless operation. There were three different handguards tested during the XM4 development in 1985-1987. Type A – same basic type as the XM177E2 except made from the M16A2 type plastic. Type B – Modified M16A2 handguard. An M16A2 handguard had the front wall cut out and epoxied to the back half so that the length was that of a Type A, but the diameter was that of the fattest part of an M16A2 handguard. This was fitted with a double liner, the vent holes in the liner positioned such that they do not align with the holes in the plastic handguard. Type C – Same as Type B but purpose molded plastic handguards. This was intended to be the production version. Due to delays in molding, these mostly missed testing. The configuration of the XM4 carbine as of September 1987 was as follows: - 0.062” gas port - Barrel extension with 52 degree ramps - Upper receiver with 45 degree feed ramps, to match extension - 2.98 oz aluminum buffer - Plastic buttstock - Double lined handguards - 14.5 inch barrel contoured to fit both the M203 and the Miles laser xmitter - Modified three-round burst cam Why Colt’s got sole source contracts for M4s for ten years In 1997, a few people in the Navy did something stupid with information some people in the Army should not have let them have. And Colt’s had the Government’s M4 license separated from the M16 license after a court battle that cost the Government a lot of $$. You can read the full report here: https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Colt-M4-Data-Rights-The-Individual-Carbine-Competition-06942/ Or, the official report: https://media.defense.gov/1997/Jun/17/2001715448/-1/-1/1/97-165.pdf But basically, it is the reason you can buy interchangeable parts for ARs today. Copies were made. Sometime in the 2010’s someone in the Government again improperly released the TDP, but the cat is so far out of the bag, it’s pointless to try and sue again. And one last thing, the USMC by 1990 was planning to dump pistols for M4s, in the same manner as the M1 Carbine was issued in WW2. So, they were on-board the M4 wagon fairly early. Great info, thanks. |
|
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks: There was discussion of this point in one of the other M4 threads here. A small arms repair guy said he saw 3 of the first 20 M4s come through his shop for inspection at Ft Polk. He said they were gray with fixed handle, 4 position stock and did not have the double shield handguards. He said he couldn't remember any other details. But, at least that fits with the assumption that the first 1000 M4s delivered had the fixed A2 handle. I was surprised about the handguards as part of the XM4 program ended up with the 4 position stock, feed ramps, and double heat shield HGs. Colt using old parts again ..... In August 1986, the US Army Infantry School got their hand on the 40 pre-production XM4s and along with the USMC did some testing at Camp Lejeune, using troops from 82nd Airborne and Marines from 2nd MarDiv. Their overall opinion: “The XM4 meets or exceeds the established criteria in all areas. In the area of hit performance, the XM4 outperformed the M16A2 at ranges within 300 yards. The XM4 exceeded the criteria for reliability and demonstrated acceptable availability, maintainability, and durability. The human engineering data gathered during the test showed the XM4 to be the preferred weapon over the M16A2 and the M9 by platoon leaders, dragon gunners, TOW crewmen, machine gun crews, vehicle drivers, communication personnel and tank crewmen. There were no reported safety problems associated with the XM4. The XM4 demonstrated that it was capable of being jumped by military parachutists. It was preferred by eight of the ten parachutists over the M16A2 because it could be removed from the weapon container and readied for fire faster than the M16A2. The training program for the XM4 is satisfactory and approximately the same as the M16A2 program. The XM4 is compatible with the AN/PVS4 night sight, the M203 grenade launcher, the bayonet, the BFA and MILES. The XM4 is a full-production model ready for fielding. There are no significant problems with the XM4, and it is supportable within the current logistical system.” The drawing for the flattop upper receiver is dated 1993, as is the drawing for the detachable carry handle, and approved for production in January 1994. This is fairly late in the development of the M4. So, there would be a few pre-production articles produced between 1986 and 1993 with fixed rear sights. EDIT: Not the best image, but the configuration of the M4 carbine as of 1996:  |
|
Originally Posted By DocApocalypse: If you were issued, or encountered, early versions of the M4 in your military service, I have some questions. Referencing this promotional video, what was your experience with the M4 configuration(s) shown in the video. 1. If the carbine(s) you encountered had an N1 stock, did the receiver extension have only the two-position slots, or more? 2. Did the early carbine(s) in your experience have the fixed carry handle, or only the flat top receiver? 3. Did you encounter M4's exactly as they were presented in the video, or had that configuration with the fixed carry handle and N1 stock largely already been superceded by the time the carbines were actually issued? 4. Did any unit ever actually see combat with M4's only using iron sights, or did they pretty much always come with some type of optic?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6u2pd2Y2zkHere's a photo I found of an M4 with carry handle, carbine handguards, and an N1 stock. Typical configuration for a certain era? Or completely oddball configuration? (The handguards look tapered, but on second and third look it may just be the angle the photo was taken--could be standard M4 handguards). https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/271112/early_m4-carbine_in_military_service_jpg-2453944.JPG And here's another photo, more or less with the standard M4 furniture, but with the removable carry handle. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/271112/m4_military_service-reduced_jpg-2453942.JPG I want to clone an early M4, but I'm stuck on exactly which furniture/sight combinations were common and actually issued, versus ones that might have only been installed on prototypes, or represent field repairs, etc. |
|
The original M4 Stock Assembly (plastic XM177 type), P/N 9390012, was officially replaced in the configuration in September 1998 with the current Stock Assy (the one with the sling swivel on the bottom), P/N 12597640. So, there were probably a few floating around early on. |
|
This thread is cool, I enjoy reading this one. I'm waiting for some info that helps identify the rifles used in this photo: Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By 18B30: Kosovo trip 1996-97? M4 with 2 position N stock, A2 handle, 3rd burst, no issued optics. Afgn 2001, M4A1, multi position N stock, early ACOG and M 68, Gem Tech M4/96D Irq 2005, Mk18 with all the kit Didn't sof get huge finding increases for the WOT. If you look at pictures from the 90s and then the early to mid 2000s the change in gear is noticable. |
|
Originally Posted By wissota4: I'm waiting for some info that helps identify the rifles used in this photo: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/384425/received_434861261398284_jpeg-2460028.JPG https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryARClones/comments/s27s9b/m4s_with_ops_inc_cans_clone_away_bois/ https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/going-for-a-1993-Somalia-car15-build-and-need-your-help/127-449652/&page=44#i8361992 |
|
Originally Posted By Air_Soft_Contractor: Colt got the Army to adopt the M4 as the M4. Colt then tried to copyright the M4 name, but wasn't allowed to copyright a military designation. (1) Colt then wanted the Army to change designation, in an attempt to better protect their product designs, as M16 patents and naming were not protected. (2) Note that little change to the rights of Mil Spec production right be the production of the M4, that insured that even if Colt was to lose the M4 contract, Colt would still be making a profit. (3) Before all of the lobbying and political pressure, it would seem very odd to have a major army adopt a carbine with a 14.5 inch as its standard service rifle. (4) All of the pieces went Colt's way, except being able to copyright the M4 name. (5) (1) There was nothing to keep Colt's from claiming "M4" as a trademark. In fact, from 7 November 2001 to 13 February 2010 the Mark “M4” was a registered trademark of New Colt Holding Corp. ("M4" Trademarks) (2) ALL of the original AR 15/M16 patents have passed into the public domain, as well as many of the CAR 15 submachine gun patents, namely the collapsible stock. The name “M4” we have discussed, but Colt’s did try to trademark “M16”, but waited far too long and found out that Bushmaster had beat them to it. As to the design, that is still property of Colt’s Manufacturing, Inc, despite copies of it floating around the web. (3) Military specifications are not part of Colt’s technical data package. MIL-R-45587 (M16 & M16A1), MIL-DTL-63997 (M16A2), MIL-DTL-71135 (M16A3), MIL-DTL-32309 (M16A4), MIL-DTL-70599 (M4), and MIL-DTL-71186 (M4A1) are available free on-line, so you can read them and know exactly what they state. There is nothing in the specifications about contracting, who will produce, or what kind of profits will be made. Colt’s owns the design, and therefore, all production must be licensed by Colt’s. I believe the original 1967 M16 contract with the Government put a cap of the amount of money the government would have to pay in royalty fees, but not having read the contract, I cannot be sure. But, the 1997 M4 Addendum (resulting from the 1996 data breech) may have reset the royalty payments for any licensed production after 2007 of M4 Carbines. (4) The Vz. 58 has a 15.4 inch barrel, and the Australians fielded the 350mm barrel for the AUG, so not so much of an oddity. In any case, the 14.5 inch barrel came from a 1984 study of the XM177E2 with troops to assess the compatibility with various military tasks, such as mounting/dismounting trucks, tanks, and APC/IFVs, erecting camouflage netting, crossing an obstacle course while carrying Dragon missiles, mortar ammunition, mortar parts, and other similar tasks. The XM177E2 was found to be quite handy and much more convenient for mounted troops. Aslo, during this test, accuracy out to 300 yards was found to be as good, or better, than that of the full sized M16A1. The barrel length of an XM177E2 with the moderator 15.3 inches, the length of a 14.5 inch barrel with a standard M16A1 flash suppressor is 15.75 inches. The extra ½ inch in length puts the bayonet support over the threads of the barrel rather than at the front edge of the flash suppressor. (The M14 had the bayonet support at the front end of the flash suppressor, and the M14 had no end of problems with having the suppressor knocked out of alignment after a trip across the bayonet course.) Also, the 14.5 inch barrel reduced the muzzle over pressure and flash to near M16 levels and eliminated the need for the moderator, which didn't really work as well they would have liked. (5) See (1), they actually did hold the trademark for “M4”. |
|
Originally Posted By lysanderxiii: The name “M4” we have discussed, but Colt’s did try to trademark “M16”, but waited far too long and found out that Bushmaster had beat them to it. CORRECTION: Bushmaster did not trademark "M16", they just argued that the term "M16" and "M4" were generic terms for that style firearm, and therefore cannot be trademarked. Just like "Aspirin", Jumbo-tron, Jet-ski, and Escalator. |
|
Here is the discussion on early issue M4s from another thread M4 Photo Resurrection There are relevant posts near the top and bottom of that page. |
"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people." William Rawle
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17289
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://thereaderwiki.com/en/M4_carbine A U.S. Army 82nd Airborne soldier holds an M4 carbine in Vitina, Kosovo in January 2000 during the NATO-led KFOR mission, the first operational use of the M4 by U.S. troops. Attached File A 10th Special Forces Group soldier with an M4 carbine during an exercise in July 1995. Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17310
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-student-at-the-scout-sniper-instructor-school-armed-with-an-m16a2-carbine-29964a Attached File Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17311
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-us-air-force-security-police-assigned-to-the-39th-security-forces-squadron-f5a4f8 Attached File Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17312
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/two-us-air-force-usaf-pararescuemen-assigned-to-the-410th-air-expeditionary-826d7a Attached File Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17313
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
US Navy Airman Davonta Carter fires an M4 Carbine Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17314
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/us-air-force-usaf-senior-airman-sra-dan-solon-explosive-ordnance-disposal-eod-5f141a Attached File Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
|
In all the USAF photos, those airmen have GUU-5/P carbines, which were mixmasters, as all were upgraded from older weapons (GAU-5A and later) by using M4 barrels. The Scout Sniper Instructor School student has an XM4 with one of the early barrel profiles (which is super cool). Thanks for posting that. |
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17315
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/us-marine-corps-usmc-sergeant-sgt-richard-cox-left-and-sgt-matthew-jenkins-cdada6 Attached File Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17316
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
Originally Posted By KitBuilder: In all the USAF photos, those airmen have GUU-5/P carbines, which were mixmasters, as all were upgraded from older weapons (GAU-5A and later) by using M4 barrels. The Scout Sniper Instructor School student has an XM4 with one of the early barrel profiles (which is super cool). Thanks for posting that. The website I keep linking to is a wealth of cool photos. Judging from the heading, these photos are in the public domain. https://nara.getarchive.net/media/sgt-daniel-dunlap-and-a-fellow-comrade-in-the-background-from-the-military-08bcb4 Attached File Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17317
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/soldiers-from-the-dominican-republic-special-forces-fire-the-m4-carbine-rifle-caa11d Attached File Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17318
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-us-air-force-usaf-100th-security-forces-squadron-sfs-100th-air-refueling-8d1531 Attached File Attached File I guess it's debatable if these older carbines upgraded with M4 barrels can even be called "M4's." |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
|
They are GUU- 5/P's, the only part that's M4 is the barrel, oops didn't see Kitbuilder's reply before posting. ETA : I think the GUU-5/P should be included in the history of the M4 in the USAF, because it goes a long way to show the impact the M4 had on the different service branches and how they got from the XM4 to the M4A1. |
WTB : KAC FF M4 RAS P/N 20208
|
Originally Posted By Grs13bravo: Great now I need to build an a1 carbine Great thread! I had a Sendra a long time ago built up as an A1 style M4. Made a crazy amount of money on it during the Clinton ban. |
I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me and say "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals.
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
Throbbing Member. Viagra only made me taller.
Joined:
Apr 2011
Posts:
17320
EE: 100% (1)
NM, USA
|
Originally Posted By Grs13bravo: Great now I need to build an a1 carbine Attached File |
_______________
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
"If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."--W.I. Thomas
_____________________
"If you ever really need a gun, you'll need it more than anything else you've ever needed in your life."
AR Sponsor