Ever since the change over from the 7.62x51mm to the current 5.56x45mm there has been controversy between two fundamental schools of thought on what a military cartridge should be. The United States military can be summed up in one word: tradition. In the 1960s, that tradition clouded the vision that a new dawn of small arms development in both concept, mechanics and ammunition had come. Still entrenched in the “one shot, one kill” mentality, our soldiers were sent into combat in Vietnam with the M14 which many considered to be an inferior weapon to the AK47 assault rifle that the enemy used. The enemy were able to lay controlled large volume of automatic fire on positions which, in a meeting engagement, will win you a fight. Our soldiers were equipped with a heavy recoil rifle that was impossible to control on fully-automatic. The accuracy was of no use because the enemy could not be seen.

With much trepidation, the military adopted the AR-15 rifle destined to become the M16/M16A1. A new age of small caliber high velocity cartridges gave way to providing an individual soldier with firepower he had never had before. The 5.56x45mm cartridge utilizing a .224 diameter 55-grain full metal jacketed bullet proved to be a great asset to the American fighting man with the ability to have a lightweight rifle that was completely controllable on fully-automatic fire and the soldier could carry more than twice the combat load with an M16 than he could with the heavy M14 rifle.

The Third Generation M16A2 and M855 Ball

With the product improvements of the M16A2 the weapon system was enhanced. Due to the heavier 62-grain bullet, 1 turn in 7 inch rifling twist and new fully adjustable rear sight, both penetration and long range accuracy were enhanced. However, the culprit of the future problems with ammunition terminal performance would come from the ammunition, the M855 Ball.

The M855 Ball is a three piece bullet consisting of a copper jacket, lead plug and a steel penetrator core in the tip. This bullet was designed for a machine gun, not a rifle. With the onset of the Global War on Terrorism, terminal deficiencies were found using M855 Ball, particularly in M4 carbines, when striking thin, malnourished, Taliban and Iraqi soldiers. There was a serious inconsistency in at what point the bullet would yaw and splinter. Some lots of ammunition would penetrate only slightly within inches and yaw and splinter. Others would go straight through and never yaw nor splinter. This caused serous knockdown problems particularly with the decreased velocity of 14.5 inch carbine barrel.

A solution put forth by the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) was the creation of a new and improved 5.56x45mm cartridge that would increase long range accuracy and terminal performance with consistency. Accuracy is seriously degraded in the M16A2/A4/M4 due to the inherent characteristics of the M855 bullet. The penetrator core degrades accuracy and if not manufactured properly, the center of gravity will be off causing the bullet to become a “flyer.” Additionally, in the area of terminal performance, there was no consistency from lot to lot on what exactly it would do upon hitting a human target.

The answer was the Mk 262 MOD 1 cartridge that SOCOM adopted. This is a Sierra 77-grain open tip match bullet loaded by Black Hills. This is undoubtedly the most effective 5.56x45mm military cartridge in the world manufactured to match grade specifications with combat reliability. The long range accuracy was drastically increased and its terminal performance enhanced. This new projectile works well regardless of the type of target and performs considerably better on human targets in all known distances and conditions. This round is used almost exclusively by SOCOM operators in their M4A1 carbines and Mk12 rifles. This solution satisfied most of the SOCOM operators: except for one.

The 6.8x43mm REM SPC

The 5th Special Forces, particularly MSG Steve Holland, felt that there was still room for improvement. The concept was not original. The U.S. military experimented with the possibility of the 6mm caliber projectile being the ideal compromise of accuracy, range and terminal performance. In the late 1970s the concept was abandoned in favor of the 5.56x45mm battle rifle.

With the assistance of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, Holland came up with a concept for a 6mm cartridge that could be fired in the M4 platform. The starting point was the .30 Remington cartridge which is merely a rimless .30-30 Win. round. It was trimmed and resized to accept a 6.8mm projectile. This concept, along with the hand-loaded experimental ammunition and CAD drawings went to Remington Arms. Remington wanted to aid in the Global War on Terrorism so they took on the task of developing the ammunition.

The 6.8mm REM SPC cartridge has been mostly a myth for the last few years due to the fact it has been developed quietly and kept proprietary. No ammunition has been made as of this writing in large quantities due to the fact the ammunition is being perfected before it will be shipped. Remington has reported three small runs of ammunition including ball and match grade ammunition. Hornady has also produced some loads in this new caliber.

The Firearms

Prototype rifles were manufactured by Precision Reflex, Inc. (PRI). Dave Dunlap assembled upper receivers with free floating handguards or A.R.M.S., Inc. SIR systems and the OPSINC silencer and muzzle break. Dunlap also was charged with designing the magazine which is different from the standard 5.56x45mm magazine. Currently, PRI has been the only producer of 6.8x43mm Rem SPC magazines. PRI also produces complete upper receivers chambered in the 6.8x43mm Rem SPC cartridge.

The Barrett M648

At the 2004 SHOT Show, Ronnie Barrett unveiled a new product line: his M648. This company, dedicated to .50 BMG caliber specialized weapons, introduced the first production 6.8x43mm Rem SPC firearm and has taken the lead on this project. While the cartridge is still technically under development (to be more correct would be to say “tweaked”), Barrett has teamed up with Peter Forras to work with Remington to optimize the weapon and cartridge. Forras has spent much time down at Remington working with them to perfect the 6.8x43mm cartridge.

The rifle has been based on the standard M16-platform. Barrett offers the rifle in both commercial and law enforcement/military configurations. The “bells and whistles” are the same for both versions, the only real difference is the use of selective fire, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and telescopic stock on the law enforcement/military models.

The weapon as offered uses a mid-length gas system developed by Mark Westrom of ArmaLite, Inc. This mid length gas system changes the location of the gas port by placing it further forward than the carbine and slightly behind the rifle. This gives two major advantages: reliability and durability. By putting more distance between the bolt carrier and gas port, lower port pressures are created resulting in the bolt assembly’s velocity being slower. This increases reliability in extraction as well as extending the life of the bolt and some of the trigger components.

The barrel is manufactured by Fred Fedderson. This 1 turn in 10 inch twist barrel is chrome plated and is currently available in 16 inch length only. Barrett has plans on offering 12 and 20 inch barrels in the near future. The commercial version has a muzzle check similar to the one used by ArmaLite, Inc. The law enforcement/military versions use the standard M16-style muzzle break/compensator

The M648 gas block utilizes a folding front sight assembly. This assembly was designed by Barrett. On the law enforcement/military version, there is a threaded collet on the edge of the gas bock to install the silencer.

The Mid-Length SIR System

The A.R.M.S. Inc. SIR (Selective Integrated Rail) system developed by Richard Swan is the solution for many problems associated with military use of this type of weapon system. The SIR system is a free-floating handguard assembly that attaches to the carrying handle by a sleeve that goes on top of the rail (thus protecting it) as well as directly to the barrel nut. This give an extended top rail that runs the entire length of the upper receiver to the front sight assembly. There are four Mil-Std 1913 rails that enable optics, laser, flashlights and whatever other accessories that may be needed for the rifle with no effect on the barrel and its performance.

Free floating a military weapon has many benefits. First would be accuracy. With nothing impeding on the harmonics of the barrel, better uniform accuracy is achieved. Additionally, the barrel remains cooler as there is significantly better air circulation enabling the weapon to fire longer on full automatic fire. Another benefit, particularly with a hot barrel, pulling down on a vertical fore grip will not cause the barrel to bend or droop. The SIR system may also have a M203 grenade launcher attached to it. All the current models of the M648 feature the A.R.M.S. Inc. SIR system as well as the ARMS #40 L emergency flip-up backup sight.

The Bolt

The bolt carrier is standard M16/AR-15. The difference lies in the bolt itself. The bolt was designed by Chris Barrett and is manufactured by Lewis Machine & Tool (LMT). The bolt uses the trademark dual extractor spring “lobster tail” extractor manufactured by LMT as it is more durable and reliable. The bolt has other similarities to the LMT Enhanced bolt but Barrett made some changes in materials and specifications specifically for the M648. The bolt has a nickel plating on it.

Configurations

The M648 comes as a full weapon with fixed rifle stock as well as selective fire carbine lower receiver with the telescopic buttstock. The system is also sold as an upgrade or a conversion kit which will include the entire upper receiver assembly and magazine. The conversions can be obtained with either selective fire bolt carriers or semiautomatic only. It should be noted that when putting a conversion on a standard selective fire carbine lower receiver, the “H” buffer should be used. This is the buffer with two steel weights and one tungsten. If the standard three steel weight buffer is used the carbine may experience bolt carrier bounce resulting in light strikes on full automatic. This is not an issue with the full length rifle selective fire lower receiver. Semiautomatic guns can use either due to the bolt group will have sufficient time to lock before the next shot is fired. There has been some discussion about Barrett eventually coming out with a piston driven mechanism for this weapon system.

Shooting Impressions

The rifle received for testing was a law enforcement/military upper receiver with a standard semiautomatic only lower receiver. The author’s own Colt M4 full automatic carbine lower was used for full automatic testing. The semi-automatic only lower receiver was equipped with an LMT two-stage match grade trigger. The optics used were the M68 Aim Point Comp II, EOTech holographic sight as well as the standard backup sights. Approximately 700 rounds were fired in total in both semiautomatic for accuracy as well as fully automatic for functionality. The magazine used was a PRI made 28-round steel magazine. The ammunition was manufactured by Remington.

Fully-automatic tests were conducted in close quarter battle conditions. Targets ranged from 5 to 25 meters. The cyclic rate was about the same as the standard M4 carbine and recoil was really not that much more. There was no problem controlling the weapon. The EOTech sight made shooting easier allowing both eyes to remain open increasing speed and accuracy. By adjusting the brightness of the sight, it was useful for both close tactical work as well as short range sniping.

Conclusions

The 6.8mm Rem SPC is without a doubt an improvement over the existing 5.56x45mm for military use. But the question is, how much better? The cartridge unfortunately has a very steep uphill battle ahead of it once the military community gets a hold of it. The weapon itself is not an issue. The M16-based design is well proven. But in order for SOCOM in particular to adopt such a cartridge for use will be a gigantic undertaking. First and foremost it has to be more than better, it will have to be drastically better and offer a large advantage. Second, and perhaps the most critical, will be logistics. The cartridge will be at best used by SOCOM operators and them alone. From a logistical standpoint, adding a new cartridge into inventory, in particular one nobody else in the service uses, can cause serious problems. Once SOCOM operators are deployed they become part of the unit they are assigned and along with that goes their supply. Having non-compatible ammunition can put the operators at risk given they do not have re-supply specific to them.

The Barrett M648 and 6.8x43mm Rem SPC ammunition performed flawlessly and accurately. Barrett has not been too quick to go into production due to the fact they have waited until the development of the rifle and ammunition was completed insuring their customers get a final production weapon and not a semi-prototype. As of this writing, after more than three years of advertising and manufacturing of barrels to fire this new cartridge, the ammunition has yet to be completed and put into full production. This weapon and cartridge will undoubtedly find a following in law enforcement and commercial shooters and competitors. As far as the military use of this weapons system, only time will tell.

“It really goes back about twelve or thirteen years when Gene Stoner – rest his soul – and Reed Knight, my boss, got together and Reed gave Mr. Stoner an engineering and production facility for him to fulfill some of his dreams. And one of his dreams was a rifle like the SR-25. Soon after building the first SR-25 some of our special forces took them to Somalia and that’s where the SR-25 started to make its combat reputation. Soon after that the barrel was shortened from 24 inches to 20 inches and other things were changed and improved and that’s where the MK 11 comes from. That became the MK 11 Mod 0 in the year 2000. Now, five or six years later you’ve got the XM110 so there’s a clear sequence.” David A. Lutz, VP for Military Operations, Knight’s Armament Company

The fast-paced urban combat environment that quickly evolved in the Global War on Terror created shooting challenges that weren’t being satisfactorily met by the Army’s standard issue bolt action M24 Sniper Weapon System or by the limited-issue accurized M16 variants and reworked M14s. So many snipers were reporting dissatisfaction and their need was so urgent that the Army’s Program Executive Office Soldier fast-tracked a solution as authorized under the Soldier Enhancement Program. A formal Presolicitation Notice for what was soon designated as the XM110 SASS was posted on 17 Nov 2004:

“The US Army ARDEC…has a requirement for a 7.62mm semi-automatic sniper system (SASS) capable of delivering precision fire primarily on anti-personnel targets out to 1000 meters…. The offeror shall submit five (5) bid samples at no cost or obligation to the government…. The first fifteen (15) of the thirty (30) SASSs will be delivered with spare parts 30 days after contract award.” Solicitation Number W15QKN-05-R-0433

The actual solicitation followed barely two weeks later, nearly a hundred pages of highly detailed requirements in which the Army invited all comers to submit a definition-stretching COTS/NDI (Commercial-off-the-Shelf/Non-Developmental Item) for a comprehensive evaluation. Five manufacturers bravely entered the arena but when the slugfest ended Knight’s was the winner announced on 28 September 2005. Their modified MK 11 Mod 0 has earned a five year contract and recent statements by program officials indicate the Army intends to buy and deploy thousands of complete systems as fast as Knight’s formidable manufacturing facility can turn them out.

A few months after the award announcement, when the runner-up’s formal protest had been dismissed after lengthy review by the General Accounting Office, the government bureaucracy’s innumerable administrative details had been worked out, and the production process was smoothly underway, Knight’s invited SAR in for an exclusive tour of its impressive new headquarters and enormous manufacturing complex on Florida’s “Space Coast” in Titusville.

While there we got the opportunity to conduct an in-depth interview with a key player in the fast and furious process that resulted in this tremendous victory for snipers in the Army, as well as significant product improvements that are already beginning to benefit those in other branches of the US Armed Forces.

David A. Lutz, a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel with a well-deserved reputation for straight shooting in every sense of the word, is Knight’s Vice President for Military Operations. He was instrumental in development of the Stoner-Knight SR-25 into a military sniper system that has achieved tremendous success with Navy SEALs, Army Rangers and other elements of US Special Operations Command. Lutz worked closely with retired Navy Lieutenant Commander Michael Warner, who skippered Knight’s winning team in the SASS competition as Program Manager.

What follows are key excerpts from more than two hours of in-depth discussion, giving a fascinating look from the contractor’s perspective at the complex process that has led to selection of the Army’s newest sniper rifle.

SAR:The Army’s solicitation ran to nearly a hundred pages for an end-item system that was supposed to be pulled almost literally off the ready rack. Comments?

Lutz: ‘Non-Developmental Item’ is supposed to be the short cut to fielding the 90 percent solution to the guy in the field immediately. It seems to me that the generals know what NDI is, they know that’s what’s needed because it supports the troops they command. But once the program gets launched the bureaucracy below the general officer level is the same as it was twenty or thirty years ago.

There were things on nearly every page that you had to do; whether it was produce a gun or produce a piece of paper or produce a plan. If I can make a comment here, unless you’re a pretty good size company and have some pretty extensive depth of skill sets, you’re not going to be able to address these ‘NDI’ solicitations that require such boilerplate.

SAR: How did the Army’s experience with the M24 system influence the initial solicitation and subsequent modifications?

Lutz: As originally conceived – I think by the Army Sniper community – it was supposed to be a total package to include a night scope, a new spotting scope. So they put everything they wanted into it. They even made reference to a ‘sniper support kit’ that would have all these bells and whistles that you’d see – let’s say – at the S.H.O.T. show. A spirit level on the scope so you could make sure you’re not canted. A little wind direction velocity meter that you might see at Camp Perry.

Well, when the solicitation came out for this XM110 some of those extra things, so to speak, were not included in the solicitation. I think the Army wisely pared down that list.

What they were really interested in was a rifle. Part of the requirement was for that rifle to have what’s now the standard Picatinny Rail. We put such a rail system in the year 2000 on the MK11 Mod 0 so the real estate of the rail could be out front of the daytime zeroed sniper optic and could accept an attachable night sight that would not require the sniper to remove his day scope and possibly lose his zero.

SAR: You’ve shown us in side-by-side comparison that Knight’s winning XM110 is essentially the same as the SR-25 and the MK 11 Mod 0. Same upper and lower receiver, bolt mechanism, direct gas tube system, match grade Obermeyer barrel, and so forth. But significant modifications had to be made in secondary areas. Take us through those changes in the rifle from muzzle to buttstock, starting with the Army’s requirement for a separate flash suppressor and a sound suppressor.

Lutz: The MK 11 Mod 0 does not have, never did have, a flash suppressor. When the Navy SEALs need flash suppression they install the sound suppressor that comes with the system. Our sound suppressor I guess in a way is the world’s best flash suppressor as well because it masks all the flash.

A flash suppressor was not a COTS item (for the SR-25) so we had a very short period of time to adapt the MK 11 barrel which we use in the SASS but we thread it and we install a flash suppressor we designed – a very basic flash suppressor – to meet that Army requirement.

That in turn had an effect on the sound suppressor we manufacture for the MK 11. The flash suppressor makes the MK 11 barrel an inch and a half longer and it also increases the diameter at the muzzle so a new sound suppressor had to be designed and manufactured for the Army SASS. Now the working part of the suppressor – the baffle stack that’s in front of the muzzle – is identical so you get the same noise attenuation but it’s an inch and a half longer at the rear because of the impact the flash suppressor had on it.

The way the suppressor attaches to the rifle is identical. There’s two points of contact, one at the muzzle and the primary one back on the gas block where there’s a drop latch which secures it. And right behind the gas block we’ve got the rail system.

SAR: Any changes there?

Lutz: The URX – Upper Receiver Extending – rail system for the SASS is new and in fact better in some ways than the MK 11. Instead of there being some sort of slip nut between the receiver and the rail system as a means to attach and secure it, in URX form the rail system screws directly onto the upper receiver and then as the barrel nut is torqued the upper receiver and the rail become one piece. It’s much more rigid, you have the timing across the top of the rail precise with the MIL-SPEC as opposed to the MK 11. So it’s better in several respects.

Also unique to the URX is that the bottom rail is detachable by the operator. This allows the operator to take that lower rail off and clean debris, dirt, mud from around the outside of the barrel.

We developed the URX, ironically, for a completely different SR-25 requested by a certain part of the military that already had MK 11s. If possible it should be just as accurate but something that was lighter weight, easier to carry that they could use for patrolling, reconnaissance missions and perhaps even close quarters battle. So we developed the SR-25 Battle Rifle with a fourteen and a half inch barrel and a telescopic buttstock. In an effort to take as much weight out of it as we could, we developed this URX forend.

All we had to do for the SASS is make that Battle Rifle’s URX forend long enough for the twenty inch barrel SASS rifle. That was pretty easy for us to do.

We put our standard MK 11 folding rear sight on the gun. It had to have backup iron sights adjustable from two hundred to six hundred meters. But they wanted the front sight to be integral to the rail, so the SASS – as opposed to the MK 11 which has an accessory, a true clamp mounted flip front sight – so we very quickly came up with a design to make the front sight integral to the URX rail.

SAR: The Army wanted an ambidextrous selector but didn’t specify an adjustable trigger mechanism.

Lutz: The requirement asked for an ambidextrous selector and we make one of those – we’ve made it for the SR-25 for awhile so that was pretty easy to do.

Though the Army didn’t ask for an infinitely adjustable trigger, it’s common for snipers who are used to bolt action rifles to have a trigger that is adjustable in eighteen different directions. We use a very simple, reliable two-stage trigger. They’re all set here in the factory at four and a half pounds and that’s as much as they need. I know that some precision shooters like a lighter trigger pull but I think most of that experience is based on single stage trigger use.

With a two stage trigger you have an initial take up of about an eighth of an inch, in actuality uses up about a pound and a half of that four and a half pounds. So for your final squeeze your brain’s forgotten about the one and a half pounds you took up the first stage with so as you squeeze the trigger it really just feels like three pounds. It’s something you have to try and I’ve found when most marksmen actually try the trigger they think it’s fine. And when you think about the fact it’s not going to fall out of adjustment or an operator will find out subsequently it is very difficult to change those adjustments. Making it more ‘fail safe’ is the way to go.

SAR: Stock length and cheek weld are also important to precision shooting.

Lutz: The MK 11 did not have an adjustable buttstock and it was required by the Army that the buttstock be adjustable for length. In order to start off at the shortest distance possible, instead of using a standard M16A2 rifle stock that the MK 11 uses, we went back to the Vietnam-era M16A1 stock which gave us a five eighths inch shorter overall package. Our adjustable buttstock extends from that for about two and a half inches so you’ve got quite a bit of length adjustment.

Now it was desired by the Army that the stock also have an adjustable cheekpiece and it have adjustments for cant and what’s called castoff. Because those things were ‘desired’ – not required – and because we didn’t really have time to adequately address them in a sound engineering design we didn’t do any of that, we just did the required length adjustment.

Our XM110 is an M16 based design that Mr. Stoner made in what he called a ‘straight line design’ with the stock already at the proper height for a scope if you have the right height scope mount, about an inch and a half. So the contrivance of an adjustable cheek piece is really not necessary with this style rifle as long as you have the correct height ring.

And also because of the feature of the M16’s charging handle that’s right on top of the stock when retracted. There can’t be any raised portion in that four or five inches right behind it.

Our charging handle, by the way, is based on Dave Dunlap’s “Gas Buster” design that we pay a royalty to PRI (Precision Reflex Inc.) for permission to use. It has a number of important benefits, particularly operator comfort when the sound suppressor is attached.

SAR: Is the system’s day scope an “off-the-shelf” Leupold?

Lutz: One of the hardest nuts to crack was trying to meet all of their required capabilities for the scope and then to address some of their desirable features. One of the things they obviously wanted was a variable power scope that had one half of a minute of angle (MOA) adjustments in elevation, but also had the characteristics of what most people call a ballistic cam, or an elevation knob graduated in meters. In this case it had to be graduated from 100 meters to 1,000 meters.

Now there are lots of scopes graduated in meters; particularly the Leopold Tactical Series with what they call the M3 turret. But those clicks – increments on the knob – are all one MOA. To get half MOA clicks you have to accept a knob that rotates 360 degrees twice so it becomes a two turn system. Now the way Leupold engineered this, once the rifle and scope are zeroed, you can rotate the elevation knob about two and a half total turns.

The Army also required the whole rifle to be a desert tan dark earth color. Leupold didn’t make a scope that color at the time. They went right to work and now the current scopes are all hard anodized dark earth. This is defined in the Mil-Spec narrative as ‘darker than a cardboard box but not as dark as chocolate.’

The scope also had to have an illuminated reticle. Fortunately, one of the newer lines of the Leupold Tactical Series scopes are their three and a half to ten power variable with the TMR, Tactical Milling Reticle. It’s illuminated for low-light shooting, powered by the same battery that’s in the Army’s M68 Close Combat Optic – what you and I call an Aimpoint.

We had a lot of options for the scope mount when the solicitation came out but we wanted to improve our return to zero capability and make it simpler. So instead of using a pair of parallel split rings and all those parts and pieces, we came up with a new one piece scope mount that as a product improvement has potential to become a quick detachable design.

The two half inch nuts and two clamps are standard format types of scope attachment means that (snipers) use their half inch T handle 65 inch pound torque wrench that’s included in our tool kit. But the way the mount’s designed, you can take the two nuts and the two clamps off, put a single clamp on that side with two wing nuts. By virtue of the torque you can get from the wing nut and the longer one piece clamp you can get the same return to zero without resorting to the wrench technique. So we’ve got plans for that mount beyond the SASS.

SAR: The rifle we just photographed on your range is remarkably uniform in ‘Flat Dark Earth’ color from end to end despite the differences in what’s underneath – steel suppressor, aluminum receiver, synthetic stock, etc. How is this done?

Lutz: One of the challenges to make the rifle this brown color is that we’ve been working for several years trying to get the right dye mix to anodize different aluminum parts this ‘dark earth’ color. Sometimes you’d come up with a perfect color, other times you come up with a color that was too much of a gold tone. And if it wasn’t a gold tone when it was freshly done, as soon as you’d put the gun together and had some oil on it this oil made the light tan anodization look gold.

So once the rifle is all put together we mask off some areas and paint – bake on paint – a dark earth MIL-SPEC color to the whole gun. That’s how to deliver the gun in a nice uniform appearance. You also get quite a bit more corrosion resistance because you’re painting right on top of pristine anodization, or in the case of the barrel, pristine mag phosphate.

SAR: The system comes complete with two hard cases full of accessories, tools and equipment. Any particular challenges to pulling all these together?

Lutz: The Army SASS required a system case that had enough room in it for everything that was listed in the solicitation to include a drag bag. Of course it had to have the rifle and there was an assortment of ten and twenty round magazines, cleaning kit, sling, scope covers, laser anti-reflection filter, plus spare parts. Basically the whole nine yards.

We knew what that sniper community already had, particularly as far as a kit goes that supports the M24. We emulated with our XM110 candidate as much as we could what they were used to seeing, even to include the M1907 leather sling which has been in the Army for a long time.

Hardigg, in Massachusetts, put a lot of effort into both of the system’s hard side cases. Although the Army solicitation referred to the SASS as ‘Non Developmental,’ there was not a rifle on the planet that met all the criteria they required, much less desired. Likewise with the system case and the second case that fits inside that is used to protect the day scope if and when the sniper needs to take it off.

The scope case had to pass a cold weather drop test at 65 degrees below zero, a drop test from five feet onto a steel plate that was on top of a concrete slab. There was not an ‘NDI’ case that would pass that drop test and also be small enough to also fit in the system case without taking up way too much space. Hardigg really worked hard to make one at minimum size that would pass all these tests.

We submitted our five SASS samples on time in March last year and at that time Reed Knight, the owner of the company, directed that we build another forty more. That was because the solicitation required that if you won and received the award, then you had to quickly deliver fifteen rifles – I believe it was 30 days after award. To get ahead of that curve we went ahead and built forty.

SAR: Give us a quick version of where this program is right now (Feb 2006) as far as Knight’s is concerned.

Lutz: What I’ll call real First Article Testing is being done now up at ATC (Army Test Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland) on the fifteen rifles we were required to deliver right after the announcement that we had won. I think really what they’re doing is they’re verifying the barrel life and accuracy and reliability they obviously captured from testing the first five that they used as a selection criteria. About two weeks ago they were at the 3,500 round barrel life point.

Personally, I’m gearing up to deliver training at the end of the month, both operator and maintainer. It’s a contract deliverable that we train their new equipment trainers. So we’ll train them for a week here at Knight’s and I guess they go back to Fort Benning (GA) and practice on each other for a couple of weeks. They also take the handout material and electronic material I give them here and they translate it into the Army boilerplate. Then, they go up to Fort Drum (NY) – probably in May.

SAR: 10th Mountain Division?

Lutz: Yes, they’ll do the Operational Test. Soldiers – snipers – have already tested some of the first five. And also George Niewenhous (ATC) doesn’t have all fifteen of the rifles. Two of the fifteen went to Fort Benning, so the Sniper School has two as we speak.

We know the rifle works and I’ve seen pictures of it being drug thru the mud and through obstacles in part of the testing they did for the first five. It’s been through some hurdles already. But the Operational Test is much more than just testing the rifle. It’s going to test the training program, what they call the ‘POI’ (Program of Instruction) that Fort Benning is going to develop, obviously with some help from us.

They’re going to come up with a way to train the trainers, then take ‘em up to Fort Drum and work with soldiers and armorers who aren’t trained on this particular rifle. The Army will evaluate how effective the training is, the handout material, the amount of hours they need to train on whatever. Does the technical manual adequately show them how to change a gas tube, how to change an extractor? The amount of ammunition; how many rounds are needed for someone to qualify. Those are all parts of an operational test that go beyond whether or not your rifle shoots.

SAR: After that?

Lutz: When that’s finished we expect to get what we call ‘L-Rip’ – Limited Rate Production authorization. By sort of reading between the lines we think that’s going to be somewhere between two hundred and three hundred systems. The first ones are going to end up being delivered in December (2006) because by their schedule December is when the First Unit Equipped is going to be designated. I’ve already heard that the 10th Mountain is real excited about these rifles and they’ve asked permission to take the rifles with them when they deploy.

(Note: Subsequent Army announcements indicate the intent to buy 4,492 systems. SAR has learned that Knight’s is refurbishing the Army’s Operational Test rifles and elements of the 10th Mountain recently deployed to Afghanistan will be the first to receive them as an “urgent need requirement.”)

SAR: Any feedback from the folks who have been testing the XM110 that you can talk about?

Lutz: They apparently have a really good accuracy test stand up at Aberdeen. ATC shoots in a tunnel with no wind, no mirage, no humidity, no mosquitoes biting you like here. The five guns that we sent up for the initial tests all shot under .8 MOA (minute of angle) from the stand.

SAR: Have improvements to the MK 11 in Knight’s XM110 caught the eye of the Navy and Marine Corps?

Lutz: Very soon after the Army selected the SR-25 based XM110, the Marine Corps ordered 180 MK 11s on the current contract we have with the Navy and SOCOM. It’s a MK 11 but they want it with the SASS threaded barrel, the SASS flash suppressor, which also means they get the SASS sound suppressor, and URX type forend, as opposed to the MK 11 forend. And they want it black because they feel it will blend in with the rest of the troops that all have black guns so the snipers won’t stand out so much.

We’ve had joint service meetings where it appears as if the Navy is planning for subsequent MK 11 buys with several of the same things the Marine Corps adopted or wanted, but painted like the Army’s.

SAR: The M110 SASS is semiauto only and has a ‘legal length’ barrel. What plans does Knight’s have to offer the M110 SASS to law enforcement as well as competition shooters in the civilian world?

Lutz: We’ve got our hands full right now with deliveries to the military.

SAR: Any final thoughts on the process?

Lutz: The government would help themselves if they could release some of the specifics as early as possible so we could either develop the things we need to develop, link together those different things that are commercially available, all under one house.

I think the user would have been better served if somehow we would have been allowed to submit the MK 11 Mod 0 – we’ve produced over a thousand of them – as it is. That would have been a true NDI.

(Editor’s Note: Persistent misinformation about the Army’s SASS selection process deserves authoritative rebuttal. The General Accounting Office’s findings on the protest filed by the runner-up system’s proponent may be found at www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297374.pdf)

Visit Knight’s Armament Company on the web at www.knightarmco.comSR-XM110 Rifle System Characteristics Military Description: Knight’s Armament Company’s SR-XM110 is a precision, medium weight, detachable magazine fed, gas operated, semi-automatic, free-floating barrel sniper rifle system, optimized to fire the M118 Long Range ammunition.

Each SR-XM110 SASS delivered contains the following components:

• 7.62x51mm NATO SR-XM110 Rifle
• MIL-STD 1913 Picatinny Rail forend with four rails parallel to the bore with the top rail surface on-line with that of the upper receiver. The design of this forend allows the rifle barrel to be free-floated for enhanced accuracy.
• Back Up Iron Sights front and rear, either integral to the rifle or installed on the MIL-STD 1913 Rail.
• Collapsible Bipod that is adjustable and Operator removable if desired.
• SR-XM110 Magazines: four 20-round magazines and four 10-round magazines.
• Leather Carrying Sling. This sling is also designed to support the rifle in various shooting positions as an aid to marksmanship.
• 3.5×10 Variable Power Day Optic Rifle Scope mounted on a one-piece return to zero MIL-STD 1913 Picatinny Rail scope mount. An Operator removable Laser Filter Unit, Anti-Reflection Device and flip-open dust covers may also be provided.
• A Sound Suppressor that provides very effective acoustic, flash and blast suppression.
• A Flash Suppressor that minimizes muzzle flash when the sound suppressor is not used.
• Protective (hard) Carrying Case for the complete weapon system, as well as a sub-component hard scope carrying case.
• Soft Weapon Carrying Case (aka: Drag Bag. Optional item dependent on individual contract requirements) and a Soft Rifle Scope Carrying Case with padded Scope Cover Insert.
• Cleaning Kit with coated bore rod and guide plus required brushes and jags. Also a pocket-sized field cleaning kit with flexible rod.
• Deployment Kit containing Operator Level tools not provided in the Cleaning Kit, Scope Cleaning Kit, Spare battery for Day Scope Illuminated Reticle, Carrying Case with Field/Operator Spare Parts.
• Operator and Armorer Maintenance Manuals.
• A modified Army M240B 7.62mm Machine Gun Blank Firing Adapter can also be provided.

Since the introduction of the Colt Commando and XM177-series carbines, the U.S. military has had a need for a compact version of the M16, the longest serving small arm in U.S. history. Even though never officially adopted, these carbines saw extensive use in every theater of operations the U.S. and her allies were in.

In 1985, U.S. Government contract DAAA21-85-C-0192 was awarded to Colt for the development of the XM4 carbine, the first general-purpose carbine since World War 2. The contract had very specific wording in regards to parts commonality with the newly adopted M16A2 rifle. Particular effort was made to keep as high of a number of parts compatible with the M16A2 as possible. As first envisioned, the XM4 was to be used for troops who could not carry a rifle but needed more firepower than a handgun. It was to fill the same role as that of the M1 Carbine.

Parts Commonality as Defined by DAAA21-85-C-0192

Specifically stated in the requirements was that the carbine would utilize the newly adopted M855 ball cartridge as well as be functional with existing M193 ball ammunition. The barrel will have the same 1 turn in 7 inch rifling twist as the M16A2 and be 14.5 inches in length. The barrel must be made to accept the current MILES shooting simulation equipment as well as utilize the M16A2 compensator. The carbine must have the 3-round burst limiter of the M16A2. The polymer furniture must be made of the same high impact material as the stock, pistol grip and hand guards of the M16A2. The upper and lower receivers are to be the same as the M16A2 amongst many others.

The parts commonality requirement was troublesome to Colt engineers but they understood the government’s position. With over 7 million M16-family of weapons in service at the time, they did not want to make any dramatic changes to an already proven design. Owing to the different operating characteristics of the carbine, Colt felt there should be some changes. Due to the gas port being so much closer to the bolt, higher pressures existed in effect, significantly increasing the cyclic rate of fire. This caused issues with bolts breaking, bolt carrier bounce, failures to extract as well as feed. However, the government was very much stuck on interchangeability over durability/reliability. Colt engineers felt that a redesign of the bolt and barrel extension would significantly enhance the carbine’s performance but this would have been a major violation of the interchangeability requirement.

During the development phase, Colt engineers found certain changes that must be made for the carbine to function reliably. One of the first improvements made to the XM4 was to correct failure to feed. Due to the shape of the M855 bullet and the higher cyclic rate, the cartridge would stall where the barrel extension met the upper receiver. To correct this, both feed ramps were extended on the barrel extension as well as the upper receiver. After much experimenting with buffer designs, a new buffer was implemented to combat the bolt carrier bounce issues during burst fire. Because of the higher cyclic rate, as the bolt carrier moved forward, the bolt would lock releasing the automatic sear in turn releasing the hammer to strike the firing pin. But at that moment when the carrier struck the barrel extension it would bounce back just enough to disallow the firing pin enough clearance to strike the primer. Thus, a new buffer was adopted for use in the XM4. This new buffer (H) would remove one of the steel weights and replace it with a weight made of tungsten weighing nearly twice that of the standard steel weight. This extra mass slowed down the cyclic rate on the closing stroke eliminating the problem.

Another requirement was to have an increase in the carbine’s ability to dissipate heat, keeping the shooters hand cooler during firing/handling under normal conditions. To answer, Colt’s Henry Tatro developed a hand guard (U.S. Patent No. 4,663,875) with double heat shields.

Several other parts were modified to increase reliability such as the burst cam, stock and ejection port dust cover. The first production M4 carbines were delivered with standard M16A2 fully adjustable rear sights. This was soon to be replaced with the Mil-Std-1913 flat top upper receiver. The M4A1 carbine would only be issued with the flat top upper.

The true “heart and soul” of the M4 carbine is the Mil-Std-1913 flat top upper receiver. The Colt/ARMS, Inc. designed flat top upper receiver and dovetail is the modularity of the carbine. This enabled the use of an entire new generation of advanced optics including reflex sights, thermal sights, optical sights as well as night vision. The dovetail enabled optics to be mounted at a comfortable eye level rather than the awkward mounting of an optic on top of the carrying handle of the standard A1 and A2 sights.

The Adoption of the M4 and M4A1 carbines

On August 15, 1994 the U.S. military adopted the M4 and M4A1 carbines. The only difference between the two is the M4 has a “burst” setting and the M4A1 has an “auto” setting. The vast majority of M4A1 carbines would be manufactured for the United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

The military specifications were drafted for the carbines including the inspections to be performed by Colt personnel as well as the on-site government inspector. The specifications state the endurance tests and allowable malfunctions per lot. The mil-specs have also written the processes of proof testing and magnetic particle inspecting of all barrels and bolts.

As of this writing, Colt has provided the U.S. military with an excess of 340,000 M4/M4A1 mil-spec carbines with tens-of-thousands more on order. This does not include foreign or law enforcement sales.

The Finalized M4 Carbine

The M4 carbine is a lightweight (5.9 pounds unloaded), gas operated, air cooled carbine capable of semi-automatic and burst fire (auto for the M4A1). Nearly 25% of the components of the M4 are not interchangeable with the M16A2, M16A3 and M16A4 rifles. With the telescopic stock fully extended, the carbine is 33 inches long and with the stock closed, 29.8 inches. The carbine uses the direct gas or gas impingement system utilizing an “exhaust pipe” that goes from the front sight assembly (where the gas port is located) back to the bolt carrier. The expansion chamber is located in the rear of the bolt carrier between the rear of the bolt and the front of the inside of the carrier. This creates a hammer-like blow that drives the carrier rearward unlocking the bolt, extracting and ejecting the fired cartridge case. The spring loaded buffer is compressed on its rearward motion and then drives the bolt carrier group forward stripping a cartridge off the top of the magazine, feeding, chambering and finally locking the bolt into the barrel extension. The benefit of this system is lightweight and accuracy. The barrel does not have some heavy piston attached to it preventing the natural barrel harmonics affecting accuracy. The drawback is that it directs fouling into the bolt carrier. This requires more frequent maintenance with extended use and is cleaned with normal cleaning solvent and brushes. Millions of rounds have been fired through the XM4 and M4 carbines in test conditions and this carbine is the preferred weapon by U.S. Forces.

Government Procurement

Once adopted by the military and the TDP finalized, the M4 went into production in 1994. Once in production, modifications or improvements would be extremely difficult for Colt to make. Any change would have to be authorized by Rock Island Arsenal and if the military in general were pleased with the performance they would not authorize any changes, particularly ones that add new parts to the inventory or create interchangeability problems with current weapons.

Popular belief is that the M4 carbine has not been improved by Colt since its adoption. Throughout the M4 design and procurement, Colt has proposed changes and updates for the M4 only to be overruled. An excellent example is the belated adoption of the “M4 Extractor Spring” which is identified by its gold color. Colt had redesigned the spring to give significant more strength, which is a major reliability enhancement in the carbines. Rather than adopt a new spring, which Colt was installing in all of their rifles and carbines except the one being delivered to the U.S. Department of Defense, the military put M231 Port Firing Weapon extractor springs in the M4s, just so as not to add a new part to the inventory. It was not until mid 2003 that this important reliability enhancement was authorized by Rock Island Arsenal and implemented into production. During the development phase of the XM4, Colt engineers proposed modifications to the bolt and barrel extension that would make the carbine handle better when being fired with water in the barrel. This idea was rejected by the government for reasons such as a violation of parts commonality and that they could not justify the cost/benefit of the change. They felt that the number of occasions that the weapon would be called upon to fire under such conditions was minute. Colt was overruled. Colt would not revisit this reliability enhancement until the development of their SCAR entries, which had “Over the Beach” requirement.

Without the direction or request from Colt’s customer, the U.S. Government, to make changes and improvement, Colt would not invest large amounts of resources into improvements if their largest customer would not accept them. Colt had proposed changes to the Army for a redesign of the bolt and related components to increase durability and reliability. Colt estimated the two year project would cost between one-half and two million dollars. Due to lack of funding as well as lack of government interest, the project never commenced.

There are two very different types of troops using the M4 family of carbines. The U.S. forces at large are very happy with the M4 carbine and prefer it to any other available weapon. The Special Operations Forces operators have been displeased but use them in a very different way from the rest. This situation makes it difficult for Colt to address SOCOM’s needs and make modifications. The M4, coming from an existing family of weapons, caused and still causes great difficulty to design the carbine to function to it’s potential with the requirements for interchangeability and the current attitude towards making changes within the government. On March 1, 2000, the Project Manager at Rock Island Arsenal stated, “The M4A1 carbine is already 3 times as reliable as called for in the specifications.”

SOCOM Taking the M4 to the limits and beyond.

As previously stated, the M4 was to be a lightweight carbine that was to be used by people who could not carry a rifle but needed more firepower than a pistol. However, once the M4A1 got into circulation within the special operations community the compactness, modularity, ease of operation and performance was immediately seen and they adopted the M4A1 as their main weapon. They would admittedly push the carbine well beyond its design intent.

SOCOM began reporting durability issues with their M4A1 carbines including blown barrels, broken bolts, failures to extract and over heating. None of which the regular Army units nor anyone else in the U.S. military were experiencing. Investigations immediately began by Rock Island Arsenal to determine if these problems were in fact problems with the design or manufacturing process of the carbine, or if the carbine was being used beyond its design intent. At this point, Colt was not able to make any changes to the firearm without this determination. The M4A1 is procured by the U.S. Army and subjected to the TDP. Any changes or improvements requests/requirements would have to be made by the U.S. Army, not SOCOM. This is the major difference between SOCOM employing a standard issue weapon versus them procuring their own weapon. By procuring their own weapon they are the customer and can make changes as they see fit. This is the case of the SCAR but not with the M4A1.

The first major investigation found the issue regarding blown barrels was clearly due to excessive operation beyond what the carbine was designed. The M4A1 was being used as a light machine gun or a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) laying down large amounts of cover fire. The barrels would reach their transformation temperature that is between 1,100 and 1,375 degrees. At these temperatures the barrel becomes soft and loses its heat-treating. Structural failure is just a matter of time. According to Rock Island’s testing, to get the barrel to this temperature you would have to fire 540 to 596 rounds within 3 to 3-1/2 minutes. The average infantry soldier does not carry this much ammunition as his combat load – the average being 210 rounds. This was clearly beyond the capabilities of a lightweight carbine and Rock Island Arsenal felt that this was not a deficiency in the design or manufacture of the weapon. Due to this type of use, Colt now provides all M4A1 carbines with a heavy barrel designed by Rock Island Arsenal and improved buffer to cope with this type of use. Recent interest has been given to the superiority of cold hammer forged barrels such as that used by H&K, IMI and Glock. The question has been asked, “Why does the M4 not have a hammer forged barrel?” The answer is very simple. Colt has offered them to the government and been rebuffed. Diemaco in Canada, now owned by Colt, has made them for the Canadian military since 1983.

Many SOCOM groups have problems with maintenance of the weapons, in particular replacing worn out components. One SEAL team said they did not keep track of malfunctions during missions to report back to an armorer to have the weapons fixed. Additionally, the training weapons that these operators use are the same ones they take into combat. The barrels and bolts have an unknown number of rounds through them. SOCOM operators fire an average of 24,000 rounds per year in training alone. Most all of the criticisms regarding this weapon system have come from a small element within the SOCOM community.

This weapon system has been in use with the British Special Forces for quite sometime. The SAS use the SFW (Special Forces Weapon) manufactured by Diemaco (now Colt Canada). These specialized carbines beat out Heckler & Koch G36 (identical operating mechanism to the HK416 and the XM8) and the SIG 500 series rifles and have seen action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Unconfirmed reports say that the British Special Forces spent more money on the test and evaluation of these weapons than they did on the weapons they procured when the award was given to Diemaco. In addition, Diemaco (Colt Canada) has been asked to quote on weapons to replace the “perfected” L85A2.

The M4 is the preferred weapon for American forces overseas and the biggest problem they have with it is that there are simply not enough to go around. Clearly SOCOM needed their own weapon that would be suited for their requirements and that did not materialize until recently with the issuance of the SCAR developmental contract. Many people in the community speculate that the SCAR competition was conducted purely to keep the Program Executive Officer Soldier from forcing the XM8 on SOCOM.

Further Advancements at Colt

Colt has now split off into two companies. Colt Defense LLC is committed to military and law enforcement sales and Colt’s Manufacturing Company focus is the commercial market.

Colt Defense LLC is dedicated to providing military small arms throughout the world to the United States military and allies as they have done for nearly 170 years. Colt Defense has been diligently working on many military programs such as the SCAR program in which they submitted three entries. The SCAR (Special operations Combat Assault Rifle) program was, without a doubt, the most grueling firearms test ever conducted anywhere in the world. It was unwritten but clear that SOCOM wanted a piston driven mechanism. Colt developed a rifle with a piston mechanism as well as two direct gas rifles. The contract was awarded to FN Herstal of Belgium. Colt’s entries came in 2nd, 3rd and 4th. These are some of the most advanced military small arms in the world. Currently, Colt is working on a submission for the OICW and has plans to introduce a piston-operated Law Enforcement Carbine in early 2006.

In May of 2005, Colt purchased Diemaco from Heroux Devtek in Canada. Now called Colt Canada, Diemaco has been a supplier of parts to Colt for several years due to Diemaco manufactured mil-spec components from the Colt TDP. With the acquisition of Diemaco, Colt will take advantage of their excellent research and development team as well as their state of the art manufacturing facility.

Some sources would lead you to believe that the future of Colt and the M4 is on uncertain ground. The reality is, however; the U.S. government has recently placed a $55,000,000 order for M4s, to be delivered within 12 months, in addition to other large quantities of M4s for delivery in 2005 and 2006. With the U.S. military looking at a replacement weapon for the M16 and M4 family of weapons, their days could be numbered. However, if history has shown us anything in the last 40 years is that the military has tried to replace this family of weapons before. The ACR or Advanced Combat Rifle program of the mid 1980s for example. This was a trial of truly advanced weapons involving new types of ammunition including caseless, duplex and flechettes. The baseline rifle was the Colt M16A2. In the end, nothing achieved better combat performance than the baseline M16A2. The M16A2 has gone on to evolve into the M16A4 and the M4 carbine and, if given the opportunity, has much life left in it. This is why this family of weapons has been around for so many years because it evolved to the changing modern combat conditions. It would be far better for the U.S. military to improve the M4 and to keep the combat proven family of weapons than to invest in a new weapon that is not compatible with any of the current optics, mounts, magazines and SOPMOD components.

Now what of the future? The XM8 is not new or advanced but based off another Stoner designed weapon from the early 1960s; the AR18. Another unanswered question is why the government is spending money on a foreign weapon development without even the rights to the design. This was an issue that Colt dealt with during the Vietnam War. The decision was made in 1968 to sell/license the government the rights for the M16/M16A1 so if need be there could be other suppliers in case of a national emergency to procure needed small arms to equip our soldiers. Will there be enough of advancement in technology to justify the change to a new weapon? It hardly makes sense since the same ammunition is used so no difference in lethality or range. The U.S. military’s current weapon systems have been combat proven in every theater in the world. The M16/M4 families of weapons have long proven themselves the hard way: on the battlefield.

By Bob Campbell

Within the framework of the AR 15/M 16 rifle there are subtypes that are very interesting, perhaps even more useful than the original gun. One of the most popular, a weapon of almost legendary reputation, is the CAR 15/M 177 or M4 Carbine. The first short barrel short stock M 16 variants appeared in the late 1960’s. They met with varying degrees of success. I’ve fired most, a notable exception to my experience being the ‘port firing’ M 16’s designed for use within armored vehicles. Early guns in the CAR 15 series were sometimes called Commandos. The original guns coupled a ten inch barrel with a folding or collapsing stock. Colt had wished this line to be known as the CAR 15 line to signify the difference between Colt and Armalite production.

The short XM 177 received and kept the CAR 15 tag. These guns were criticized on several points, especially reliability. Col. Tony Herbert, the most decorated enlisted man of the Korean conflict served as a officer in Vietnam. He found the M 16 was a fine rifle, well suited to the conflict, but derided the CAR 15 as unreliable. He felt it had more show than performance, likening its image to that of the Thompson submachinegun of another war. The XM 177E2, with a longer 11.5 inch barrel and other types of ‘tweaking’, proved more reliable.

The XM 177E2 was dropped from production. The early short M 16’s were plagued with reliability and ammunition performance problems.

Later carbines were developed which featured 14.5 inch long barrels. These longer barrels work much better with the M 16 gas system and retain more of the 5.56mm cartridge’s effectiveness. This is a round that relies upon high velocity for effectiveness. Wound ballistics are compromised when the velocity falls below 2,500 fps. With enhanced ammunition performance and increased reliability, later variants such as the 1980’s M 16A2 carbine were much more effective weapons. Many in the Army wished to adopt the Carbine as a standard weapon but it remained for the most part a special team weapon, often issued to drivers and dog handlers or other needing a short light weapon. It is much more effective than any handgun or submachinegun, weapons often assigned this task.

The M4 and M4A1 are recent variants, being adopted in 1994. Both are in wide use by all of the services. Two models are in use. The M4 has the familiar ratchet-type three shot burst limiter. When the weapon is on full auto, it can be fired only in a three shot burst mode. At least in my hands, the usual result is two shots close together and one with greater dispersion. The M4A1 has the more conventional mode of fire.

A trained operator can tickle the trigger well enough to fire two to four round bursts in full auto mode. The trick is in training, a greater indicator of success in the field than gear. The M4’s currently in service are flat-top models, or M 16 variants with removable carrying handles. These weapons may easily be fitted with telescopic sights.

The M4 type weapon is also popular with civil agencies, especially Special Weapons and Tactics units. The needs of mobile SWAT teams are well served by the M4. The M4’s 14.5 inch barrel is not civilian legal, but a number of approximations are available with legal length 16 inch barrels. They mimic the M4 in a reasonable manner, of course without the full auto option. I’ve fired quite a few and they are accurate, reasonably compact weapons. Several versions are offered by Wilson Combat. Not as well known for his rifles, Wilson’s rifles and carbines are world class weapons.

The true M4 exhibits the following features—

• 14.5 inch, 1 in 7 inch twist barrel
• 7 3/4 inch round handguard
• Double heat shield
• Flat top receiver
• Four position buttstock—Closed/Full open/one half and three quarters open.

Early ammunition problems with the CAR 15 type guns are well documented. Often, downsizing a weapon does not work as well as the designer had hoped. M4’s currently in use feature an increased diameter gas port, which aids in overall function.

The M4 carbine has been well received in service, passing stringent testing. It is used by airborne units, SEALs, and other special operators.

Notably, the availability of the M4 carbine has resulted in less utilization of other weapons such as the Heckler and Koch MP5 and other weapons. The M4 can perform the same tasks but arguably much better, while fulfilling the mission envelope of the M16A2 as well.

The carbines are six inches shorter than the M16A2, a significant advantage when parachuting or traveling in a raft, and an advantage in house clearing as well.

The problems encountered by Israeli and Palestinian forces in house clearing with the M16 and Galil are well known. The UZI found favor with the Israelis. They would not allow Palestinian forces to use the UZI. The UZI is a good weapon of the type, but not comparable to the M4.

The question of accuracy and lethality remains with the M4. Accuracy to even 500 yards is comparable to but not equal to the M16A2. I have fired several short carbines at length. I chose Black Hills ammunition for the chore. Since their match grade loads are used by Marine sharpshooters, it felt appropriate. I used not only standard 55 grain loads but the 52 grain match load, the 60 grain softpoint, and a 68 grain match load. Results were very good. At 100 yards-and infantry engagement range is held to be one hundred to one hundred twenty five yards-accuracy was excellent.

The .223 cartridge must retain 2,500 fps or more of muzzle velocity to retain its lethality. With short submachinegun type barrels as seen on the CAR 15 this was not always possible, but it is a non issue with the M4.

The M4 provides an excellent alternative to the M16A2, with many good features and few tradeoffs. It is a fine weapon for the 21st century warrior.

Today’s USMC Rifle Company is arguably the most lethal in Corps history. Packing a variety of weapons from the 9mm M9 pistol to the 83mm SMAW, its six officers and 176 enlisted men are well equipped to deal with a whole catalog of battlefield threats. The company’s three Rifle Platoons are armed with M16A2 assault rifles, M203 grenade launchers, and the compact, fast-firing M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, giving them a kill zone out to 600 meters or more. These combat proven weapons are relatively light, providing highly effective firepower to dismounted infantrymen whose best chance for survival and mission success is to move fast and hit hard.

Weapons Platoon

The big bite that “Devil Dog” grunts can deliver comes from their own Weapons Platoon; 47 Marines specially trained in the efficient employment of machine guns, mortars and rocket launchers. This interesting mix gives the company commander the ability to respond quickly and decisively to many of the challenges that are likely to be encountered in both offensive and defensive situations.

Usually under command of a 1st Lieutenant, the Weapons Platoon is organized into three sections with distinct but sometimes overlapping capabilities. First, the Machine Gun Section has Six M240G general purpose machine guns that can pump 7.62mm NATO rounds out to a maximum effective range of some 1800 meters with significantly more punch and sustained volume of fire than the 5.56mm SAW. The M240G is based on the highly respected Belgian MAG58, and replaces the fragile and trouble prone M60E3. Although somewhat heavier than the “Sixty”, the “Two-Forty Golf” is virtually indestructible and uncannily reliable under the worst conditions. These machine guns are particularly effective when fired from tripod mounts, dealing with enemy troops and light vehicles with both direct and indirect fire capability as the rifle platoons do their job. (See tech specs at end of article)

Then, the Mortar Section is home for three 60mm M224 light mortars. They put bigger and more effective high explosive, illumination, and smoke rounds way beyond the reach of those shoulder-fired 40mm M203 grenade launchers found in the rifle squads. These mortars are the company commander’s “hip pocket artillery”, immediately on call to wreak havoc day or night on enemy formations during offensive and defensive operations. (See tech specs at end of article)

The Assault Section is the Weapons Platoon’s third element, with six MK153 Shoulder Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons, usually called “SMAWs.” These awesome 83mm rocket launchers are direct-fire weapons that are capable of dealing with a variety of targets including armored fighting vehicles and earth/log bunkers. Also, supporting the increasing emphasis on fighting in urban areas, the SMAW is astonishingly effective even against reinforced concrete buildings. You wouldn’t want to be hiding behind a wall when the SMAW’s High Explosive Dual Purpose round slams into it, instantly turning your squad into unrecognizable pulp from blast and fragments. The assault section also provides demolitions support as required with bangalore torpedoes, satchel charges and mines. (See tech specs at end of article)

Now, as fantastically capable as each of these heavy weapons can be, the company commander must employ them with skill and savvy to maximize their combined effect as a combat multiplier. While all of the factors that he must consider are way beyond the scope of this article, they obviously incorporate the basic triad of enemy, weather and terrain. Each of these must be taken into account as to how they will affect the desired outcome of either offensive (moving on the enemy) or defensive (luring him into your kill zone) operations with the least number of friendly casualties.

To this end, the commander relies to a large extent on advice from his Weapons Platoon commander — a very big responsibility for what is typically a lieutenant with only a year or two of real experience. How, then, does the Marine Corps ensure that this relatively green young man is equal to the job?

Infantry Officer Course

This challenge is met with a combination of formal schooling and on-the-job experience for a special breed of leader. While there is ample evidence that other components of the US Armed Forces are unevenly applying standards for officer selection and training in order to achieve social engineering “goals,” this doesn’t yet seem to be the case with the Marine Corps.

Always forward-deployed and with the strongest traditions of promotion based on merit and combat performance, the Corps remains committed to ensuring that its leaders are the best that America can provide. Marine officers, we are told, still get the kind of tough, uncompromising, and realistic training that keeps the Corps ready to fight anywhere in the world.

This is the responsibility of MCCDC, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, located at the “Crossroads of the Corps” at Quantico, Virginia. There, newly-commissioned lieutenants who aspire to become infantry leaders jump from the frying pan of the Basic Officer Course to the fire of IOC; the Infantry Officer Course. This is an intense ten week full-immersion program of instruction in the theory and practice of bootborne combat.

At IOC these extraordinary young men have the opportunity to learn about and live fire most of the standard weapons of the Infantry Battalion from 9mm pistol to 81mm mortar. They also get thoroughly indoctrinated in the principles of offensive and defensive combat operations with and without support fire from tactical aircraft and artillery — including Naval gunfire. All along the way they have to consistently demonstrate that they have what it takes. This is measured through both individual performance and how they conduct themselves as student leaders in a multitude of tactical exercises and other situations – that they have what it takes. Yes, they are allowed to make mistakes, but only the ones who show that they have learned and corrected are allowed to continue.

According to Captain George Schreffler, IOC instructor, every lieutenant receives a solid grounding in infantry tactics while at the Basic Officer Course. This, in theory, prepares him to serve as a provisional rifle platoon commander if necessary. The staff at the BOC screens its graduates and assigns only about 35 out of a company of some 250 as infantry students.

“The grueling IOC program,” Schreffler says, “ensures that those without the necessary decision-making ability or physical attributes don’t graduate.”

This includes more than half of their 50 days in the field in all kinds of weather in a simulated combat environment. There are numerous tests of decision-making skills amid food and sleep deprivation, plus the physical strain from a series of long and challenging hikes.

Schreffler is quick to point out that, “Most graduates freely admit that IOC is the most physically and mentally difficult challenge they ever faced.”

Live Fire Exercise

One of many intense and demanding exercises at IOC is the Weapons Platoon Live Fire, typically scheduled near the end of the ten week course. MCCDC course materials state the purpose of this is “to successfully employ all crew-served weapons assets of the Marine Rifle Company in accordance with a ground scheme of maneuver.” While this may seem a straightforward tasking to the casual observer, there is a lot that goes into it.

First, there is the need to translate a formal Operations Order into a plan for both maneuver and fire support and to ensure that all players know what their responsibilities are. Then, the platoon must successfully move by both Amphibious Armored Assault Vehicle and by foot to take up planned positions on unfamiliar terrain. Finally, the various weapons must be fired on schedule and on targets both anticipated and unanticipated. Oh, by the way, there may be a few surprises here and there, courtesy of the IOC cadre….

With student lieutenants in all roles from weapons crewmen to platoon commander, the possibilities for both comedy and tragedy are seemingly endless.

I arrived on Quantico’s Range 6 on the morning of 23 Nov, as the Marine lieutenants of IOC Classs #1-100 prepared for the first of two full scale runs of the Live Fire exercise. The Battalion Commander’s Operations Order had already been given to the student acting as Weapons Platoon Commander and all of the various sections were busy with rehearsals and other preparations.

The canned Operations Order used for this exercise is plausibly based on real-life possibilities with a tactical scenario involving hostile forces in Bosnia. The mission of Fox Company’s Weapons Platoon is to move undetected into suitable positions then put fifteen minutes of suppressive fire on an enemy howitzer battery and the motorized rifle platoon that is protecting it. Properly executed, this will cover two of Fox Co.’s rifle platoons as they flank and assault the enemy positions, clearing the way for fast movement of follow-on forces.

For rehearsal purposes and later during actual movement and firing, each section was under direct supervision of a Marine non-commissioned officer who was an expert in tactical employment of that weapon. From what I observed, these corporals and sergeants were very professional and matter-of-fact with the lieutenants, providing lessons not only in how to use the weapons, but also how to interact with enlisted men whose experience and knowledge are always essential to mission success.

Meanwhile, support personnel were also busy with many tasks necessary to make the exercise work despite competing necessities of both safety and realism. This included an amazing variety of items from toilet paper to TOW missiles, with stacks of ammunition, several different tactical radios, and four big, hulking AAVP-7 (Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel) tracked vehicles.

Also, in addition to the standard crew-served arms found in the Weapons Platoon, exercise play would include some interesting assets from the Infantry Battalion’s Weapons Company. The student platoon commander would be able to call on support fire from 81mm mortars and 105mm howitzers, as well as a pair of tough and squat “Humm-Vees,” one mounting a TOW antiarmor missile, and the other a .50 caliber heavy machine gun. All of these, by the way, were crewed by experienced Marine enlisted men from the MCCDC’s Weapons Platoon, Combat Instructor Company, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School.

Had the weather cooperated the exercise would also have the dramatic advantage of close air support. This usually comes in the form of fast movers like the F/A-18 HORNET and the AV-8 HARRIER, or from attack helicopters. Now, before anybody gets upset that poor visibility kept the air support on the ground, let it be said that rules of combat are much different from rules of peacetime training. It doesn’t make sense to take a chance of crashing good aircraft and killing good pilots for a fairly routine ground training exercise.

“Move Out!”

By early afternoon everything seemed to be in order and the students loaded up into the AAVP-7s for the first phase of movement. These remarkable amphibious tracked vehicles serve as battle taxis, capable of delivering up to 18 Marine infantrymen in full gear from a seaborne assault ship to even miles inland if required. Although awkward and slow moving, they have a lethal sting in the form of an armored turret mounted with two belt-fed machine guns, one a .50 cal. M2 and the other a 40mm Mk19. (See tech specs)

The 60mm mortar section was the first group to disembark along the route of motor march. This allows them time to set up and be ready to provide indirect fire support from a position well hidden from enemy observation and protected from counterbattery fire.

AAVs make a lot of noise from both their diesel engines and the characteristic metallic squeal of most fully tracked vehicles. This meant that a few hundred meters further up the rough and narrow trail the machine gun and assault sections also had to jump out in order to be outside hearing range of the enemy’s presumed forward observation posts. Stealthy movement on foot of the men and their heavy burden of weapons and ammunition was required from here on as they put into practice many hours spent on land navigation and other infantry skills.

A bit of a surprise was in order as the platoon’s forward elements neared their predetermined fire positions. The “enemy” had placed a cluster of antitank mines right in the path the AAVs were supposed to take. Fortunately, the assault section had run several practice drills with just this in mind, and soon cleared the way. Unfortunately, as was embarrassingly pointed out later in the after action review, there was little thought given to providing the mine clearing team with covering fire just in case the mine field was sniper’s bait. This, the instructors often say, is “how we learn….”

Meanwhile, as the countermine efforts were still underway, the machine gun section was literally crawling up a gentle incline in the treeline to ensure they were in position and ready to shoot at H Hour. This protected them from enemy observation and put them into an excellent spot allowing unobstructed direct fire on a cluster of derelict target tanks. Situated some 800 meters away, deep in the enormous impact area of Range 7, these tanks represent BTR-60 wheeled armored cars of the enemy motorized rifle platoon as identified in the Operations Order.

Learning Curve

If things had gone exactly according to plan then all weapons would have been in place and simultaneously firing at the appointed time. As it happened, the M240 machine guns started right on schedule but there was a noticeable lag before the mortars began kicking in. Finally, the assault section, reinforced by a pair of M249 SAW’s to represent fire from two attached rifle squads, got into their position in a log crib to the left of the machine gunners, adding more noise and smoke to the “fog of war.” A note to armchair generals — this stuff isn’t easy to do, particularly when the Marine grunts are all new 2nd Lieutenants.

Ah, but when everything started popping away it was a sight to behold. The spacious impact area was crisscrossed with red laserlike tracers from the SAWs and the medium machine guns. Soon, plumes of smoke began to arise nearby on the grid coordinates occupied by the imaginary enemy artillery battery. These marked the impact of high explosive 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds, marched in by a student in the role of Forward Observer.

Exercise controllers soon added a bit more spice to the tactical play, directing the assault section leader to engage with DRAGON and SMAW a trio of target tanks with the closest two about 350 meters out and another approximately 500 meters away. The rocket teams jumped up from the protection of the log crib and scrambled to get into position. Despite their inexperience, it wasn’t long before three antiarmor weapons were ready. One SMAW was first to fire, rapidly popping off several 9mm spotter-tracer rounds until the gunner was sure of his sight picture. This was followed by a deafening blast and flying debris as the big antitank rocket left its launcher and streaked downrange, getting a near miss on the closest enemy armored fighting vehicle. The second SMAW finished the job, scoring a good center of mass hit.

The DRAGON gunner was taking his time, but when he finally hit the trigger bar his guided missile launcher erupted with similar earplug-packing blast and smoke. If there had been any actual bad guys downrange they damn sure knew from the launch signature exactly where these rockets were coming from!

Unlike the point and shoot/fire and forget SMAW, DRAGON is a a wire guided missile that the gunner “flies” to its target by keeping it squarely in crosshairs in his fire control system. Theoretically, this gives the DRAGON the capability of hitting even a fast moving tank. Alas, the missile ran out of wire before it got to its tank and promptly took a nose dive into the dirt. There is an important correlation between maximum range of the weapon and actual range to the target. “This is how we learn.”

By now the AAVs had driven up the free-of-mines trail, their noise of movement screened by the rude concert from multiple weapons. Coming on line, they quickly added to the excitement by pumping .50 caliber slugs and 40mm grenades into the ridgeline occupied by the luckless enemy BTRs. The Mark 19 grenade chucker is an excellent compliment to both the .50 cal and 7.62mm machine guns, literally carpeting the target area with high explosive bomblets. This weapon’s inherent long range effectiveness is particularly enhanced by the sturdy turret mount of the AAV and its highly precise ballistic computing optical sight.

To any enemy the required fifteen minutes of suppressive fire called for in the Operations Order would have been an eternity in Hell of fire and steel. However, as several of the Marine lieutenants later remarked, things on their end seemed to go remarkably fast. This was particularly true for the four M240G machine gunners, who had to make do with a relatively paltry 1200 rounds each and all ran out of ammo before running out of time.

Lessons Learned

As the last rounds were heading downrange the Weapons Platoon pulled back from the firing line to an established rendezvous point. If this had been an actual combat operation, they would then have jumped back into their AAVs and moved out to rejoin the rest of Fox Company, helping to consolidate the Battalion’s objective. But, since this was only a practical exercise, (and the impact area “objective” was full of lethal duds from countless years of firing) the next order of business was to gather around for a quick AAR — After Action Review.

This is the time for a no-bullshit examination of what went right and what went wrong. All participants are encouraged and expected to contribute with students, exercise controllers, safety officers, and weapons NCOs being as candid as possible. This is, after all, a much better way to learn without the unpleasant side effects of being — or causing others to be — wounded or killed.

It has been said that the making of a U.S. Marine Infantry Officer is an inexact science but one with which the Corps has a long history and much demonstrated success. Let us hope and pray that the way it is being done now at Quantico is the best way and will continue to forge the best America has to offer into technically and tactically proficient leaders with no compromises in standards.

Let all Americans of good conscience also demand that our elected representatives promptly and decisively reverse years of the Clinton administration’s politically calculated starvation, neglect and ill-concealed contempt for the Armed Forces. It is long past time for congress to reverse the dangerous slide in readiness and morale by restoring realistic funding levels and allowing a return to common sense rules for training and deploying the men and women soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who keep America’s many enemies at bay.