Note I said upgrade the M4 not replace it. The Firearm Blog let’s use know that the Army may be correcting some of the M4’s biggest criticisms.
Hit the link for the nitty gritty details. Needless to say they aren’t asking for much in the way of upgrades, just some little things.
All of those “little things” will add up to a much heavier weapon. the M4A1 is already heavier than the M16A1.
The gas system was always just a “percieved” flaw, but it may bolster confidence.
The added rails will add very little, if anything, but weight. That would be nessicary though with a piston system (a gas tube may flex somewhat, a piston can’t)
A beefier barrel will help, and should be implemented.
The other parts, I believe will be dropped.
I generally assume the military has good reasons for adding things to their rifles.
But again it’s all a trade off between weight and capability. The M4 is very light. The barrel isn’t up to snuff for extended full automatic fire. That’s fine in my book because that wasn’t part of the reason it was designed. We have dedicated machine guns for that kind of heavy suppression fire.
The rails I just don’t get. I understand having a good optic system mounted and maybe a couple other things but really I don’t think any benefit will be served by covering the entire gun in rails.
Maybe the Russians have something with the AK platform. It’s served them since 1947 and they’ve made very few enhancements or changes to it (relatively). Oh well I still swear by my M-14!