All products featured on WIRED are independently selected by our editors. However, we may receive compensation from retailers and/or from purchases of products through these links.
For soldiers, small arms are an understandably emotional subject: On embeds, I've heard plenty of griping about the military's standard-issue 9mm M9 pistol. The Army's M4 carbine has come in for plenty of criticism as well. And back in 2006, the Center for Naval Analyses conducted an important survey of soldiers who had fired their weapons in combat, and found that the M9 and the M249 light machine gun got the lowest marks from troops.
The Army's response, for the most part, has been to tweak the weapons it has in service, rather than start over from scratch. Take the 5.56mm M4 carbine: It's seen dozens of refinements, from a better magazines to new optics. But that hasn't ended the criticism. Back in 2007, critics note, the M4 fared worse than three other weapons – the Heckler & Koch HK416, the FN Herstal Mk16 Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle and the HK XM8 – in a reliability test.
I'm not about to wade into a debate about cartridges, barrel lengths and wound ballistics. But during an open house for reporters at Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Army did show off the M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle, shown here, an upgraded version of the old M14 rifle with a new stock, tactical scope and cantilever mount. It's chambered for NATO 7.62 x 51mm, a full-power rifle round that has a longer range than the M4 or M16. Select units have received it for service in Afghanistan, but Army officials made it clear this was a one-time deal: Once the operational need is over, there won't be any move to adopt that kind of heavy rifle.
This is Wired, not Guns & Ammo. But we'd be interested to hear from readers: Does the Army need a better rifle, or more options than pure-fleeting the M4/M16? Our pal Tim Lynch seems to think so. Readers can weigh in in the comments.
We'd also like to hear about your thoughts on the M4/M16. Is it reliable? Does it require too much cleaning? When I seated a magazine in an M4, for instance, the bolt slid forward before I hit the bolt catch. Prompted by the instructor, I pulled the charging handle back slightly to see that a round was properly chambered, then tapped the forward assist to ensure that the bolt assembly was fully closed. Normal operation? Frustrating design flaw? Or a simple matter of training?
[VIDEO: Nathan Hodge]
