Marines Looking at Adjustable M16 Stocks
August 17th, 2009
Conway resists adopting collapsible M16 stock
Commandant Gen. James Conway is unconvinced that putting a collapsible butt stock on the Corps’ primary service rifle makes sense, but Marine officials behind the idea are building a case for it rooted in research, they said…The push to swap butt stocks on the M16A4 has support from a number of gunners and at least one two-star general, who see it as potentially helpful to Marines who must shoulder their rifles against bulky body armor, [ USMC senior gunner Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jeffrey] Eby said.
Some concerns are that tests show the adjustable stocks reduce weapon reliability, make the rifle less viable as a melee weapon, and make it less useful for two-man lifts.
I guess I was unaware of the reliability issue. I’m not sure how a different stock could affect it. Is there a problem with buffer tubes on adjustable stocks bending or something? What makes the adjustable stock less reliable (from a weapon firing standpoint) than a standard stock?
I floated the idea that maybe the Marines could go to M16s with collapsible stocks a couple of years ago when noting that the Corps was going to begin adopting the M4 carbine for some Marines.
The Canadian military uses the C7A2 rifle, which is very much like n M16A4 with an adjustable stock.
August 17th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
3 of the 5 Killing Blows (Smash, Vertical Butt-Stroke, and Horizantial Butt-Stroke) with a rifle & bayonet involve the stock of the weapon striking the enemy (repeatedly while screaming your war-cry). How do you get that done with a retractable plastic tube?
Don’t screw up my Corps.
August 17th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
The receiver extension (buffer tube) for most collapsible stocks is made of the same material used on the fixed stock: aluminum. The fixed stock is made of plastic just like the collapsible stocks (although not necessarily the same type). Realistically, the thing most likely to happen to a collapsible stock is that the latching mechanism will be damaged.
The reliability issue comes down to the weight of the buffer itself. Back in the ’60s, they learned the hard way that you could control the cyclic rate of the rifle by altering the weight of the buffer. A buffer that is too light can allow the rifle to cycle too fast to function properly. A carbine-length buffer with three internal steel weights weighs less than a rifle buffer with five internal steel weights. However, research with the M4 and M4A1 has led to heavier carbine buffers being designed and adopted. First up was the H buffer, in which one of the three steel weights was replaced with a tungsten weight. This was not entirely satisfactory with the M4A1, so the H2 buffer was developed. In the latter, two of the three steel weights are replaced by tungsten counterparts. There is also a H3 buffer, which replaces all three of the steel weights with an equal number of tungsten weights. The H2 buffer for the carbine weighs close to the same as a rifle buffer with five steel weights.
I must admit that I’ve never heard of a H6 carbine buffer. Clearly, there is no room for additional standard sized weights in a carbine buffer; so if any more have been added, they must be shorter.
Previously, certain USMC elements have balked at the collapsible stock as they feared that the poor cheekweld of the standard carbine stock vis-a-vis the fixed stock would adversely effect qualification scores. There is also the issue of balance. With most carbine stocks installed, some feel that the rifle becomes too muzzle heavy. Magpul has designs which address both issues. This should not be entirely surprising as Magpul’s Richard Fitzpatrick was a Recon Marine.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
What Bram said times 2! No need at all to copy other service fads. It works, its reliable and its part of the training. Don’t reinvent the wheel.
August 17th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Polymer is tough. But the extending stock could be made of Alumminum alloy just like the older ones, if durability is at issue. Improve the locking mechanism and you got a whole new system that will take licking even by the Corps.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:54 am
[...] marine general opposes adjustable stocks for M16s. Strange. Some guys are shorter and some taller. Some wear armor and some do [...]
August 18th, 2009 at 9:20 am
The A2 stock is swell for a sunny, well-mown, KD range, like those found at Parris Island. Its LOP is entirely too long for fighting, especially while wearing body armor.
Whichever stock they pick needs to be a tough and wobble-free unit, and you’ll be able to cheekweld and buttstroke to your heart’s content.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
LTC Dave Lutz (USMC, Ret.) was in charge of the M16A1 PIP program at JSSAP back when he was a Major. He has publicly said that the change in stock length was intended to force a change in stock molds so that they could introduce the stronger plastic. The legacy A1 stock molds couldn’t be used with the new material, and he was afraid that some been-counting General would insist on sticking with the original molds if there was no other change.
The A2 stock would have been even longer, but the proposed length made the rifle too long to fit in existing rifle racks. Lutz justified the extra length as being based upon Aberdeen Human Engineering Lab data. However, he specifically stated that he based it upon the 95th percentile measurements, believing that this meant that it would fit all but the upper 5% in size. Of course, some of us pointed out that this actually meant that the proposed stock length would be too big for 94% of the users.
Simple viewing of photos of deployed soldiers and Marines with M16A2 and A4 will show some users having to hold the stock over their shoulder in order to get proper eye relief with their iron sights or RCO.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I agree that the stock does not always fit well with body armor on. I don’t agree that the solution is a chintzy stock that I can’t use to crack commie heads.
How about designing shoulder of the vest to fit the stock?
August 18th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Marines are also sensitive to anything that would increase their logistics burden. Adopting a new stock makes them change the way that they field and supply the rifles, as well as adjusting the training and marksmanship manual.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Give ‘em the Sully stock or something similar then.
You’ve got a shorter LOP for use in armor, and a fixed stock for defensive maneuvers.
August 19th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Tam, are you introducing logical, combat-experience-backed reasoning for a collapsible stock? How are you supposed to 3 of the 5 Killing Blows (Smash, Vertical Butt-Stroke, and Horizantial(sic) Butt-Stroke) with a collapsible stock designed ONLY for making the rifle more easily fired at various optimal LOP?
Tam, don’t screw up my Corps. Things were different in the old Corps, so dammit, stop screwing up my Corp.
KsR
August 19th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Exactly! We didn’t have these problems with the M1 and M14!
August 19th, 2009 at 8:31 am
For the record, I’m not trying to screw up anyone’s Corps. I don’t really know what the right opinion is. I would think that a lot of information could be gained from the US Army (with M4s) and the Canadians (with their collapsible stock M16-type rifle).
One thing: We didn’t have this problem with M1s and M14s in previous generations because previous generations didn’t have the armor today’s troops have. Though sometimes uninformed boobs want to go overboard and make every possible piece of armor available mandatory “to protect the troops,” I don’t think anyone wants to get rid of ALL the armor.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:39 am
I was being sarcastic about the old rifles.
Having been in both branches, the Army puts far less emphasis on close combat that the Corps (the Army National Guard never even issued us bayonets or K-Bars). Therefore, the Marines are going to take Army opinions with a big grain of salt.
August 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pm
[...] Marines Looking at Adjustable M16 Stocks But Conway is against it. [...]
August 25th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I say leave the fix stock, possibly perform a minor redesign for use with body armor, but generally leave it as is.
We might as well get a whole new rifle and carbine before further modifications anyway. Even if the military won’t select/develop a new caliber, there are plenty of 5.56×45mm designs that would offer an improvement in my opinion. I fear the AR15 fans will beat me to death for saying that however.