The New Replacement for the M-4 ? - Page 3

Haldor · 05-10-2012, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by pmcjury

Is the ar type rifle really the best design out there?

Well it is the best design that we have bajillions of in inventory.

The military is entering a contraction phase. Forced seperations, contracts delayed, development projects extended. We really don't have a great need for a new carbine in 5.56 x 45. The M4 is accurate and lethal enough for what we are asking our soldiers to do.

One thing I would like to see is at least a partial switch to 300 Blackout. That is a great multi-purpose round. Doing it only requires a barrel swap in the M4. The military armorers could do the change-over themselves if it made economic sense to do it that way.

AK_Stick · 05-10-2012, 18:07

Why go to the 300?

There's really no use or need for it as a .mil service caliber.

m2hmghb · 05-10-2012, 19:35

I agree with stick, the blackout would only be good suppressed. If it's unsuppressed there are other better options(6.8 spc, 6.5 grendel etc)

WoodenPlank · 05-10-2012, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by m2hmghb

I agree with stick, the blackout would only be good suppressed. If it's unsuppressed there are other better options(6.8 spc, 6.5 grendel etc)

The Army Marksmanship Unit has been playing around with it already. It might even see some limited SOF use in a suppressed role, but I don't see it ever being adopted for general issue.

**Diesel McBadass** · 05-10-2012, 20:34

One thing is the military should not put strict requirements and paramaters on rifles, companies should try to innovate and make the best rifle they can and submit the designs to try and promote innovation and improvement. And you can buy new rifles for the price of one stealth bomber soldiers need top notch gear.

and whens the coast guard getting new rifles instead of beat up crap built on general motors m16a1 lowers

AK_Stick · 05-11-2012, 03:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by WoodenPlank

The Army Marksmanship Unit has been playing around with it already. It might even see some limited SOF use in a suppressed role, but I don't see it ever being adopted for general issue.

Not might.

Is/has.

Will never be general issue.

BlackPaladin · 05-11-2012, 04:36

Lol, this is going around again? I think it was 6 months ago, the last time the subject was posted. With the military cutting budget and the current M4/M16 with 5.56 ammuntion working just fine, this subject will just end up with talk and zero action.

Gary1911A1 · 05-11-2012, 06:35

Wasn't the Marines going to adopt a version of the HK 416? I'm sure that's what was said on Tac-TV. If they do, the Army may follow them.

raven11 · 05-11-2012, 07:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary1911A1

Wasn't the Marines going to adopt a version of the HK 416? I'm sure that's what was said on Tac-TV. If they do, the Army may follow them.

They were replacing the older M249 SAW with the HK416 about 4,479 were ordered . How they expect to suppress fire with a 30rnd magazine remains to be seen

Gary1911A1 · 05-11-2012, 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by raven11

They were replacing the older M249 SAW with the HK416 about 4,479 were ordered . How they expect to suppress fire with a 30rnd magazine remains to be seen

Thanks, I know there are some higher capacity, more than 30 rounds, magazines made for the m16 that could be modified for the HK.

raven11 · 05-11-2012, 08:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary1911A1

Thanks, I know there are some higher capacity, more than 30 rounds, magazines made for the m16 that could be modified for the HK.

Surefire makes 60 rnd and 100 rnd magazines I just don't know if they are authrized yet at the unit level. While I'm positive Marines have lots of experience with graphite lube

I'm not so sure you'd want to lube up your Beta C mag every time you were going out on patrol and hope you put enough on there so it worked every time

Edit: and while Beta C-Mags do have NSN numbers I never recall actually seeing one

pmcjury · 05-11-2012, 10:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haldor

Well it is the best design that we have bajillions of in inventory.

The military is entering a contraction phase. Forced seperations, contracts delayed, development projects extended. We really don't have a great need for a new carbine in 5.56 x 45. The M4 is accurate and lethal enough for what we are asking our soldiers to do.

One thing I would like to see is at least a partial switch to 300 Blackout. That is a great multi-purpose round. Doing it only requires a barrel swap in the M4. The military armorers could do the change-over themselves if it made economic sense to do it that way.

I didn't mean the best we have, I meant the best that weapons manufactures were ready to bring to the table to replace the M4

phalanxr · 05-11-2012, 11:15

Just trade our M4's to the Russians for their AK's

Problem solved.

**Diesel McBadass** · 05-11-2012, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by phalanxr

Just trade our M4's to the Russians for their AK's

Problem solved.

The russians are getting a new rifle they noticed fielding "good enough" for long amounts of time was dumb when they could get better.

phalanxr · 05-11-2012, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel McBadass

The russians are getting a new rifle they noticed fielding "good enough" for long amounts of time was dumb when they could get better.

What rifle are they getting? AK74 SU is what I was told they were using when I was in kyrgyzstan by the local army guys there.

Are you talking about the AN-94?

In essence its an updated AK74 but overly complicated. With a 2 burst setting....

AK_Stick · 05-11-2012, 14:04

When was this?

Who was saying that?

Haldor · 05-13-2012, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

Why go to the 300?

There's really no use or need for it as a .mil service caliber.

The .300 has more effective terminal ballistics out of a short barreled rifle than 5.56 x 45 does. It also works much better with suppression. Supersonic is ballistically equivalent to 7.62x39. Better barrier penetration is a plus also. Subsonic .300 is still an effective antipersonnel round.

Max effective supersonic range is ~450 m.
Max effective subsonic range is ~200 m.

Only change required in the rifle is to replace the barrel. Everything else stays the same. Same bolt, mags etc. 30 round mag holds 30 rounds of .300.

I am not suggesting we adopt .300 for all infantry uses. However we seem to believe that short barreled carbines have application and .300 is more effective from a short barreled carbine than 5.56 is. For special forces the improved suppressor performance is an obvious advantage.

It's not a magic bullet, but it does some things better than 5.56 does and it doesn't seem to have any downside.

AK_Stick · 05-13-2012, 20:29

That makes zero sense.

You're talking about a couple million dollars to buy new uppers, field them to SF, plus start up ammo for the 300 etc.

If we were going to do that, it would make much more sense to go with the 6.8, which outperforms the 300, in most cases, and now has subsonic ammo, as the 6.8 is in the DOD inventory.

But either way, we're talking about millions of dollars for a small improvement. Same reason the M-4 isn't getting replaced. Lots of money for no real improvement.

BlackPaladin · 05-14-2012, 04:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

That makes zero sense.

You're talking about a couple million dollars to buy new uppers, field them to SF, plus start up ammo for the 300 etc.

If we were going to do that, it would make much more sense to go with the 6.8, which outperforms the 300, in most cases, and now has subsonic ammo, as the 6.8 is in the DOD inventory.

But either way, we're talking about millions of dollars for a small improvement. Same reason the M-4 isn't getting replaced. Lots of money for no real improvement.

This is 100% correct. While I certainly am not the guy writing the checks, I know without any doubt that the M4 series is staying put. I will bet that 5 years from now, after many more of these discussions, it is still the main rifle in service.

expatman · 05-14-2012, 05:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by AK_Stick

That makes zero sense.

You're talking about a couple million dollars to buy new uppers, field them to SF, plus start up ammo for the 300 etc.

If we were going to do that, it would make much more sense to go with the 6.8, which outperforms the 300, in most cases, and now has subsonic ammo, as the 6.8 is in the DOD inventory.

But either way, we're talking about millions of dollars for a small improvement. Same reason the M-4 isn't getting replaced. Lots of money for no real improvement.

That pretty much sums it up.

I think that a lot of people who speak of wanting to push a different caliber for DoD do not understand the nuances of combat or the needs of the military. I am sure that some do and just have differing opinions but it just seems to me that many speak as if they are comparing ballistics at the range on a Sun. morning.

PlasticGuy · 05-14-2012, 08:56

This whole "good enough" argument irritates me like you wouldn't believe. If I am issued a primary weapon and sent into scary places full of angry people, I don't care whether it's a 10% increase in reliability or an 80% increase in reliability. I want it. Better is better. And giving every soldier in the Army a more reliable rifle will save more lives than buying one more F18.

WoodenPlank · 05-14-2012, 09:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by PlasticGuy

This whole "good enough" argument irritates me like you wouldn't believe. If I am issued a primary weapon and sent into scary places full of angry people, I don't care whether it's a 10% increase in reliability or an 80% increase in reliability. I want it. Better is better. And giving every soldier in the Army a more reliable rifle will save more lives than buying one more F18.

Except one problem: Rebuying a significant portion of the small arms inventory for the entire military is a drawn out, expensive process. If a new weapon only offers a slight improvement, yet the cost prohibits refitting the entire military with it, it's not going to happen.

M&P15T · 05-14-2012, 09:56

dELETE

PlasticGuy · 05-14-2012, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by WoodenPlank

Except one problem: Rebuying a significant portion of the small arms inventory for the entire military is a drawn out, expensive process. If a new weapon only offers a slight improvement, yet the cost prohibits refitting the entire military with it, it's not going to happen.

Actually, I don't see the problem. They aren't saying that they don't have the money. They say they have other priorities. There is no higher priority than our primary issue rifle.

M&P15T · 05-14-2012, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by WoodenPlank

Except one problem: Rebuying a significant portion of the small arms inventory for the entire military is a drawn out, expensive process. If a new weapon only offers a slight improvement, yet the cost prohibits refitting the entire military with it, it's not going to happen.

It is, but it doesn't have to be.

If our Military simply replaced M4s with SCAR-Ls as the M4s reached their replacement point, it would cost very little.

Remember the huge contract to Remington for new M4s? Shoulds been SCARs, or some other rifle.