It's not like they have to completely replace all the M4/16 in stock, all at once or ever.
US Army acquires rights to M4
- Thread starter CV32
- Start date
It's not like they have to completely replace all the M4/16 in stock, all at once or ever.
It’s said that Amateurs argue tactics - Professionals argue Logistics...
I've put a lot of rounds thru Hk416's - I like them, but they have their spots too. Stripping an Hk416 is a lot different than a M16FOW (Family of Weapons) DI system.
I work for KAC, and am a believer in many of our products, but the fact remains, having carried M16FOW’s for over 20 years, the biggest issues I have as a ##### are the magazines, and in my experience over the last 3 years, the Magpul PMAG solves 99.9% of the problems.
As for the issues with lube etc. that the piston is cleaner naysayer crowd likes to crow about.
1) How many rounds do you NEED to have before maintenance?
2) Recoil Increase and Frame life span decrease from piston impact
3) Increased Weight
4) Added parts
Now Bolt Life; Currently an average of 5-6k for the Standard M16FOW bolt, and this decreases upon shorter barrels, and increased firing schedules, and suppressor usage.
Our (KAC) E3 bolt will go 25k on a suppressed 11.5 SR16E3, the barrels (Diemaco/Colt Canada CHF) typically go bad around the 18-23k time frame depending upon if you do a lot of auto, or rapid semi.
LMT makes an altered cam path (and others do as well) bolt, designed to be used on suppressed guns to give additional dwell to slow unlocking to reduce chamber fouling.
Several companies have lubricant finishes that can be added to parts that reduce or eliminate the need to additional lubrication.
Barrel – my thoughts and experiences about Colt Canada/Diemaco barrels are on record.
Free Float Rail
No change in zero when adding laser/optics, or grenade launcher modules. Additionally USNSWC Crane testing shows that free floated barrels have longer standard bolt life, and increased reliability.
All of which can fit within the current framework
Yes it’s still a logistical problem, but an incrementally solvable issue, unlike dropping a new system into the mix – for no real gain
Sorry Leibermuster, I think you're tilting against windmills here. Every point I brought up in my post is valid, and is only the tip of the iceberg. Before I deployed and redeployed on TF 3-08 I worked in the Army G3 shop, and dealt with exactly these issues in cooperation with DLFD, DLR, ADM(MAT) and PWGSC on other eqpt purchases such as the Leo2 buy.
It is not as simple as slapping on a 416 upper and rolling out the FOB. We're talking about an Army that requires a half day course to use a rucksack here, in addition to being fitted for said rucksack by people specially trained to do so, using specific sizing jigs!
It is not as simple as slapping on a 416 upper and rolling out the FOB. We're talking about an Army that requires a half day course to use a rucksack here, in addition to being fitted for said rucksack by people specially trained to do so, using specific sizing jigs!
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
XM8 Testing
In the Fall 2007 test, the XM8 recorded only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR had 226 stoppages and the HK416 had 233.
M4 1-68
FN 1-265
HK 1-257
Would you want a rifle to stop once every third or so mags or once every 8-9 mags!! I think you know the answer to that!
IIRC that test was testing equivilent of fighting in a zero visibility sandstorm. Waaaaaaay beyond anything that normal usage would see.
KevinB I'm sorry here, but it just sounds like to me that you are dodging the real issues here. If the contract for an upgrade came out tomorrow you would be pushing your interest first. Which I understand fully, you work for a great company, i even own some of their items they make.
Lets get serious here, If were sticking with an AR platform or something similar like M4 then the 416 that is virtually identical except the piston components then there is no issue. If I'm out in the field i want the best M4 variant possible, in my mind the 416 answers all my concerns. Does that means i won't use an M4 =no but there is no viable reason not to have ordered 200000 of this rifle.
The barrels are cold hammered forged, if you want any parts improved H&K will raise the standard that is higher then any competition out there. Also there virtually compatible with most other AR manufactures.
As for Canada there generally fine for now, although there SF could use the 416,and other improvements as they come out.
As for Mike_R23A
I think you are over exaggerrating the difficulties here, because there are none. The problem with your logic about the implementing a new rifle or rucksack is exactly what is wrong with CF today and was 10 years ago as well. It simply is not that complicated, it never was either. The way the CF took so long to develop uniforms and of course the rucksack is a perfect example of utter stupidity. Especially considering how many options that are out there to base there rucksack off during the drawn out development phase of that piece of kit.
With the argument you are using I'm surprised anything ever gets introduced.
Lets get serious here, If were sticking with an AR platform or something similar like M4 then the 416 that is virtually identical except the piston components then there is no issue. If I'm out in the field i want the best M4 variant possible, in my mind the 416 answers all my concerns. Does that means i won't use an M4 =no but there is no viable reason not to have ordered 200000 of this rifle.
The barrels are cold hammered forged, if you want any parts improved H&K will raise the standard that is higher then any competition out there. Also there virtually compatible with most other AR manufactures.
As for Canada there generally fine for now, although there SF could use the 416,and other improvements as they come out.
As for Mike_R23A
I think you are over exaggerrating the difficulties here, because there are none. The problem with your logic about the implementing a new rifle or rucksack is exactly what is wrong with CF today and was 10 years ago as well. It simply is not that complicated, it never was either. The way the CF took so long to develop uniforms and of course the rucksack is a perfect example of utter stupidity. Especially considering how many options that are out there to base there rucksack off during the drawn out development phase of that piece of kit.
With the argument you are using I'm surprised anything ever gets introduced.
Yes there is, both in terms of $$$ and all the issues I outlined above. The DND budget is not unlimited and may likely shrink given the current economic climate.
All I did was attempt to explain the complexity of procuring new eqpt. It is not as simple as buying x number of rifles and shipping them to units. That you don't agree with this situation is immaterial. I agree that it is too complex and needs to be overhauled, but that doesn't change what is. The military is a complex system of systems, and whenever you change one part there are follow on effects that need to be considered beforehand. This isn't an argument for or against any particular piece of kit, but you need to understand the process that goes into the decision making before saying "the Army should buy x or y".
Oh please!
Tons of kit has been introduced in the last number of years, a surprising amount in fact: M777, TLAV, LEO2, AHSVS, Scan Eagle, Heron, C17, Chinook, INGRESS/Miniguns, EROC, RG31, RWS, LAV3 upgrades, LUVW, etc etc...The real question that Cabinet, The MND, and Generals would be asking is should we expend precious $$$ and limited staff power to replace a rifle that works perfectly fine with a similar rifles of marginal improvement, or should that money and manpower go into another project that will have a much greater payoff??
Mike R23A Quote
{Yes there is, both in terms of $$$ and all the issues I outlined above. The DND budget is not unlimited and may likely shrink given the current economic climate.}
You never read what i wrote!
{As for Canada there generally fine for now, although there SF could use the 416,and other improvements as they come out.}
This was more geared to the US .
{Yes there is, both in terms of $$$ and all the issues I outlined above. The DND budget is not unlimited and may likely shrink given the current economic climate.}
You never read what i wrote!
{As for Canada there generally fine for now, although there SF could use the 416,and other improvements as they come out.}
This was more geared to the US .
XM8 Testing
In the Fall 2007 test, the XM8 recorded only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds while the M4 carbine had 882. The FN SCAR had 226 stoppages and the HK416 had 233.
M4 1-68
FN 1-265
HK 1-257
Would you want a rifle to stop once every third or so mags or once every 8-9 mags!! I think you know the answer to that!
Tap. Rack. Pull Trigger. Repeat when necessary. Problem solved.
You make good points Kevin but I must point out that very often military procurement isn't based on logic it is sometimes based on the desire for something new.
The M16FOW only has one issue that I wish was different and that is a lefty friendly bolt release. I really like the G36 solution for this. Even then its not a big deal and dopes like me can work with what is given.
There is a big drive out there to make the soldier's primary weapon better but its probably not gonna do much to make the soldier any more effective in the field cause he is just a part of a bigger picture.
All that said, I have a feeling we're gonna see something new in the next 5-10 years.
The M16FOW only has one issue that I wish was different and that is a lefty friendly bolt release. I really like the G36 solution for this. Even then its not a big deal and dopes like me can work with what is given.
There is a big drive out there to make the soldier's primary weapon better but its probably not gonna do much to make the soldier any more effective in the field cause he is just a part of a bigger picture.
All that said, I have a feeling we're gonna see something new in the next 5-10 years.
The only M16FOW alternative that seems reasonable to introduce on a mass scale would be the 416, or something similar from another (LWRC, etc). I don't know what the military price of a 416 upper or entire rifle is (KevinB, do you know/are you allowed to share?) but I know everything from H&K that I've seen tends to be high priced, and I can't help but wonder what it would cost to do a new AR upper with a quality barrel, the new bolt, and a quality free float rail. Issue out PMAGs, and put the two side by side. Heck, Kevin, maybe you could get KAC to do a test, pit your carbines against a couple 416s and see which one performs better.
Starscream
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Alberta
You'd think it wouldn't be complicated, but anything dealing with money and the military is going to get complicated. The biggest problem always stems from trying to please everyone in the procurement process. The politicians have a different agenda then the military higher ups that are recommending the system and even they may not have the same agenda as the ground pounders that may or may not give reliable feedback on the system (anyone remember the infamous, "Meat axe?"). Plus you get infighting even in the military. If getting 200,000 rifles for the infantry means the airforce doesn't get it's squadron of F22's or the navy doesn't get another destroyer, you can bet that the they're going to raise a stink about it.
Besides, the gains from the 416 don't seem to be all that significant; the M4 and M16 with minor modifications has been getting positive feedback from front line troops. Most of the technological problems encountered with the M4 can be retrofitted for considerably less money and growing pain, and probably can be rotating in without any retraining (installing a cold hammer forged barrel isn't any different then any other M4 barrel, Pmags have no training difference then USGI mags, rail systems are becoming standard on all M4s, etc).
Honestly, if we had to make a change in the M4, it is that the P-mag should be become a standard issue for troops. How that would be done, I honestly do not know but it's a nice dream.
- Location
- Scarborough, ON
You would cry if you knew what LE/mil buyers pay for select-fire MP5s and G36s (in the US).
Hk416 is about $1,100 for an upper conversion kit to LE/Mil in under 25 unit quantities.
However Hk416's have issues too - they have bolt issues - especially in the 12k+ arena with the thinner barrel guns.
I dont think the piston solves anything that is not better solved with other means.
I think the US Army is best off working with industry and picking and chosing parts to make the best system for the US Warrior.
However Hk416's have issues too - they have bolt issues - especially in the 12k+ arena with the thinner barrel guns.
I dont think the piston solves anything that is not better solved with other means.
I think the US Army is best off working with industry and picking and chosing parts to make the best system for the US Warrior.
Okay KevinB what do you recommend they should buy then?
Or what parts from who to make have the best system?
This is just a wild guess...but I am thinking maybe he would recommend PMags, A KAC or other altered cam path bolt such as the LMT, Diemaco/Colt Canada barrel, lubricant finishes on parts which require it, and a free float rail.
I don't blame you for not being able to guess this, though. I had to completely pull this out of thin air, and certainly just reading posts you have already replied to would not be enough to know what the hell he is thinking.
Okay fair enough! I completely Failed on that!
As much as I agree this is a good solution that I agree should be done anyways, I have to say doing both would be a great option then. Upgrade most of the M4/16, and then purchase 416's. The 416 solves most of these issues by itself anyways.
Also what about Daniel defense apparently they make the best M4 barrels in North America now?
If your looking at this out of interest...no worries.
I think the point being made strategically is there is no need to buy anything new. New items can be introduced as replacements parts overtime as part of the life cycle management of the system. There is no need to completely upgrade components until those components are at the end of their useful life. Replacement parts would be needed anyway and that is the best time to introduce upgraded components. Most cost effective for sure. The overall point is the M4 is doing just fine in its current configuration for the US Army.
If military procurement was based on the desire for something new, I would be extremely happy.
However having dealt quite a bit with military procurement it's based more on what was purchased in the past. Obsolete patrol slings, aluminium wash basins, melamine plates and cups, tac vests etc.
For new items, sometimes it's based on only seeing one product without seeing other options.
There are few times when a variety of items are tested fairly against each other, however sometimes one item might be excluded due to the wrong sized paper used on the quote (No $hit, this has happened).
Dammit, now I'm starting to rant...........
I completely agree with this as far as replacing parts as needed!
But I think having some 416 in stock for front line use is the best overall idea.
The other problems is what about ammunition?
Do we change the round from 5.56 to something else or is 5.56 just fine.
I personally think 5.56 is not going anywhere any time soon!
I definitely agree PMAGS should be more accessible too troops on a side not though!
