It doesn't matter how much they spend, hit probability won't improve and, unless they totally re-think ammunition, lethality won't improve. Until they're ready to go through another financially painful full replacement (cartridge and delivery system) they're better off forgetting about replacement and concentrating on employment.
US Army Set to Kill Improved Carbine Competition
- Thread starter CV32
- Start date
Let's face it. The U.S. military (and probably us too) is going to be using AR-15 variants as their standard service weapons until somebody comes up with man-portable rail guns or direct energy weapons (or some other whizbang next-gen technology). The M4/M16 are not the most reliable weapons in the world but from what I've read a lot of the issues seem to be exaggerated and many of the problems seem to be due to lack of training (eg. soldiers being taught to run their weapons dry instead of properly lubricating them).
A far bigger issue seems to be the limited range and lethality of the 5.56. This is a far more obvious problem at longer ranges in environments like Afghanistan, as evidenced by NATO militaries bringing back last-gen battle rifles like the F3, FAL, and M14 as well as putting in emergency orders for 7.62 AR variants like the HK417 and LMT L129A1. Something like 6.5, 6.8 or 300 would probably solve that problem but the issue is that a calibre change would be as big a headache as replacing the M4/M16.
A far bigger issue seems to be the limited range and lethality of the 5.56. This is a far more obvious problem at longer ranges in environments like Afghanistan, as evidenced by NATO militaries bringing back last-gen battle rifles like the F3, FAL, and M14 as well as putting in emergency orders for 7.62 AR variants like the HK417 and LMT L129A1. Something like 6.5, 6.8 or 300 would probably solve that problem but the issue is that a calibre change would be as big a headache as replacing the M4/M16.
I don't see the 300 as a marked improvement over existing cartridges like 7.62x39, the only one being is that they can be reliably fed outta straight mags. 6.5/6.8 would be good compromises between weight, range and stopping power, piston for reliability, and I'd probably be borrowing a lot from the AK in the design of that rifle. Of course, that would mean a total caliber shift (milsurp poodle ammo, anyone?
), but at least it's not dumping even more money into the same pit that didn't give us anything really new since M16 came out.This would be a good start, but in the 6.5/6.8
They'd have to do something about that stock though
Would be ironic to get their next batch of rifles from the factory that they bombed a few years back
A bit of prejudice would have to be overcome, too
The M16A2 ratchet trigger cycles thru 3 different trigger pulls -> from 6-11lbs (and sometimes worse - I have seen 7-14 used in some manuals)
Try using a single stage trigger and getting a good accurate shot off with the various and inconsistent trigger pulls.
That said - honestly most service personnel cannot use a match trigger anyway, so it will take a great deal of training to work on that anyway.
Try using a single stage trigger and getting a good accurate shot off with the various and inconsistent trigger pulls.
That said - honestly most service personnel cannot use a match trigger anyway, so it will take a great deal of training to work on that anyway.
I was rooting for the ADCOR. Would have been nice to see it win. Plus it would have been the least expensive alternative. Essentially a software update for manufacturing the upper while still using existing lowers. I hope the phase II results will be listed at least.
None of this is new. Everyone is just arguing over old ideas that have already been tested. The US army has been trying to replace the M-16/M-4 since it's beginning. The SPIW project, ACR, SAWS trials, XM8. I can't see the M-4 going away soon they will just keep tweaking it periodically.
Even if they keep the same platform, a caliber change would be a minimal expense when it comes to the guns. The ammo stocks would be a separate issue, but that would open up the milsurp market for our benefit
I don't see it happening.. The spent trillions upon trillions that they don't have, so they'll try to make do with what's already out there. GI lives are cheap.
Modern military doctrine is all about spray and pray. If you can't hit a man-sized mannequin at 300 with an AK, you have no business being in uniform. 556 may have superior lethality under lab conditions designed to highlight its advantages, and it is a better caliber for open country with no houses, cars or foliage, where the trained marksman can let it stretch out its "legs".. Due to the heavier bullet, 7.62x39 doesn't get deflected as much when going through barriers such as heavy foliage, doors, walls, windows and sheet metal, which is a concern even when shooting .308. That is why it came under consideration from our side and why 300BLK was developed in the first place. The disadvantages (and they are serious) in modern military doctrine are that the soldier can carry fewer rounds and controllability under full auto. An "intermediate" caliber like 6.5Grendel or 6.8SPC would give us the best of both worlds with minimal changes in actual equipment. This is all well known to the NATO brass but nothing will ever get done about it. Huge amount of debt and an even bigger bureaucracy.
CarbineOne
Regular
Actually modern military doctrine is the opposite of what you just posted. Military has been moving away from every-man-a-machinegun since the 70's. Poll anyone you know that was deployed in combat in the last 10 years with a C8/M4. Now ask how often they used that rifle in full auto.
I'm guessing the most common answer you'll receive is 'only once in training'.
Let's assume that's the case (not contradicting you, just setting the point aside), those intermediate calibers would still be more effective against barriers and body armor at greater distances without making sacrifices in accuracy.
Sounds right to me, I have watched quite a few videos of our guys in Afghanistan and the only full auto I have seen is the C9 which is a machine gun.
How so? All rifle fire I observed in that video was semi-auto (even supressive fire) and all automatic fire came from dedicated support weapons.
So much fail in this post I have no idea where to begin.
CarbineOne
Regular
The only full auto observed on screen in that video is from the M249.
Oooops, my bad... Time index 1:20, don't look like M249 to me (background) In any case just because the M249 was used for full auto suppressive fire, doesn't mean that an M4 would have been useless in that particular instance. Just the existence of M249's means that full auto is here to stay
Edit: If the president of Armalite considers full auto a necessary feature in the modern battlefields, I'd sincerely doubt he's talking out of his rectum
http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/video-lack-of-full-auto-on-m4s-cost-lives.html
I agree that full auto is less useful in the terrain and conditions that they have in Afghanistan, but even then, it has its uses. In an urban setting, where a good chunk of small arms combat will be happening and even in dense foliage, you can't deny the usefulness of full auto, especially if your projectiles can reliably penetrate light cover like car doors and foliage.
http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/video-lack-of-full-auto-on-m4s-cost-lives.html
Edit: If the president of Armalite considers full auto a necessary feature in the modern battlefields, I'd sincerely doubt he's talking out of his rectum
http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/video-lack-of-full-auto-on-m4s-cost-lives.html
I agree that full auto is less useful in the terrain and conditions that they have in Afghanistan, but even then, it has its uses. In an urban setting, where a good chunk of small arms combat will be happening and even in dense foliage, you can't deny the usefulness of full auto, especially if your projectiles can reliably penetrate light cover like car doors and foliage.
http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/video-lack-of-full-auto-on-m4s-cost-lives.html
Last edited:
