Recent tests and choices by the US army and SOCOM

Lawrence D

Lawrence D

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
72   0   0
Location
SW Ontario
According to Jane's defense reports the US Army is planning to adopt the M4 and shift towards a more versatile, short barrel weapon for mounted ops. Col. Rob Radcliffe director of combat development said that they’ll never go to a long rifle as the weapon that is continuously carried by the infantry.

This seems to be the final decision despite unfavorable results from recent tests. :eek:

In a nutshell, in the tests that the US army conducted, the M4 performed worse than other weapons that were being evaluated. The tests consisted of firing 6000 rounds in each weapon. 10 of each model were tested -
10x HK416, 10x FNSCAR mk16, 10x XM8 & 10x M4's.

The results came out like this -
HK416 - 233 stoppages.
SCAR - 226 stoppages 16 of which were major.
XM8 - 127 stoppages.
M4 - 882 stoppages of which 19 were classed '3' / catastrophic.

On the other hand SOCOM opted for the 7.62mm SCAR as the 'next generation assault rifle'. Releases of and results of the operational testing is expected to be out any time. These tests started in July 2007. Full scale production is expected to start soon.
 
An armies choice of weapons is mainly influeanced by domestic politics, how much ammo they have in the warehouses and the cost of switching to a new weapon. It has little to do with which is the best rifle.
 
FYI SOCOM adopted the Mk16 (SCAR -Light 5.56mm) and the Mk17 (SCAR - Heavy 7.62x51mm NATO)

However units in SOCOM continue to buy Hk416's like they are going out of style....
 
The SCAR is pretty much a dead horse that is still being flogged by some pork barrel politics,I have no doubt it will go the way of the XM8 soon enough.(espescially after handling one)
 
I am shocked they would go with the M4 over the HK416 from a technical point of view.

From a business point of view it makes perfect sense. There is less training involved as the M4 is very similar to the M16A2, and the M4 is already in wide circulation with front line troops. This means less costs and easier implementation. It's not actually that bad of a decision...
 
Colin said:
An armies choice of weapons is mainly influeanced by domestic politics, how much ammo they have in the warehouses and the cost of switching to a new weapon. It has little to do with which is the best rifle.
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head! For the best example, see the saga of the Brit SA-80
 
Anyone remember the story of the armalite ar-10 and the m14 acceptance tests? If you can find a copy or if you can find it on a movie channel, I refer you to a movie called The Pentagon Wars. It explains the procurement process in a way no internet post ever could.
 
Colin said:
An armies choice of weapons is mainly influeanced by domestic politics, how much ammo they have in the warehouses and the cost of switching to a new weapon. It has little to do with which is the best rifle.
Click to expand...

The M1 Garand was supposed to be a 10 shot .276 peterson kind of a necked down 35 Remington equivalent. Macarthur Kiboshed it because they had several million rounds of 30-06 in inventory. This ammo ended up being unusable because it was Based on weapons performance reports from WW1, a streamlined, 11.2 g (173 grain), boat tail, gilding-metal bullet was used. The .30-06 cartridge, with the 11.2 g bullet was called the "M1 Ball". The specs were changed to make it work in the Garand, and the M1 Ball cartridge was replaced In 1940, this unstained, 9.8 g (152 grain), flat-base bullet became the standard "Ball, M2" cartridge. According to U.S. Army Technical Manual 43-0001-27, M2 Ball specifications require 835 m/s (2,740 feet per second) velocity, measured 24 m (78 feet) from the muzzle. M2 Ball was the standard issue ammunition for military rifles and machineguns until replaced by the 7.62x51mm for the M14 and M60.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom