US Army acquires rights to M4

I don't believe they'll actually replace the M4. I still think it's all talk.
I dunno about that. The M4, though thoroughly improved since it's conception, is still in fact a 50+ year old weapon system. It has had a long and fruitful service, but with all the advances in weapon technology over the past couple decades the options to upgrade have been becoming ever more abundant, and gradually at a lesser cost (first considersation of any military/para-military force). For the past ten years, many of the first world nations have been exploring advanced alternatives. Canada included, thanx to the Cons. Every military wants the best killing machines they can get, assumings it's cost effective. So inevitably, every weapon system will eventually be replaced by a newer (mostly better) model.

Like how stones replaced fists, spears replaced stones, swords replaced spears, crossbows replaced swords (sort of), arquebus replaced crossbows, etc.
We all dread the day our AR15s will become obsolete.

Hopefully we'll be shooting lasers by then!
Well, many good firearms are "obsolete". Doesn't make them any less effective or fun. Some of the best battle rifles world wide are well over 60 years old. Lee Enfield .303 Mk IV, for example. Just the weapon's performance couldn't keep up with progressive battlefield standards.
 
Considering how much money is spent on so many things in the US military, picking up 416 & Scars is the best choice! It's not like they have to replace the M4 at a massive rate anyways. Rifles are not a big cost in a military compared to tanks or so many other big ticket items.

Ahh but things are rarely so simple when dealing with the military machine, we're not just talking about trading x rifle for y rifle. Let me elaborate using the CF as a hypothetical example:

Training: Every user needs to be trained on the new system, which means training the trainers, which means writing new TTPs and PAMs. Every weapon tech will need to be trained as well, also training the trainers, new maintenance PAMs, etc. This will have follow on effects as recruit courses and others are rewritten to reflect the new weapon system content.

Equipment: In addition to the rifles themselves you need spare parts, EIS, maintenance tools/jigs etc. All sorts of new NSNs into the log system. What about ancillary eqpt? Does the CF M203 fit on a SCAR? So now new GLs are needed too...

Infrastructure: Does the new wpns fit in the C7/8 weapon racks in the vaults? What mods to every wpn rack in Canada and abroad needs to be made so they will fit, or do they need to be replaced entirely?

Staff Effort: What is the cost in man hours to staff this initiative from the concept stage, through procurement, to delivery and implementation. Every process and procedure from train the trainer, wpn delivery, training sessions, range sessions, C7/C8 return to depot etc will have to be repeated in every Command/Area/C(M)BG/Unit across Canada...

And that's just off the top of my head at 2am... you get the picture.

So considering all this, is the benefit worth the cost when compared to all the other initiatives underway in DND?

When we went from the Lee Enfield to the C1 we adopted a new NATO standard calibre and went from bolt action to semi auto, from C1 to C7 we went to a new NATO standard calibre in a select fire assault rifle. Going to a SCAR or something else we are going to essentially the same thing (5.56mm, select fire assault rifle, 30 rnd box mags), not sure if the reward vs effort is there in this case, considering that the C7/C8 is one of the best service rifles in the world already.

My $0.02
 
I certainly don't see the reasoning to send a huge contract from a US firm like Colt to a overseas one like FN or HK for a very small improvement that would be more than offset by all the hassle of switching to a completely new rifle system. Mike barely scratched the surface of all the cost and effort not to mention a soldier learning a new weapon while the US is fighting 2 wars is going to cost a lot more lives than the supposed unreliability.

The reason the CSOR type guys use exotic weapons is because their missions often demand it and it is a perk of the job. This is just like how every 1911 fan in the US was convinced that they should scrap the Berreta for a 3000$ HK .45 designed for use with a suppressor.
 
Ian Hogg in one of his books expressed the opinion that infantry small arms have reached a plateau in development and cannot be advanced any further without either a huge technological breakthrough and/or huge money, and it is not justified.

Look at any new military rifle. All are mix and match bits of existing designs. Most look like copies of the G-36 or AR/H&K416. Stoner rotating multi-lug bolt or Kalashnikov bolt, AK style gas system, or AR-18 style short stroke piston etc etc. Other than Optics and polymer materials, not much new. FN has managed to make an ambidextrous bullpup, but not much else. The H&K caseless was cool, but too expensive, not NATO STANAG.

All the money spent on SPIW, SCAR, and all the other projects were unable to get an infantry weapons system that would perform in any way significantly better than the M-16A2 in the hands of the average soldier. Fancy radio controlled proximity fused 20-25mm buck rogers guns are too heavy and too expensive. Flechettes and duplex rounds etc did not produce enough of a performance increase to justify the cost.

Any modern AR/M-4/H&K etc will shoot more accuartately out of the box with good ammo than any soldier can actually shoot them in combat, and all are about as reliable as you need them to be. Torture testing that says rifle "x" has a MRBF of 5,500 while rifle "y" has a MRBF of 6,000 so rifle "y" must be better doesn't really mean anything in a practical sense.

If you spend the money to replace the M-4 with SCAR or ANYTHING else, will you get better performance? The accuracy won't be any better. The terminal ballistics won't be any better. You might get a marginal improvement in ergonomics, but not so you will really notice it on the target.

The Iraq war and the emergency purchases of M-4s in large quantity for general issue saved Colt's ass! They were in deep doo-doo up until that point. FN and other built cheaper M-16s, but the M-4 was exclusively available from Colt (see the last chapter of American Rifle: A Biography by Alexander Rose).

The US Army is not going to get a new rifle system for general issue anytime in the near future because of the reasons I gave at the beginning of my post. SOF may get 416s or whatever else they want, but they already do that.

By taking over the rights, the army will get to tender out any new procurement, and so get a better volume discount that they do buying exclusively from Colt under the now expired sweatheart deal. So really, this proves that the M-4 is here to stay for the forseeable future.
 
Ahh but things are rarely so simple when dealing with the military machine, we're not just talking about trading x rifle for y rifle. Let me elaborate using the CF as a hypothetical example:

Training: Every user needs to be trained on the new system, which means training the trainers, which means writing new TTPs and PAMs. Every weapon tech will need to be trained as well, also training the trainers, new maintenance PAMs, etc. This will have follow on effects as recruit courses and others are rewritten to reflect the new weapon system content.

Equipment: In addition to the rifles themselves you need spare parts, EIS, maintenance tools/jigs etc. All sorts of new NSNs into the log system. What about ancillary eqpt? Does the CF M203 fit on a SCAR? So now new GLs are needed too...

Infrastructure: Does the new wpns fit in the C7/8 weapon racks in the vaults? What mods to every wpn rack in Canada and abroad needs to be made so they will fit, or do they need to be replaced entirely?

Staff Effort: What is the cost in man hours to staff this initiative from the concept stage, through procurement, to delivery and implementation. Every process and procedure from train the trainer, wpn delivery, training sessions, range sessions, C7/C8 return to depot etc will have to be repeated in every Command/Area/C(M)BG/Unit across Canada...

And that's just off the top of my head at 2am... you get the picture.

So considering all this, is the benefit worth the cost when compared to all the other initiatives underway in DND?

When we went from the Lee Enfield to the C1 we adopted a new NATO standard calibre and went from bolt action to semi auto, from C1 to C7 we went to a new NATO standard calibre in a select fire assault rifle. Going to a SCAR or something else we are going to essentially the same thing (5.56mm, select fire assault rifle, 30 rnd box mags), not sure if the reward vs effort is there in this case, considering that the C7/C8 is one of the best service rifles in the world already.

My $0.02

Speaking of which. Does anyone know anything of the SARP 2?
 
Excellent point Paulz ,it would not make sense to go to the trouble of aquiring the rights to the M4 if they were planning a replacement.

If anything is going to change the M4/5.56 it will be body armor. The 5.56 is an excellent military round and a big improvement over the 7.62 simply because it tripled the amount of rounds a soldier could carry. Where it could find it's self lacking is if good quality body armor becomes as ubiquitous with the enemies of the US as it is with US forces. The best option would be an armor piercing 5.56 but that may not be possible.
 
An AR-15 is entirely capable of 2000 mean rounds between stoppages, is that not good enough? Why spend billions of dollars to go from a rifle with a 0.05% stoppage rate to a 0.02% stoppage rate?

The perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

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!



:yingyang:
 
If you spend the money to replace the M-4 with SCAR or ANYTHING else, will you get better performance? The accuracy won't be any better. The terminal ballistics won't be any better. You might get a marginal improvement in ergonomics, but not so you will really notice it on the target.

Stretch To 500 Yards

I next set some targets at 500 yards and fired another four five-shot groups. This was done prone off a rest using only Black Hills 77-grain Mk262 Mod 1 load. Even with a 12 mph full-value crosswind I was immediately rewarded with a tight five-shot group that measured just 3.7 inches. The SCAR 16S went on to average an impressive 4.2 inches at this distance.

link to this article


http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=555&Itemid=1
 
I really like Colt and my best guns are Colts (maybe I should get out more :)?)

On the other hand I find that Colt is a bit of a enigma.

They refuse to sell at least to the Canadian civilian market.

They have really lost civi market share over the last 15 or 20 years. My most recent magazines on "AR's" and "Combat Arms" or "Tactical Arms" don't even list Colts but do list all other makers who have taken up the slack.

A couple of years ago at the SHOT show, Colt featured the LAST python I believe it was which was touted as costing $50K to build, A1 finish, engraved to the hilt and pimped to the Xtreme (don't get me wrong, I droooled over it and it was a spectacular peice). A FEATURE gun on a model that nobody can buy anymore! (If you ran a business, would you spend time and effort to showcase a product you no longer sell?)

Then with all the CCW craze Colt produces what 1911's and SAA's for civi market? I believe they are missing a lot of the CCW market and thus leaving a heap of money on the table as a result.

Anyhoot, yes if they are beginning to loose the monopoly on the military contract (their last major market), they better start looking at the civi market to make up for it or risk financial trouble sometime in the future. I would hate to see such a great company go down. Naysayers of this scenario simpy can look at Winchester, the current US car makers, Enron, etc.

on-ca
 
One thing your missing from the Colt M4/M4A1 bashing, is that the Army has refused upgrades to the TDP -- which resulting in SOCOM adopting the SOPMOD packages.

There are Bolt Carriers that are designed to slow the unlocking to be optimized for suppressed usage, bolts that will go 30k suppressed, barrels that last as long as the Hk416 or SCAR, and Enhanced Magazines that reduce stoppages as well.
PLUS there are coatings to parts that VASTLY reduce the need for lubrication.

The biggest bonus for the Army and the American Small Arms Design/Manufacture Community, is the Army being invested in the M4 system.

Colt Canada makes probably the BEST barrel in 5.56mm in the world, and an PIP M4 would IMHO eat an Hk416 and SCAR's lunch.
 
I certainly don't see the reasoning to send a huge contract from a US firm like Colt to a overseas one like FN or HK for a very small improvement that would be more than offset by all the hassle of switching to a completely new rifle system.

This is likely where practicality and logic leave the room and politics, in some form, steps in.
 
One thing your missing from the Colt M4/M4A1 bashing, is that the Army has refused upgrades to the TDP -- which resulting in SOCOM adopting the SOPMOD packages.

There are Bolt Carriers that are designed to slow the unlocking to be optimized for suppressed usage, bolts that will go 30k suppressed, barrels that last as long as the Hk416 or SCAR, and Enhanced Magazines that reduce stoppages as well.
PLUS there are coatings to parts that VASTLY reduce the need for lubrication.

The biggest bonus for the Army and the American Small Arms Design/Manufacture Community, is the Army being invested in the M4 system.

Colt Canada makes probably the BEST barrel in 5.56mm in the world, and an PIP M4 would IMHO eat an Hk416 and SCAR's lunch.

H&K and FN make their rifles in the states, this has been stated many times! H&K has lead the way in quality for decades with PRACTICALLY EVERY COMPANY LAGGING BEHIND IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.. Colt Canada does not make the best barrel, I seriously doubt that, at least not from the rifles I have seen lately,and they were of their newer productions.
 
H&K and FN make their rifles in the states, this has been stated many times! H&K has lead the way in quality for decades with PRACTICALLY EVERY COMPANY LAGGING BEHIND IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.. Colt Canada does not make the best barrel, I seriously doubt that, at least not from the rifles I have seen lately,and they were of their newer productions.

Those are some big comments. What are you basing this on? Practical experience or what you have read or seen on TV? Curious as to your background and experience. Not intended to be an insult or anything, just need to understand your background and experience. I know KevinB's background, and interests...and biases I am might add as well so I have good context...

I am not sure I agree with your comments on R&D or the Colt Canada barrels.

Cheers

Jeff
 
Ahh but things are rarely so simple when dealing with the military machine, we're not just talking about trading x rifle for y rifle. Let me elaborate using the CF as a hypothetical example:

Training: Every user needs to be trained on the new system, which means training the trainers, which means writing new TTPs and PAMs. Every weapon tech will need to be trained as well, also training the trainers, new maintenance PAMs, etc. This will have follow on effects as recruit courses and others are rewritten to reflect the new weapon system content.

Equipment: In addition to the rifles themselves you need spare parts, EIS, maintenance tools/jigs etc. All sorts of new NSNs into the log system. What about ancillary eqpt? Does the CF M203 fit on a SCAR? So now new GLs are needed too...

Infrastructure: Does the new wpns fit in the C7/8 weapon racks in the vaults? What mods to every wpn rack in Canada and abroad needs to be made so they will fit, or do they need to be replaced entirely?

Staff Effort: What is the cost in man hours to staff this initiative from the concept stage, through procurement, to delivery and implementation. Every process and procedure from train the trainer, wpn delivery, training sessions, range sessions, C7/C8 return to depot etc will have to be repeated in every Command/Area/C(M)BG/Unit across Canada...

And that's just off the top of my head at 2am... you get the picture.

So considering all this, is the benefit worth the cost when compared to all the other initiatives underway in DND?

When we went from the Lee Enfield to the C1 we adopted a new NATO standard calibre and went from bolt action to semi auto, from C1 to C7 we went to a new NATO standard calibre in a select fire assault rifle. Going to a SCAR or something else we are going to essentially the same thing (5.56mm, select fire assault rifle, 30 rnd box mags), not sure if the reward vs effort is there in this case, considering that the C7/C8 is one of the best service rifles in the world already.

My $0.02

I have disagree with your $0.02 here big time.

Switching over from a 416 to M4/M16 is practically less than 5 minutes of actual training, and any soldier could figure it out in probably less than that.
I think it is pretty obvious here that people like to argue this point to death, but really there is no logical argument not to produce this new rifle at least for the US army. As for Canadian C7/C8 was a great rifle but compared to the competition it lags behind, I'm amazed that people still praise the good old Diemaco rifle like it was the best thing since sliced bread.

It jammed when I used them, they were older models that didn't compare even to my Bushmaster in quality an finish! Even their new lines were just copying the competition, although i think they are a great company (Colt Canada Now) they have earned a reputation that i must say is based more on national pride then merit.

The Tranistion between an M4/C8 variant to SCAR or (416 especially) is minimal, and yes obviously they will fit in our Cf cases.

The most important thing here is that it is not like we need to just replace these over night anyways.
 
What is gained by switching over to a similar system? Besides the incredible expense even for the US Mil. Nothing is gain. The US Mil is waiting for the next leap to invest in a new system.

Costs are not just the rifle...there is parts, and all the other bits as noted by R23....I agree with his points. Shiny kit syndrome does not mean it is a better or cost effective system
 
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!



:yingyang:

interesting stats, except IIRC most people missed some important info:

M4 1-68 ~ New production "off the rack" gun with USGI mags

FN 1-265 ~ New hand built gun supplied specifically for trials with proprietary mags

HK 1-257 ~ New "production" gun supplied specifically for trials with proprietary mags

The M4 had to fail against this competition, especially when everyone agrees that the USGI-Stanag mags are a major part of the M16 family's "deficiency".

Oh yeah, it's like comparing a USGI 1911a1 to an AMU 1911a1 National Match competition gun and claiming that it's a level playing field and a fair comparison.
 
To switch over to a 416 would not cause a massive parts issue because most of the parts would be interchangeable if need be.

And yes I have a military background, not that it means I know anything!

As for the next "leap in firearms technology" it has already come in my opinion ,and was passed up, or is slowly being implemented, just look at all the improvements that have been done to Military rifles in the last 10 to 15 years.

Like really the Steyr Aug set so many new standards when it came out (Late 70's if memory serves), example it was ambidextrous, barrel interchangeability, compact, etc etc..that rifle was just a head of it's time. Although they had some problems with it, the Aug was truly the first 21st century rifle that was fielded in my opinion.

I don't see the problem at very least to upgrade the C7/M16 rifle and in very short term give them to the front line troops.
 
What is gained by switching over to a similar system? Besides the incredible expense even for the US Mil. Nothing is gain. The US Mil is waiting for the next leap to invest in a new system.

Costs are not just the rifle...there is parts, and all the other bits as noted by R23....I agree with his points. Shiny kit syndrome does not mean it is a better or cost effective system

Exactly, what is the point in switching systems until there is a "leaping technology" improvement of increased effectiveness?

So the US switches from the M16/4 family to the FN/H&K ect. family, and 5 years from now is faced with the task of switching to the newly portable & effective beam projecting family of weapons to compete with everyone else...
 
Back
Top Bottom