Sooner or later they will have to upgrade. Their elite troops already are.
Rich
We all dread the day our AR15s will become obsolete.
Hopefully we'll be shooting lasers by then!
Sooner or later they will have to upgrade. Their elite troops already are.
Rich
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.I don't believe they'll actually replace the M4. I still think it's all talk.
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.We all dread the day our AR15s will become obsolete.
Hopefully we'll be shooting lasers by then!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
![]()
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