Keep in mind that the system will only be as good as the operator. At this time, most soldiers can't make full use of the current system's accuracy potential in range conditions, nevermind battlefield conditions. In my opinion, a sounder investment of our limited resources would be in training. Consider the fact that most troops shoot about 100 live rounds in a year merely to stay qualified on the weapon. I see additional value in buying ample amounts of ammunition and getting more troops actually good at shooting than investing anywhere else.
US Army Set to Kill Improved Carbine Competition
- Thread starter CV32
- Start date
First off the cost relative to the equipment costs of jets, tanks, ships missiles, helicopters etc is peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Carbines are the most basic of equipment. The more reliable and accurate the firearm/ammo is the greater your chances of success overall. Training is part of it absolutely but I often see BS blanket statements on this site regarding presumptions of training and skill level. Modern country militaries seem to do exceptionally well against those sportinging AK and the training by such militaries. Also you can't forget that it's infantry that holds ground. Here is where equipment such as carbines makes the difference.
I've shot on the range with a number of ex military from various countries. Those guys seemed very capable of ringing out the max performance of their firearms. No they weren't special forces. I'd be careful of blanket statements regarding training or skill level.
Right. I have no doubt that the limited sized ex-military test sample that shoot with you on the civie side are excellent shots (probably why they still shoot in the first place). I run ranges every month and most active military personnel I see on my relays only shoot a grand total of 69 rounds a year (20 to zero and 49 are scored). Now with the amount of people that fail my ranges, I think I have a good idea what the average guy can do. So excuse me if you can't handle my blanket statements.
I remember reading that the original intake of Seal Team Six (when there was such a thing) shot as many rounds in training every year as the entire USMC - if you want your shooters to be good, they have to shoot.
The guys I've shot with were front line during their service. I wonder if the military like the RCMP has all their members requalify? If so then many will be made of rear echelon and or administrative types. If so then the shooting practice levels and training observed may not reflect the actual soldiers on the front lines.
Give them the best equipment possible. If there's an improvement to the AR that allows the same or better accuracy and improves reliability and ergonomics then they should get the updates. I can understand not changing to an entirely new system for minimal gain but there are solutions that really aren't much more than a software upgrade.
I just checked with a coworker who served in the Canadian military. He advises he qualified every year but before missions those in the infantry received a lot of extra practice in peeperation for the mission. I was told the non infantry such as cooks going had to qualify once for the missions but didn't receive the extra shooting time or training.
Last edited:
It can vary tremendously.
I've seen Inf Sgt's PPCLI and RCR) that cannot pass a PWT without the 5.56mm pencil, I've also seen young Privates that shot rifle team, who got to shoot 20k a summer, and where great at the end, in a rifle team great, not a CQB god type.
Remember that just a few years ago, that shooting while doing a turn was considered super high speed in the CF (outside DHTC), shooting on the move was not done outside of field live fire ranges etc.
Everywhere you go you will find a standard, whether or not that standard is a good one or not, does not mean its not the standard...
Generally speaking outside of special units the firearm skills are low to abysmal.
I've seen Soldiers fire 30rds at a target and blame the gun and the ammo when they did not hit Mr Bad Guy in his manjammies, and he gets tagged by someone else and there are only the 1-2 rds in the target (ones that the shooter fired).
When your ammo has a 5MOA accuracy acceptance currently (M855) your also not really giving the soldier much to work with.
Someone who shoots 100 rds a year, and all of a sudden who gets 1000rds of 'training' will think its great. Someone who shoots for a living will wonder why they wasted 1000rds.
Ammunition in itself is not training, you can waste a ton of ammo on copper masturbation and get nothing from it, but thinking it was 'great'
You can learn a ton of things with less ammo and good instruction.
I still want to know what everyone thinks is wrong with the M4? And I really dont care to listen to piston pukes, as I can pretty much guarantee you the only 5.56mm piston gun worth half a #### is the Hk416, and then it depends on what version you get, the ones for super cool guys, or the run of the mill gun. You can do everything (except fire underwater) with a DI gun that you think you need a piston for, without the many piston drawbacks.
KevinB said:
HALLELUJAH!
KevinB said:
IMHO the M4 et al does what we need it to do. You've said before somewhere something along the lines that until we develop a new cartridge (CTA?) there is little point changing the platform. The money is better spent on training. After ten years and a few thousand rounds fired through the M16/AR10FOW, I can not agree more. There is room for variations on a theme (your/the arms room concept), while staying with the same platform. Me? I'll be the dinosaur holding on with a death grip to my C8AX until they pry it from my cold dead hands.
This statement is very telling.
If someone is serving or ex-military and still shooting on their own dime, it is likely they are a 'gun guy' and take marksmanship semi-seriously.
When I was a young private/corporal I excelled at PWTs, but for the most part did not take them seriously. Range days meant a couple of things: boring&####-fest. I found it a rare experience to hit the range where there wasn't some up-tight RO or other senior NCO fretting about pushing through guys in the allotted time and every other admin. procedure not associated with teaching guys how to shoot properly.
Now that is not to say the training regime wasn't adequate - I think generally it was, but a lot of people could care less and they suck at it.
A lot of those same people gain leadership roles and are expected to teach young troops to shoot.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Great platform and the general concept/design is what, 53 years old now?
Shooting it underwater or after being submerging is a Darwin issue not a DI issue.
Almost all suppressed platforms give you a little gas/grime on your face, You just need less face paint and bug dope afterwards.
On reliability: If the operator shoots on full auto continuously non stop(20-30 mags), and the hand guard "lights off" STOP, 'cause what's next is really ugly. By the way it was never meant to be a sustained fire weapon.
Yeah, its a real POS ain't it? I'd still have one if I wasn't in Canada.
Shooting it underwater or after being submerging is a Darwin issue not a DI issue.
Almost all suppressed platforms give you a little gas/grime on your face, You just need less face paint and bug dope afterwards.
On reliability: If the operator shoots on full auto continuously non stop(20-30 mags), and the hand guard "lights off" STOP, 'cause what's next is really ugly. By the way it was never meant to be a sustained fire weapon.
Yeah, its a real POS ain't it? I'd still have one if I wasn't in Canada.
Last edited:
Just an uneducated slob here, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the M4 platform itself. Certain components, sure, but those are so easy to fix, except where barred by bureaucracy, that it's a bit silly to complain about them. The only real gripe I have with it is the bolt release, which takes about five minutes to fix with a BAD Lever. Everything else seems to come down to the individual component, or the user, and not the actual platform itself.
I really enjoy it when people will review a piston gun, then open the rifle and pop out the BCG to show how cool and clean it is. Congratuations, your piston has a good seal on it. Now show me the piston. The fouling comes from the ammo, so if you're using the same ammo you're going to get the same fouling. Piston guns just put it in different places.
I also get a special enjoyment from the people who will post up a target with a sub-moa group six inches low and ten inches left of the bullseye.
To a certain degree I think the military could benefit greatly from allowing a bit more freedom of equipment selection. I can't remember hearing any cases of guys having to grab rifles off the ground to continue fighting. Sure it could be happening, but I haven't heard about it. As such, why does every rifle need to be the exact same?
TV-PressPass
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Mountains, Alberta
Someone needs to put together a book of KevinB's CGN wisdom . . .
I'd have that on my bookshelf.
I'd have that on my bookshelf.
I already put a patent on it....
ah the BAD Idea lever...
Nice concept, IMHO poor execution -- I prefer the LWRCI version integral to the lower. Adding material to the bolt catch can cause significant drag on the bolt carrier and reduce weapon reliability.
Nice concept, IMHO poor execution -- I prefer the LWRCI version integral to the lower. Adding material to the bolt catch can cause significant drag on the bolt carrier and reduce weapon reliability.
That doesn't surprise me. You get the same with police as well. Fortunately most of the senior Constable, and long term Corporals on the watches tend to be fairly decent and above the average. No thanks to the crappy trigger pull on the equipment we're given.
Nothing is wrong with it. I'm a huge fan of DI AR rifles. I actually would call myself an anti piston AR person. But that being said it's a little odd not to want to improve it. Especially from a representative of a company who's very niche is improvements on the DI system. The enhanced bolt of the KAC, the lower etc? By the way the lower controls on the KAC should be put into play for current service rifles. The ambi bolt and mag release are excellent. Why wouldn't this improvement be considered? Would you say there's nothing wrong with the regular AR lower? I would but I would also say the ambi controls do add functionality even to right hand shooters.
Also there is the one piston exception to my general rule. I'm not even a huge fan of the HK system. The ADCOR is a different animal. Have you looked at it? I ask because I dismissed it originally as just another crappy piston AR. A solution without a problem. But upon closer inspection I was actually very impressed. I own a couple now along with my DI AR collection. It's worth taking a close look at before dismissing as another piston system. There's ingenuity to the design. I believe it offers the best of DI and the best of piston. The side charging handle with optics or prone is great.
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
Trying to help soldiers zero rifles with one standard sighting system can be a struggle, hell it is damn fustrating at times.
The creativity I have seen applied to doing it wrong is amazing.
Well yes, the ways in which to do something wrong would boggle the mind.
However, I think it could be done properly if handled intelligently, which means it's never going to work on a large scale. At this point it would not surprise me too much to find out that there are regulations against collapsing a collapsable buttstock.
It just seems to me that the military is trying to find a peg that fits in circular, square, and triangular holes.
Yes, but the problem is cost. IF US army wants to replace their carbine, they will buy a lot (considered they're 1/2 million active personnel)
To me there NOT enough improvement warrant change.
The only thing to me is viable and should be changed is the magazine and barrel length. 14.5" barrel really kills the energy of the bullet compared to 16".
The problem isn't cost. Look at the US military. F22 raptors, Apache helicopters, M1A1 tanks, ships, subs aircraft carriers etc. The overall cost is peanuts. You phase out the old system not all at once. You're going to have to replace the worn, damaged, lost ones etc anyways. Certain units get the new, others get the old until completely replaced. The same way Israel did with their M4 rifles for the Tavor.
How do we know none of the entries offered enough? They're stopping it before having to use that out. For all we know the "right" rifle wasn't going to win. Stop it now instead. With the previous competition the XM8 was just a disguised G36 and while gaining a lot in reliability you lost out in other areas such as accuracy potential and modularity. There were entries this time around that didn't just trade off reliability for accuracy and modularity. In fact some were reworked upgrades of the current system. If the performance matched the claims then it would be an easy upgrade that could keep the current system relevant unti a break through in ammo such as caseless or a completely different projectile system.
