Posted on 05/25/2012 8:39:14 AM PDT by re_tail20
The US Army is moving forward with their competition to evaluate rifles which may be selected to replace the M4. Part of the ongoing process to see if the market can provide a rifle that shows measurable improvement over the M4 that started back in 2005 with the XM8 project, it appears as if at least five companies have made it to round two of the Individual Carbine competition.
The companies that are moving on to the second stage are Adcor Defense, Colt Defense, FNH USA, Heckler & Koch and Remington. The rifles are the Adcor Defense BEAR Elite, the Colt ACC-M (sometimes called the ACM), the FN FNAC, the Heckler & Koch HK416 and the Remington ACR.
There may be others who have also made the cut but not spoken up; regulations prohibit the Army from publishing which companies are moving on, while these companies have announced their success independently.
"The Army's intent is to ensure that the competition is as fair as possible," Army spokesman Matthew Bourke said in a written response to a Military.com request. "The Army does not want to adversely affect the competition in any way. Providing the names of potential offerors; the number of proposals received, and/or any details pertaining to the offerors and/or their proposals has the potential to skew the competition."
Phase one of the competition was to see which companies could meet the Army's "Threshold Requirements," which include technical specifications of the rifles that must be met for the rifle to be considered at all, such as rails for optics and other accessories which have become necessary in the field, and the ability to use existing M320 grenade launchers and M26 shotguns...
(Excerpt) Read more at guns.com ...
... and if the new chosen M4 replacement appears with an rapid change barrel where each barrel has it's own integrated gas piston, we'll know where that idea came from too.
Well, slap my butt cheeks and call me Shirley!
It’s good to see that the Army has finally, *finally* decided to wake up and realize how badly Colt was screwing the Army and the taxpayer:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/04/army-carbine-remington-042212w/
I agree. With the tooling, supply channels, NATO compatibility, etc... we’re not moving away from the 5.56 anytime soon.
This all could have been prevented.... but decisions in the past led us here.
For example: The Garand was about to go into big-time production. A decision had to be made - whether we’d stick with the .30-06 (of which we had quite a bit laying about), or go with the outcome/findings of the Goat & Pig Boards and he desire of Garand himself, the .276 Pedersen. MacArthur went with the .30-06, based pretty much on only the ammo we had on hand.
If we’d been using an intermediate-power 6.5 to 7mm bullet of 150gr or less (like the .276), we probably would not have had the 5.56, nor the 7.62x51, which was a compromise to keep a .30 cal bullet in an slightly less powerful form for the full-auto M14. If we’d changed away from the .30-06 when we went semi-auto, we’d probably still be using something like the .276 today in full-auto weapons.
Been hunting with the 6.5 X 55 since I was a Boy Scout and bought a Swede Mauser for $39.95 mail order!* Still can hit the pie plate at 200.
* of course I have a fancy one now. Sweet shooter.
In the next year, I plan on building two 7mm rifles: One in .284 (for which I’ll neck up 6.5x284 brass) and a 7mm WSM. I happened upon a short 1924 Yugo action on which someone had opened up the bolt face for .535 heads, so it seems like a natural fit.
I debated between the 6.5 and 7mm for a long time, as there are really good choices in both, with more established cartridges with more brass available in the 6.5’s. In the end, my preference for heavier bullets with higher Bc’s won out... there’s some new stuff out there in 7mm which is just spectacular... and for that, I’ll just put up with the brass issue and hoard all I can find and make it fit.
http://www.barnesbullets.com/products/rifle/barnes-match-burners/
http://www.hornady.com/store/7mm-.284-162-GR-BTHP-Match/
Look at the 7mm vs. the 6.5. I’m sure you could design a 6.5 to achieve the same, but you’d need to tighten the twist as the bullet should be getting pretty long.
So we’ve pretty much convinced everyone who doesn’t work for the government that there’s something to this 6.5 to 7mm obsession... but no matter. They’ll still be using 5.56 for quite some time to come, if for no other reason than to make the recoil acceptable to the women they’re going to let join the Rangers and other combat groups.
Check out the 260 Remington. It’s a commercial version of the 6.5/.308. Hot.
Love the Steampunk look!
I have, along with the 6.5 Creedmoor and the 6.5x47 Lapua (which had been my 6.5 choice).
Nothing wrong with any of them - I just wanted “more” in the way of Bc.
Two ways to skin that Bc cat! Long and Light, or Long and Heavy!
I would imagine a .264 160 grain bullet would have an excellent Bc. I don’t know the exact twist for the old Swedish Mausers but I am sure it was very fast to stabilize those long bullets.
My own guess is the .260 Remington would be a perfect base for a standard military infantry cartridge. It would be deadly, very good at long range and has enough capacity to allow some pretty hot loads.
The greatest elephant hunter of them all, Walter Dalrymple Maitland Bell killed over 5000 elephants mostly using the little 6.5 X 54 Mannlicher (or was it 53mm long?) He also liked the heavy 160 grain bullets.
Agreed but the SOCOM would have to be issued suppressed because that sucker is L-O-U-D!
I wish the powers to be would have adopted the 6mm SAW developed in the 70s.
The Stoner design, 5.56 crappy round aside, isn’t going to be beat by a piston driven gun. You can’t connect reciprocating mass to a barrel and have it be as accurate as DGI. Can’t happen.
The Stoner design, 5.56 crappy round aside, isn’t going to be beat by a piston driven gun. You can’t connect reciprocating mass to a barrel and have it be as accurate as DGI. Can’t happen.
The question is, which trade off do you want ?
For the regular Soldier’s rifle, do you want reliability or great accuracy ?
I think the obvious answer is reliability, with the piston. Piston accuracy is and will be good enough. They can always call in a sniper rifle, perhaps the DGI M110 automatic sniper rifle, when they need accuracy for distant enemy targets.
An AR/M16/M4 made with modern materials using modern ammo is as reliable as any battle rifle. With a ammo upgrade like 6.5 grendel it opens it's operational envelope to 700meters. No other battle rifle could match it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.