Colt's Grip on Military Rifle Market Called Bad Deal

yahoo.com ^ | 4/20/2008 | RICHARD LARDNER

[mylife]

I understand that Gov oversight adds to the burden of price, hence $900m brass hammers for working on ordnance.
Still, Colt is over priced

[mylife]

Bushmaster seems to make a very good weapon for the price.
They seem to be the popular favorite for the money.

Stoners design is not good for sand and silt period.But this carbon build up argument is a joke.

[300winmag]

I’ve always wondered if a heavier caliber, perhaps in the .30 range, might not be a better investment.

This gets us into the area of tradeoffs again. Since WW1, it's been accepted that the full-power rifle round was more than the individual soldier needed, or could use. Aimed rifle fire beyond 300m was rare, but still the price was paid in terms of a more powerful, more expensive round, and a longer, heavier weapon. The Germans pretty much proved that in WW2 with the MP44, firing the 8mm kurz round. It was the world's first assault rifle (sturmgewehr was Hitler's own term, adopted after he finally approved the concept), and it was so good at killing Russians that the USSR started a crash course to develop their own equivalent.

In both cases, they stayed with a lighter bullet, but still the same diameter as their full-size round, 7.62mm for the soviets, 7.92mm for the Germans. It was a good, safe move, and served them well.

Gene Stoner, in a blank-sheet-of-paper design, looked at smaller, high-velocity .22 varmint and target rounds. At the range of 300m, the .222 Remington could still penetrate a GI steel helmet, which was one of the criteria. He redesigned the round a bit, and the .223 Remington was born.

The smaller, lighter bullet meant a flatter trajectory, lower recoil, and less cost. It also meant that the total system weight of rifle, magazines, and ammo could be made lighter.

Some of the current "faults" of the 5.56mm round result from the rifle-and-ammo combination being an over-achiever, and doing more than it was intended. With a good scope, a good infantryman can hit targets out to 600m. Accurized M16s/AR15s with match ammo are used at 1000 yard matches, and are beating the M14-type rifles.

The "problem" is the M16/5.556 combo is inherently accurate, allowing targets to be engaged far beyond the original intent of the specs. But the lightweight (even the current M885 ammo) bullet lacks quite a bit of lethality at that range. You can reliably hit, but the target does not reliably die at those longer ranges.

There are classified programs to develop a round midway between the 5.66 and the 7.62 in size and weight to address this specialized need. Not-for-attribution comments say the results are fantastic.

Even without a different weapon (some of the prototypes are based on M16 components), it would introduce another caliber of ammo into the supply system. The 5.56mm round cut back on the demand for 7.62mm NATO, but did not eliminate it, since it's still in demand in the machine gun role.

The US now has a 40+ year history for the M16 and its ammo. The M16 series has become the longest-serving rifle in our history. Other western nations have 20 or more years invested in their 5.56mm systems. Not one country has said, "the 5.56mm is crap, we're going back to 7.62".

Oh, and with all those M1913 rails demanded on all current weapons, here's something you could do to your M16 (I think), but not recommended:

[mylife]

Lets face it. Kalashnikov’s win hands down for for functioning in slop

[mylife]

Well said. I use .223 at 400 yds on steel gongs, but I use .308 and 7.62x54 as well and you know witch on I would ditch in real life at that range?

[ExSoldier]

"There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."

At the risk of being indelicate what a load of crappola. Not only are there significantly better weapons out there but there are better calibers available as well. To start with the H&K 416 is significantly better to the extent that SOCOM used their discretionary funds and bought a bunch for their "operators." But before the superiority could be firmly established in the records, the army brass caught a foul wind of the issue and forced SOCOM to hand them all in based on the necessities of good logistics or something like that. In reality it was to save their political a$$e$. No doubt the decision will cost some lives among the contingents of operators forced to use inferior weapons, but that has never deterred the Pentagon brass in the past, even when the first generations of the M16 were first fielded in Vietnam and their shortcomings caused many deaths.

[P8riot]

At 1500 somalians, is the M4 the “best bang for the buck?”

At 1500 somalians per simolian it is a question worth asking.

[driftdiver]

The AK47 works well in slop and is very easy to maintain. It requires little training to use or clean. Works well for the Russian and Chinese armies who are generally less well educated and trained than western armies.

[mylife]

Built for joe everyday?

Now here is a concept..

Take a Russian RPK, and chamber that in .308 and marry it to an accurised barrel

I bought one for $355

[mylife]

Gimme a yugo M76

[mylife]

passive light gathering system

No signiture

[headstamp 2]

Is the M4 what was called an CAR-15 “Shorty” back decades ago?

[300winmag]

Is the M4 what was called an CAR-15 “Shorty” back decades ago?

It's the "grandson" of the CAR-15. Lots of major and minor changes since then. But still the same concept of making it shorter and lighter than the standard rifle. In urban fighting in Iraq, a shorter weapon is appreciated. Afghanistan has much more open range, there the demand is for supplemental weapons with more reach, like .308 and above.

[Blood of Tyrants]

You can buy a US made civilian version of the M4 for about $700. Why is the government paying over TWICE as much?

[headstamp 2]

Thanks for the info.

[TC Rider]

You can buy a US made civilian version of the M4 for about $700. Why is the government paying over TWICE as much?

It's that $800 select fire switch.

[oyez]

The only thing I can think off to improve an M-4 is make it in .308

[oyez]

Panther™ LR-308AP4. Oyeah!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Must be.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

And since the Sept. 11 attacks, sales have skyrocketed.

<tinfoil>Ah, HA! Follow the money! Sept. 11 was a defense industry conspiracy to boost profits!</tinfoil>