Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Army Taps Industry for M4 Replacement ^ | 17 Sept 08 | Christian Lowe

Posted on 09/17/2008 9:00:29 AM PDT by LSUfan

In a move that could reverse years of Army small arms policy, the service is asking industry to send in ideas for a new combat rifle that could replace the M4 carbine.

In late August, the Army issued a solicitation to the arms industry asking companies to submit proposals that would demonstrate "improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion ... reliability and durability in all environments, modularity and terminal performance."

And in a dramatic gesture that could throw the door wide open to a totally new carbine, the service did not constrain ideas to the current 5.56mm round used in the M4.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: armstrade; army; banglist; m16; m4; miltech; usmc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last
To: WayneS

M-14 was one sweet bullet launcher.

41 posted on 09/17/2008 9:44:02 AM PDT by noname07718 (Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction-Ronald Reagan 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: section9

I agree 100%.

Nice bit of illiteracy in FN’s flier.
Pubric Skroolz Rulz!

“Chosen by the US Special Operations Command’s”.....

should read

“Chosen by the U.S. Special Operations Command”

or just USSOCOM

Not quite on par with HK’s backwards bullet ad though...

42 posted on 09/17/2008 9:45:55 AM PDT by nerdwithamachinegun (All generalizations are wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
OK, here we go again.

I hold to my position that until a quantum leap in firearms technology is acquired, there is absolutely no need nor reason to toss out the AR platform for some similarly “gilded” piece of current technology.

Background: The M4 was procured primarily to enable ground troops to better optimize the length (for mounted troops) weight(for light Infantry etc) and terminal effects (nominal combat ranges less than 300m).

As for the notion that a “bigger” round will provide “more stopping power”, hmmmmm, too much assumption of what “stopping power” is and what it means.

To improve the M4, add back a few inches to the 14.5 inch barrel to keep the on-target velocity of the M855 style round above 2400 f/s, which allows/causes the projectile to yaw nearly immediately on impact, breaking in two, and causing quite bit of “stopping” power.

If you must go for a new cartridge, add some body diameter to the 556 round (at the cost of magazine capacity), add some more, slower, powder (with the added barrel length, maybe a little diameter (6mm maybe?)as long as the striking velocity at expected combat ranges enables the terminal effects to be as good or better than the the M855 or even the M193 rounds at proper velocity).

Remember, adding horsepower to a firearm increases recoil and blast, (if the platform remains unchanged in terms of weight)reducing hit potential and negating any perceived or real increase of “stopping power”. Recall that old adage “ a hit with a 22 is better than a miss with a 44?

The trade of between bigger/faster bullets and weapon weight/length is unavoidable given today's technology and the laws of physics.

Sure, my Ruger No 1 single shot in 416 Rigby has tremendous “stopping power” and fairly light weight (9.5 lbs), but most Soldiers and civilians I know who have tried it, tried it only once. Only one desired to try it again. I actually enjoy the discipline it takes to force myself to carefully press the trigger, knowing that each shot pretty much unleashes a mini-car crash effect (you know, the funny stars you see and the odd taste in your mouth after a car wreck or a good wack to the face?). I guess I am pretty accustomed to it by now, though, I don't experience much of that effect anymore (maybe Muhammad Ali knows what I am talking about?).

Most High power competitors I shoot with think my M1 Garand Match rifle is a “big bore” (30/06) and many will not shoot it as it recoils too much compared to their 16 lb AR15A2 “service rifles” in 223/556. They do however, have a system advantage-less recoil means faster return to position in rapid fire strings, less fatigue and recoil induced stresses, and better ballistics using the latest 75-90 grain .224 bullets and custom hand loads (cheaper to feed as well!).

Want to increase the terminal effects of the M4? Add 3.5 or so inches of barrel, load up a new ball round with a magazine length 70-80 grain ball round with cannelure (w or w/o a steel penetrator) (The SPECOPS family uses a similar round with the 77grn sierra match king bullet), adjust gas port position to accommodate a slower powder and higher extraction pressure dynamics and increased velocity over the stubby M4 tube, and clearly state that this platform will be most lethal out to 350 m, after that, you'll need a larger platform and significant added recoil to generate the same terminal effects.

Remember, there never has been nor ever will be, a free lunch for the Dogs of War.

Other combinations of course will do the same, maybe some what better. The AR platform now is the most developed weapon in history. It is the king of the combat rifles/carbines. Will be for a long time to come.

43 posted on 09/17/2008 9:47:39 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret) "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
There are two main issues here: 1- terminal ballistics (what happens when the bullet hits the enemy, or an obstruction in front of the enemy) and 2- reliable function of the rifle/carbine.

As currently configured, an M855 bullet coming out of a 14.5" - 16" barrel from a weapon 4-7 X more prone to jam than other models is simply unacceptable.

Short term: issue heavier/longer rounds more likely to fragment from M4 carbines, with 69-77 grain bullets (as some SF are already using). Medium/long term: a new caliber (115 grain or less bullet, to use the 6.8 SPC as a benchmark) fired from a more reliable operating system.

We owe it to our soldiers and Marines to get this right.

44 posted on 09/17/2008 9:47:52 AM PDT by BushMeister ("We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around." --Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

the solution has been out for a while, the Springfield Armory SOCOM II.

45 posted on 09/17/2008 9:49:43 AM PDT by scottywr (democrat motto "rule in spite of the law".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Hated the M-14. Plastic handguard wouldn’t take wear and tear. Flash suppressor made it less accurate than the M-1 Garand. I know because I qualified with both.

I realize that the M-1 was made for a different era and a different type of warfare; but if you are fighting a determined enemy, you want a bullet that kills with one shot. How about a re-designed Thompson, firing maybe .357 Magnum?

46 posted on 09/17/2008 9:53:33 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“rechamber the weapon to fire 6.5mm grendal.”

Agree. The M4 itself seems to be a mighty fine weapon. The cartridge just doesn’t seem to have the punch. The 6.5 would be a good compromise, IMO.

47 posted on 09/17/2008 9:56:12 AM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
How about going back to the M-14? or M1A?

I understand a number of our men and women in Iraq have rediscovered the M-14 and its advantages.

Why not start with it and create an evolved bullpup version?

48 posted on 09/17/2008 9:57:00 AM PDT by TChris (Democrats: Where are we going? ...and why am I in this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

My vote would go to an AR10 in 7.62 with 16” barrel. 150 grains at 2700 fps beats 70 grains at 2700 fps any old day of the week.

49 posted on 09/17/2008 9:57:41 AM PDT by ReeseBN38416
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

What, again?

50 posted on 09/17/2008 9:58:33 AM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

“How about going back to the M-14?”

If you’ve ever had to lug an M-14 and a standard issue of ammo through the jungle, you wouldn’t suggest that.

That is one heavy weapon, and absolutely useless on full auto. I never knew anyone that could fire it full auto without ending up shooting at the moon.

51 posted on 09/17/2008 10:00:03 AM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan

Somewhere out there is another Moses Browning, Tolliver Thompson or Gene Stoner who will revolutionize small arms for the 21st century.

52 posted on 09/17/2008 10:02:12 AM PDT by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris

The M-14 is a difficult weapon to produce. McNamara went to M-16 in large part due to numerous delays in M-14 production by Springfield Armory and other producers. M-16 family was easier to produce in quantity.

Look at current semi-auto M14 production - costs as much to by a forged M-14 receiver as a entire AR-15. The supply of M-14 parts is running out and the cast copies have a poor rep.

53 posted on 09/17/2008 10:04:19 AM PDT by nvcdl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


The M4 in 6.5 gets my vote as well. They should keep the gas impingement system too as the piston system increases weight, decreases accuracy, and has very dubious claims to increased reliability.

54 posted on 09/17/2008 10:05:14 AM PDT by Durus ("Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nvcdl
The M-14 is a difficult weapon to produce...

Bummer, that.

55 posted on 09/17/2008 10:06:53 AM PDT by TChris (Democrats: Where are we going? ...and why am I in this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Here’s an idea. Go back to having more than one type of infantry weapon/chambering, so that people fighting door to door and people fighting on the North German Plain don’t have to compromise. And give up on the principal of wounding the enemy. Our enemies are dirt bags and don’t slow down to help their wounded.

Our enemies are more likely to leave their wounded to be a drain on OUR medical infrastructure, than to provide them with decent care.

I also agree with you on abandoning our "one size fits all" mentality, even if it does complicate logistics.

56 posted on 09/17/2008 10:20:16 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
57 posted on 09/17/2008 10:25:52 AM PDT by SVTCobra03 (You can never have enough friends, horsepower or ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
"YES! Let’s start with the HK416 as a baseline."

Good start...

58 posted on 09/17/2008 10:28:08 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LSUfan
But will they allow a change in magazine? Someone's insightful comment indicated that the one thing they most want unchanged is the standard M16 mag; switch platform & ammo as you like, but that mag must stay (an interesting development as the mag was originally intended to be disposable).
59 posted on 09/17/2008 10:47:35 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

Good analysis.

Let me add: the M4 platform _is_ tempermental about configuration, and all too often people assemble the parts into a sub-optimal system (then wonder what’s wrong). With the right balance of powder, length, twist, weight, composition, distance, etc. the whole thing apparently works very nicely (say: 75gr no-penetrator match ball, cannelured, 1:7 twist, 14.5” barrel, ball powder). Too often the wrong combination is used (say: 65gr steel penetrator, 11.5” barrel, extruded powder) to lessened effect.

The M4 is a _system_: with the right components, it works great; skimp or overgeneralize and it suffers. While some systems inherently work across all “normal” configurations, some don’t, and this must be taken into account with Stoner’s good but cranky design.

60 posted on 09/17/2008 10:57:54 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson