rechamber the weapon to fire 6.5mm grendal.
I wonder if they will go for carrying more ammo, or for carrying more effective ammo?
How about going back to the M-14? or M1A?
(In Before The Caliber Arguments)
YES! Let’s start with the HK416 as a baseline. Controls and magazines compatible with existing weapons to minimize retraining, short stroke piston operated for improved reliability over direct gas impingement, and able to accept all current M4 accessories.
An effective replacement is probably already available either in prototype or planning stages from some manufacturer, but knowing the US Government huge amounts of money will have to be spent developing from scratch something that ends up not being as capable as something already available.
Some of them M995 rounds would be nice. Don't really nead them tracer rounds.
Stop's 'em cold every time. Can't beat the Garand for range, either. And I hear that it can take a licking and keep on ticking!
Easiest fix is replace the direct gas impingement system with a gas-piston system (a la the AK). POF has a nice implementation of this, and make sure that the standard M855 ammo is replaced with the Mk262 mod1 77gr 5.56 ammo. This would increase both the reliability and the lethality of the system while maintaining almost 100% of training and some 80% of parts.
Other than that, we could go for something exotic, like the SCAR system or just wait for the Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40-watt range.
What’s wrong with going back to the dual purpose Phaser. It was an effective weapon back in the late 60’s although I would do away with the outmoded “stun” function and replace it with a “kill faster” function.
They just went through all this nonsense with the XM-8. Why are they starting up again?
I have had the opportunity to test fire it - 200 rounds in both semi and full, suppressed and unsuppressed.
IT kicks some serious ass.
Very accurate in full-mode, and does not go high and right when in full. The recoil is straight back.
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.
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.
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.