U.S Army scraps testing after rifle outperforms M4A1

[johnny.cassidy3]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/

I just want to hear your guy's opinions. And please feel free to bash my opinion I just want to know what you guys think, and If you've ever had to carry a weapon and/or use one in combat or the line of duty please speak.

IMO... It sounds like when we transitioned from the M14 to the M16. They don't want it. I don't believe due to current economic reasons that there should be a total replacement of current service rifles at the moment and the logistical problems would cause more issues. Also I don't like the idea of purchasing our main service weapon from a foreign country even if they agree to build a plant here in the U.S. A big complaint seems to be the magazine. Why not replace the aluminum USGI mags with P-MAGS??? rather than the whole rifle? I've always had the occasional issue with USGI mags and the M16's DI system was designed for a 20" barrel not a 14.5-10.5 inch barrel which the M855-A1 round was also tailored for and also good replacement rifle should be able to function with all types of ammo, but why not make a round better suited for the shorter gas system? Yes I like the M4 but I agree that there are better carbines out there. I think it was either the FN SCAR-L or the HK-16 that squared off better against the M4A1. I agree those are better replacements but I don't like that they're foreign and the cost is way too much where as an M4 can be replaced for about $400 per unit as compared to the $2500 price tag on a SCAR, idk the cost on an HK but I'm sure its higher. I liked the Adaptive Combat Rifle (ACR) because it was more American in its design and origin. Sure the DI system is the main reason for the constant maintenance on the M16 and the Gas Piston system seems to better option but no U.S company has been able to persuade the Army yet. I don't think the M4 is difficult to operate and that sounds like a training issue which any one who served knows that weapons training in the military isn't exactly as good as it can be, plus nearly every "new" rifle that comes out now days is still essentially an AR-15. Overall though, the M4 works, why replace it?

 

[Lip]

If there is a better rifle out there of course we should replace the m4. Our troops deserve the best weapons available.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

Here is the deal: The AR-15 is cheap to build and maintain. And there are lots of them already in service. It has decent accuracy but needs to be cleaned on a daily basis to be functional. Especially in desert environs. That is its primary disadvantage. Well, and it is a weak caliber but I assume the other guns they tested were all .22 caliber. In its caliber category, economics win out. The M4/AR-15 is not going anywhere. It is too damn cheap to beat and if a grunt cleans it every fu@king day, it works. The bigger issue is really about caliber. We never should have abandoned the .308 but since we have, it's all aluminum rifles from hear on out. Except for the lucky stiffs that end up with the rebuilt M14's or Smith rifles.

 

[drgrant]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/

I just want to hear your guy's opinions.

My opinion is none of this matters because they won't replace the M4 no matter how many "tests" they run, etc. I'll believe it when we start seeing a shitload of guys with some gun that's actually different. This is the same song and dance the DOD does every two years but the concert always ends at the intermission. I think there is some league of gun shop commandos that must be sponsoring these tests, because if they didn't exist, they wouldn't have anything to talk about.

"Didja hear wut the millutary is gonna switch to? The 6.9 Terrorbuster cause the .223 is too weak...."

etc, etc, ad nauseam.

-Mike

 

[Biff Quizler]

If they want to keep the same system, slap a different upper on the damn thing that pushes out a larger/higher power NATO approved/available round. Give our people the best the gun world has developed in the AR world.

Damn..... I self identified a weak point...... NATO approved. Disregard, nothing to see here.

 

[RedSoxandAKs]

Maybe after Obama is out of office Bibby will cut us a deal on Tavors...

 

[weldingmachine]

If there is a better rifle out there of course we should replace the m4. Our troops deserve the best weapons available.

This.
Although I prefer an American weapon made by Americans, for Americans.
I'm currently phasing out Pmags from my collection, they wear out too fast, feed lips should be made of metal..

 

[Steve Marshall]

Maybe you AR freaks uh, aficionados can explain something to me. With all the money dumped into improving the 5.56 cartridge with magic bullets, why was there never any experimentation with 7TCU? We've seen many different cartridges all claiming to be the next best thing, witness 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 BO and they all fell short. Sometimes because of ballistics sometimes due to magazine capacity sometimes both. It seems to me that with some time spent on improving bullet performance the TCU or the 7x45 would work the balls.

 

[garandman]

What? Politics and economics trumping performance in US Military rifle testing? Why, that hasn't happened since - nevermind. But the reality is not so nefarious.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/13/army-kills-competition-to-replace-m4.html

Jun 13, 2013 | by Matthew Cox
The Army announced today it is formally concluding its Individual Carbine competition without selecting a winner to replace the M4 Carbine.
“None of the carbines evaluated during the testing phase of the competition met the minimum scoring requirement needed to continue to the next phase of the evaluation,” according to a June 13 Army press release.

The Army sent out letters to gun makers, such as Heckler & Koch, FNH-USA, Remington Defense, Adcor Defense Inc. and Colt Defense LLC, the original maker of the M4 carbine, informing them that no future contract awards will be made for the final soldier evaluation phase.

Program Executive Office Soldier officials said that “no competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability” to justify buying a new carbine.

“Based upon Army analysis, test results may have been affected by interaction between the ammunition, the magazine and the weapon," the release states. “The Army’s existing carbine requirement assumed use of the M855 ammunition; the weapons tested in the IC competition all fired the next generation M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) currently in fielding. The use of the M855A1 round likely resulted in lower than expected reliability performance. These effects are unique to testing conditions and are not known to affect the reliability of any weapon in the operational environment.”

 

[Bendad97]

Doesn't matter what the weapon is. All that us former 0311's, (11Bravo for you Army types), know is that it will suck to hump it 25 miles at a whack.

 

[whacko]

Here is the deal: The AR-15 is cheap to build and maintain. And there are lots of them already in service. It has decent accuracy but needs to be cleaned on a daily basis to be functional. Especially in desert environs. That is its primary disadvantage. Well, and it is a weak caliber but I assume the other guns they tested were all .22 caliber. In its caliber category, economics win out. The M4/AR-15 is not going anywhere. It is too damn cheap to beat and if a grunt cleans it every fu@king day, it works. The bigger issue is really about caliber. We never should have abandoned the .308 but since we have, it's all aluminum rifles from hear on out. Except for the lucky stiffs that end up with the rebuilt M14's or Smith rifles.

why do you say we should have never abandoned the 308? Tactics were changing to a faster mor agile fighter. having carried a full combat load of 210 rounds of 5.56x45 for over two years of my life.....I'll stick with 5.56 x 45 over 7.62x 51 any day. Look......infantry tactics are about mobility.........firepower comes from the automatic weapons team either the crew served 240b or the 249. You try being fast and mobile carting 210 rounds of .308.........and tell me if you prefer one over the other.

 

[whacko]

Doesn't matter what the weapon is. All that us former 0311's, (11Bravo for you Army types), know is that it will suck to hump it 25 miles at a whack.

Bingo! All the guys crying about going back to 7.62 cartridge have probably never carried full combat load for 12 or more miles or had to actually shoot move and communicate.

 

[Gillham]

Wonder what gun "C" was. GTG up until 2500 rounds.

 

[AllaSnackbah]

OICW ftmfw!

I'd bet they won't phase out the M16/M4 until they start using plastimunitions. The SCAR/HK416 seems like a fad.

 

[enbloc]

Fugly...

 

[whacko]

OICW ftmfw!

I'd bet they won't phase out the M16/M4 until they start using plastimunitions. The SCAR/HK416 seems like a fad.

Oh.....look.....they are spooning! How cute

 

[Broc]

Replace them with AKs. All problems solved.

 

[The5thDentist]

Replace them with AKs. All problems solved.

Damn, beat me to it.

 

[MrJones79]

Bingo! All the guys crying about going back to 7.62 cartridge have probably never carried full combat load for 12 or more miles or had to actually shoot move and communicate.

This. I've never carried a combat loadout around, but that would be first complaint about .308/7.62x51. It's a damn heavy round to be lugging around in large quantities over any prolonged duration or distance.

 

[whacko]

This. I've never carried a combat loadout around, but that would be first complaint about .308/7.62x51. It's a damn heavy round to be lugging around in large quantities over any prolonged duration or distance.

If you haven't carried a full 210 rounds of 5.56 you would be amazed at how heavy it feels! First time I put 7 mags in my ammo pouches way back when I remember saying "daaaaaaamn......thats heavier than I expected! Infantry soldiers today are expected to be highly mobile and agile.....not that they weren't prior to the M16..........I'm saying it is easier IMO to maneuver with 5.56 ammo than heavier 7.62 ammo.........so given the chance to chose one over the other.........being required to be fast and agile I'll take the 5.56x45.......

 

[dnepro-mike]

economics of the rifle in the country with large armed forces is just as much a feature of the rifle as all the actual features on the gun itself. that being said, i guess new replacement candidate didn't outperform enough. when weapon is truly superior to current issue, economics aspect will be quickly overlooked and intentionally berried in the reports under piles of positive feedback.

history is full of these examples. take for instance USSR, just few years after adoption of AK47, in early 50s, Tula designer Korobov created TKB-51-7 which outperforms. later on improved AK design (later adopted as AKM) in FA accuracy, ergonomics, reliability, ease and cost of manufacturing. on top of it all it was lighter than AKM and AK47, it took same magazines as AK. ultimately it was rejected due to fact that AK is more familiar to the army and production capacities for manufacturing AKs already exist. later on same type design was adopted in FAMAS.

then let's not forget another famous "AK killer" AN-94. superior in every way but ultimately not adopted because it was somewhat more complex than AK. decades of riding AKs simplicity people grew to believe that its is an ultimate virtue of any weapon.

 

[goodlife30]

Bingo! All the guys crying about going back to 7.62 cartridge have probably never carried full combat load for 12 or more miles or had to actually shoot move and communicate.

This!!!! Also the 556 works very well. 3000 fps does wonders on the human body. Even the new silver tips punch through body armor pretty easily. I wore 60 pounds of armor weapons and ammo for two years. That was with just an m4 and 210 rounds in a 130 degree desert. That sucked. Add people trying to kill you wearing bed sheets and it sucked more. No more weight please.

 

[browncoat]

This!!!! Also the 556 works very well. 3000 fps does wonders on the human body. Even the new silver tips punch through body armor pretty easily. I wore 60 pounds of armor weapons and ammo for two years. That was with just an m4 and 210 rounds in a 130 degree desert. That sucked. Add people trying to kill you wearing bed sheets and it sucked more. No more weight please.

From your personal experience, how far away do you need to be able to reach. As a civilian watching/reading reports, it seems like a lot of encounters happen at relatively close range. 5.56 was designed to penetrate armor at hundreds of yards, and if most engagements are close anyway, then it seems like you certainly don't want to move to a more powerful, heavier round. If anything maybe to a beefier version of a 5.7

 

[Dench]

From your personal experience, how far away do you need to be able to reach. As a civilian watching/reading reports, it seems like a lot of encounters happen at relatively close range. 5.56 was designed to penetrate armor at hundreds of yards, and if most engagements are close anyway, then it seems like you certainly don't want to move to a more powerful, heavier round. If anything maybe to a beefier version of a 5.7

600m would be the max. Most people can't shoot that far in the 1st place. I know when I was in the army I couldn't shoot that far. Anything out past that can be hit with a designated marksman, light machine gun or something ridiculous like an MK.19 on a vehicle. Haji and his friends cant shoot to well past 50m, so the demand to shoot at far distances isnt high necessarily.

Light combat loads, mobility and high reliability are key. Accuracy to hit a body at 300m is assumed.

 

[garandman]

Doesn't matter what the weapon is. All that us former 0311's, (11Bravo for you Army types), know is that it will suck to hump it 25 miles at a whack.

Assistant M60 gunner - possibly the worst job in the military. Brutal combat load and draw a lot of fire.....

Looked up the wiki and a 7.62 round is very roughly 2.5 times the weight of a 5.56 round.

 

[whacko]

Assistant M60 gunner - possibly the worst job in the military. Brutal combat load and draw a lot of fire.....

Looked up the wiki and a 7.62 round is very roughly 2.5 times the weight of a 5.56 round.

YUP! And sooooooo many guys out there that still cry that the military should have stuck with 7.62! Look......I love shooting my M1 Garand as much as the next guy.......but for today's combat role the advantage of 5.56 vs. 7.62 is pretty real!

100rds of 5.56x45 NATO weighs 3lbs
100rds of 7.62x51 NATO weighs around 9lbs
is what I came up with so for a combat load you are looking at just over 6 pounds vs. just over 18 pounds..........hanging off of a Soldier's or Marines MOLLE gear that is a HUGE difference.

 

[Coyote33]

What is the difference in weight from 5.56 to the 6.8?

Would 6.8 with a piston upper fix greater than 80% of the alleged shortcomings?

 

[Gman021]

But how much did it outperform?

It was probably a slight performance increase and therefor doesn't warrant buying 500,000 new guns and parts.

Until a caliber change or a revolutionary design comes out, the m4 isn't going anywhere.

 

[Dench]

But how much did it outperform?

It was probably a slight performance increase and therefor doesn't warrant buying 500,000 new guns and parts.

Until a caliber change or a revolutionary design comes out, the m4 isn't going anywhere.

the cost of small arms replacement is bitch money compared to the retarded waste of money for bullshit such as our fantasy land submarine fleet with its associated costs.

 

[cyberlogicx]

Step 1. Quit being the world police
Step 2. Bring everyone home
Step 3. Kick back, relax, let countries deal with their own damn problems
Step 4. Use the newfound budget surplus to develop good weapons and armor
Step 5. Profit