The Army recently issued a solicitation to industry asking for a view of what’s out there to replace or refine the M4 carbine and M16 rifle.
The solicitation, issued Aug. 22 by Program Manager Soldier Weapons through PEO Soldier, asks industry for their ideas on “the enhanced carbine and subcompact small arms technology.” The solicitation asks for industry to look specifically at performance and production capacity at this point — ignoring the main gripe about the M4’s susceptibility to jam due to its gas operated system.
Performance Improvement. Request information on potential improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion out to 600m, reliability and durability in all environments, modularity, and terminal performance on a variety of target mediums. Modularity includes, but is not limited to, compatibility with accessory items such as optical sights, image intensification sights, thermal sights, laser targeting systems, bipods, tactical lights, MILES, bayonets, and accessory type grenade launchers. There is specific interest in improvements to zero retention and zero repeatability…
Production capacity estimates. Request information on minimum and maximum monthly production rates for a military carbine and/or subcompact individual weapon, and the lead times to achieve these production rates. This estimate should consider a US based production facility by the third year of deliveries. This capacity should be above and beyond any current production orders or current sales. If new facilities are planned or required, so state.
The solicitation did leave open the possibility of weapons with calibers other than the standard 5.56mm NATO round…
Note: Although this request for information is not limited to 5.56mm NATO systems, it is limited to ammunition that will meet International Convention standards
This addresses another gripe of the M4: stopping power. So at least the Army seems open to a 7.62 or a 6.8 round or some other boutique caliber. [Note: A source in the industry tells me that SOF is getting good results by tweaking the 5.56 round for more stopping power…and not from making it a hollow point.]
That same industry source reminded me that the “technical data package” — essentially the patent — of the M4 is released in June 2009, so anyone can have access to the plans and make copies of the M4. I’m working on a longer, more comprehensive story on this for Military.com, but it seems that the Army is starting to open itself up to a new weapon as an M4 replacement — though restricting the ideas simply to accuracy seems weird.
Also, what’s this about a “subcompact?” I’ll try to find out more…
– Christian
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
The subcompact bit seems simple enough — if there is a M4 replacement down the line, then replacing the Mk 18 Mod 0 (a M4 using the Close Quarters Battle Receiver upper) might be desirable as well for those who currently use it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CQBR
So that just leaves the questions of… Why? And why now?
If the Army is actually looking to replace the M4… Wouldn’t it be best to conduct a Joint Project, cooperating with all of the Military Branches? Or is the Army taking the lead, and waiting to see who wants to ‘jump on the bandwagon’?
God,that “weapon” pictured above looks like something out of “Starship Troopers.” A new assault rifle needs to be LIGHT & easy to carry, it needs a round that can knock down an opponent the first shot fired,& it DOES NOT need to look like something out of a 1950′s Sci-Fi B-Movie. That weapon pictured above seems so unergonomic.
I’m impressed that the U.S. Army actually appears to be interested in replacing the M4/M16 series rifles. Additionally, I’m glad to see the U.S. Army is also interested more potent calibers than the 5.56mm NATO; the 5.56mm NATO is long overdue for a replacement in 21st century warfare.
isn’t that the gun from the 5th element
The 6.8mm SPC is good…for a round limited by the using the same magazine dimensions as a 5.56mm weapon. Why not “think outside the box” (I hate that phrase but couldn’t resist the pun) and think of the best round…not just one that uses the same magazine. I read information that Cris Murray (the same man who was a part of the development of the 6.8mm SPC) also developed a round for an assault rifle that he considered “ideal” and not limited to using the M16/M4 magazine. It’s 7x46mm, so it would require a new magazine configuration. Maybe the Magpul Massoud (the 7.62x51mm version of the Masada) could be modified to use it. It’s something that should be considered.
Roy Smith — check out the filename of the image
It is a gun out of “Starship Troopers.” It’s a still from the new direct to DVD one.
The subcompact part could also allude to a desire for a PDW to accompany the Carbine.
If true, it is good to read about, I am sure the Colt lobbiests will do their best to stop it.
The best current carbine is the Bushmaster ACR 5.56mm….Problem solved. No need to even bother with the usual procurement bullshit.
6.8mm SPC will not be standard issue anytime soon, if ever, may see it for SOF at anytime, though; since they can do whatever they hell they want to or need to to get their mission done.
So why exactly, did Christian cut the chick (Jolene Blalock) out of the picture?
http://www.scificool.com/images/2008/04/starship-troopers-marauder-1.jpg
I’m not making accusations… But I guess, there are people who’d prefer alternative guns like…
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/02/the_hello_kitty_ar15_is_just_s.php
http://www.geekologie.com/2008/02/19/vulcan-3.jpg
Juz kidding! :p
Hey Guys, I’m a Navy mans son and my father and I have been into the whole reloading ammo thing for about 30yrs. When you look at the ballistic coefficient of the military rounds used today, I must say that the 7.62x51NATO round is the best now and way back when it was introduced to the military. Since 1957 the M14 has been the rifle of real men(as are all military men and women, to me). Just look at the jobs it and the fifty cal. have done for so long and done them great. I would love to see all kinds of NEW calibers and weapons come out that can destroy any and everything, but my dad always said if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. So until someone can actually come up with a real jedi light sabre or starship trooper weapons, I truly think what we have has made us the most feared country in the world. I personally would love to see those middle east countries made into glass parking lots by the greatest military forces in the world. I would like to thank all of who who are and have served our country.
Anyone see our guys destroying the AK’s captured in Iraq during the early part of the war? Looked like thousands of them and they were running over them with tanks to destroy them.
Shoot, they could have just thrown their M-16′s under the tank treads and taken the AKs. Or better yet, they could have shipped the AK’s back to Century Arms to convert them to semi’s for civilian sales.
what is that in the photto?
Bring back the XM8….jams less than the HK416, SCAR, and is lightweight and accurate.
Freaking revolving door industry.
I dont get the whole drama over the M4, i have been in iraq 3 times and it has never jammed on me, even in fallujah and najaf i never had problems, a little cleaning and lube go a long way, the best replacement would be the SCAR or the bushmaster ACR which are both available.
No need to even send this one to industry for ideas on replacing the M4/M16. Just take a look at what many in the SOF community are carrying right now. Make the finest weapon ever developed the standard again. When you want to get serious about firepower, accuracy and dependability, you chose the M14. I carried one in Vietnam and damn, I love that weapon.
Im a big fan of the Magpul PDR. Its a bullpup rifle, and the guys from Magpul seem to solve most limitation of bullpup, like easy changing of the ejection port and such.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1011
Put a 16.5″ barrel on it with a 6.5mm grendel and you will have still shorter than a M4 that can easily do the job at 800 yards.
But frankly, I know what will happen. They wont find the project “revolutionary” enough, and will renew their deal with Colt…*sigh*
The FN scar of Formally Magpul Masada Now Bushmaster ACR looks good for this they have every thing one could think of for the mission roles
My wild guess would be subcompact = bullpup
Carried the M-16 in RVN ( & smashed it against a tree in frustration)… my troopers carried the A-2 varient later on…and not much better. Little range, little drop dead power. Cetainly lighter basic load in ammo but not worth much if ya can’t kill what ya hit! SO…any improvement is better than what is presently available.
We don’t need a new multi million $ toy! what we need to do is use what we got & Kill the enemy!
Yay. So let’s try that whole XM8 thing again and this time follow through on it.
Pardon my spelling – this site really needs a spell check.
This entire article contradicts what has been going on this past year. The HK 416 was introduced as a replacement to the M4. It ran laps around the M4 in firing tests. And costed about the same. However the Government denied the army’s request to start replacing the M4 with the HK416. And the firing tests where in the army times magazine in case anyone doubts me.
why not just use nukes
The rifle in the picture looks like an over-sized plastic toy.
Lets get back to the basics, its not the weapon its the soldier who is trained to use it, lets focus more on better marksmenship scenarios and better sights, lighter more durable parts for extreme conditions, this is what a soldier needs; you can dress it up all you want but in the field or in warfare you can do more damage and get more positive results from lessons learned and radio communications i.e, SPOT reports, call for fire and painting that Picasso. I’ll take that M4 and a good old fasion but new 1911 Colt 45. get rid of the 9mm.
Fix the Bullets and qui being so cheap on that end, the assassins weapon of choise is the 22. Yes I know we are not, but think about it…
have tested the 6.5, all it requires is a upper reciever replacement. awesome round would love to see it implemented into service. approx recoil to 5.56 but way more damage
To Heathen — or maybe look at the industry to see what they’ve done with the M14? ;)
As it became a Special Forces weapon with the glamour atached, just as the MP5 was, everyone wanted to carry one.
THIS.
As for the Magpul PDR… not unless it has a “long gun” counterpart, because otherwise it’s like equipping all your troops with SMGs.
Oh yeah, I do remember that story about the Army actually turning down the gas piston version even when Colt offered it… and then read (Defense Review and Army Times) that after the dust test hoopla, the Army went and ordered the Assymetrical Warfare Group (AWG) to turn in their HK416s. *shakes head*
I used the M-249 S.A.W. the best round to me is the 5.56. why kill when you can wound and get two. Also the nato 5.56 is a tumbler round which means alot of damage internally. So, before you knock it, study it!!!
Oh no, not again…
Come on, this is not the 1st time (& probably won’t be the last) the Army has issued a solicitation to industry asking for a view of what’s out there to replace or refine the M4 carbine and M16 rifle.
The problem is that the Army is so resistant to change that the M4 & M16 won’t be replaced until some “quantum leap” improvement come about & that simply is not here yet.
Stop buying cheap magazines & teach soldiers to clean & care for their weapon & the only “problem” the M4 & M16 have is that they are chambered in 5.56x45mm.
The 5.56x45mm should have been replaced decades ago but that resistance to change…
Here is a novel concept. Why not let the troops vote on which gun or features they want/need? Of course excluding laser guns, rail guns, and t-ray scopes. After all, we vote to elect our officials, why not our weapon systems too…
All we need is more stopping power. Discipline will keep the weapon in good enough shape to use in any environment that we go too. We need stopping power to kill what we hit.
The Isreali’s are currently replacing the M-4 with the Tavor. The Tavor has many good points, it is compact, and it can be utilized for short or long ranges.
I would think we could modify the 5.56 round to the point that we could create more stopping power.
Also training our soldiers to Double Tap and if the enemy still is advancing shooting the pelvic girdle (to stop them from coming) or a shot to the head (to kill the threat) would be good training for soldiers.
Maybe even just replacing the gas tube with a gas piston would work wonders. All of these are good points but all will go unheeded.
SK0575,
And perchance whilst you are carefully aimimg for a head or pelvic girdle shot, is the enemy allowed to shoot back and bob and weave? I am asking that becasue they generally do that sort of thing. There are already heavier bullets in the US System in 5.56 x 45mm but they require different rifling twists to be accurate than the current 1 in 12 inch twist.
The US militarty does teach the double tap that was poineered by William Ewart Fairbairn all those years ago. But you shouldn’t need to double tap with a head or pelvic shot :-) and as for the gas piston ,read my earlier comment.
I wonder what would happen to the push to replace the M-4 under a Democratic president and congress? If I had to bet, I’d say it would continue.
Abonding the 5.56 isn’t necessary, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to spend a little time researching the ballistics of different calibers such as the 6.8, I mean there has been a lot of progress in the propellants and powders in the last fifty years, why not see what caliber would best perform. The XM8 was actually heavier than the m4 in which it was created to replace (at least the carbine model). No, a new rifle (at least upper reciever) needs to be designed. It could look similar to the confortable M4/M16 series with some working parts adjustments. It should be gas piston driven for durability and for the simple fact that there will always be human error when it comes to cleaning. Not to mention the rifles that are handed to our soldiers aren’t brand new right out of the box. THE SYSTEM: a standard 20″ (barrel) rifle, a 15″ carbine, an 11″ PDW/CQB, and a 20″ heavy barrel automatic rifle that share a high percentage of commonality. All with ambidextrious controls, flared magazine wells (automatic rifle should accept 30rd magazines and 100rd drums), a charging handle similar to the XM8 (doesn’t restrict a cheek pad), rail systems, free floating barrel, and a removable folding six point telescoping stock. All of these featurs can been seen on some of Colt’s competitors weapon systems. What would be even better is if you could offer a modular system like this that by changning the bolt, carring group, and barrel you could have different calibers for use as a designated marksman rifle or something with a little more knock down power.
Sorry about spelling.
Quote: “Here is a novel concept. Why not let the troops vote on which gun or features they want/need? Of course excluding laser guns, rail guns, and t-ray scopes. After all, we vote to elect our officials, why not our weapon systems too…”
Answer: Because the one sponsered by Monster energy drink, or Under Armour would win…
Maybe 3 in 10 soldiers knows anything about weapons, and in my experience as a small arms instructor, maybe 1 in 25 knows a bit about ballistics.
The simple truth is unless its 5.56 or 7.62 the army isnt going to use it. Case in point the Barret M107, .50 cal. Its a common round that we have a ton of. Along with .308 NATO
IF they choose a new weapon it’ll be based off of those two calibers, and hopefully will concentrate on simplicity since its very hard to get soldiers interested in weapons / marksmanship beyond hollywood accessories. (IE vertical foregrips, bipods and ACOGS for soldiers that cant hit 26 out of 40 on a range.)
The HK 416 seems to be a fit choice… where we are now ( in iraw at least) the HK would be a good fit b/c of the CQC… i dont believe we need any 7.62 for our assult rifle. its not about how powerful the bullet is, its where you place it. Even if they are on drugs, if you shoot the person in the right spot (say if you shoot him in the chest and he is still running, try to shoot him where he would lose balance.) Also, its about how you lead your fire team to better train their fire on a target. We do need to change from the M4/M16, but not the round.
Sorry about my spelling.
This business just gets nauseating after a while, its like puposely eating a buncha junk and getting on that spinning carnival ride… mr. pukey is sure to follow.
Once you’ve been around the “acquisition/industry” end of this whole thing, you realize (if you have a lick of sense.) that there is a ton of utterly retarded methods of making stuff. (I hope I never get bit by the “Intardo Bug”)… Bottom line the weapon industry is a cut throat, payoff and at best prison time worthy profession (once you leave alone the men and women who actually “build the stuff.”)…
If theres already an upper set of replacements, why not leave it alone? Change the upper and get on with life? Theres everything from the nauseating table available (even though some are yummy tasting, like the .50 Upper, I do trust “still and forever” Jeff Cooper.”) theres 5.6/762/6.8… pick a flavor.
I’d like to see the “laser plane” grounded, foreeeeeeeever. What the heck are we shooting “light at anyway”?? < Well you could say the propellent, the guidance, but what about causing excitement of the “payload”, doesnt that make ANYBODY think?
Theres room for “gee whiz” and room for “kiss stupid.” Just issue every trooper in a bat. the same upper….
Okay, I know Im rambling here, but if your not gonna add wheels, wings and a tail hook, keep it simple (except that stupid top handle on the rifle, how about that for an upgrade?)
Ok, Im getting off the vomit commet……..
Wake up Common Sense Part of the Brain on the Way out…… Best, Dave
Why not switch to something like the Steyr AUG. Nothing but love for that thing from the multiple countries that use it. It’s lightwieght, compact, is built for close quarters and can be adapted for a multitude of roles.
Keep the M4 style just refit with a 6.8mm round. I agree that 556 is not a reliable round when it comes to stopping power, and do agree with shot placement. But when it comes down to it… (and I know) you start clearing rooms and get a big surprise… sometimes shot placement is not the first thing that comes to mind. Having a round chambered in 762 would help dropping “ali baba” quicker than 556. I carried 10 mags loaded with 28 rounds of 556 and the weight was tolerable. I was in great shape… but I know that if I carried 280 rounds of 762 the story would be much different. I’m sure there are “Tuff Guys” who say they can carry anything they are given. But I would rather carry more ammo.
Do we have to go back to the light infantry squads of WW2 or the
interim period before the M-14 was completely phased out in VN to figure our that a good mix of CQB and longer range weapons/
assault rifles is the BEST MIX for flexibility ?
When you’ve got snipers on roof tops in an urban AO or on mountain slopes with bolt action rifles that are .30-06 with scopes who ya gonna call ? You want to be able to have “stand off” weapons with rounds BIGGER than the .556 with a greater distance accuracy range than Achmed with an AK-47/74.
One all purpose weapon for this new global war on terrorism is
not an intelligent decision.
One of the earlier posters mentioned this, but I have to agree. I think the utilization of a new upper receiver that allows for a larger cartridge is a good idea. I’m inclined to lean in favor of the 6.8 based on the complaints but like it was said they aren’t likely to go with anything other than 5.56 or 7.62.
While I believe there are ways to improve the M4 I think the best solution is to consider optimizing a bullet design for the M4 or the updated weapon. The current round is more ideal for the M16 and doesn’t have the penetration soldiers want cause it doesn’t have the needed muzzle velocity. If a bullpup design were chosen for the new weapon the barrel length needed to impart the full kinetic force might be achievable and bullet redesign would be moot.
Why not switch to something like the Steyr AUG. Nothing but love for that thing from the multiple countries that use it. It’s lightwieght, compact, is built for close quarters and can be adapted for a multitude of roles.
Posted by: xbrimstonex at September 15, 2008 03:35 PM
Dude, stay off the red kool-aid. The only love form user countries is they want to shove it up Steyr’s colelctive back sides. AUG is a piece of shite. It is a horrible CQB weapon as quick magazine changes are impossible and you can’t use it from the opposing shoulder to your master hand. Plus you can’t use it as a club if all else fails.
Steps to take to produce the best weapon possible
1.) Gather the best in the industry
- Guys from Magpul, Troy Industries, La Rue, LMT, VLTOR etc…
2.) Gather people who have to use it
-Operators, or ex SOF like Larry Vickers, in addition to a handful of combat troops from EVERY branch.
3.) Stick them in a room with lots of food, water, dry-erase boards and tons of markers for hours.
- Written on the board should be 1 requirement: 6.5mm
This round is the sweet spot in small arms. It will do the most things with the fewest drawbacks.
4.) Take their ideas to the best engineers from FN, HK, SIG etc… And ask them how it can be done. Not if it’s feasible. Not how much it would cost. Ask how it can be done, and go from there.
In the end, I think you’d end up with something pretty special. Nothing encourages creativity more than competition, which is why things HAVE to be out in the open for this whole M16/M4 replacement crap. I get the sinking feeling this is just lip service to the military community. Sure, they will listen to ideas, but really they just need to go through the motions before renewing the contract.
I find it odd, and disappointing, that we field the oldest battle rifle In Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK has the excellent HK improved Enfield, and the Aussies shoot the equally good AUG. Germans have the tasty G36. Why are we lugging around a Vietnam jungle carbine when we’re in the mountains and deserts of the Middle East? It works. It’s a gun. I mean if it goes bang it can kill people. But it doesn’t work good enough in my opinion. There’s better stuff out there now. Imagine if we had just stood pat and kept on chugging with the M60 tank. Imagine what Iraq 1 and 2 would be like without the Abrams.
The Ak-47′s purpose is to be a cheap, easy to shoot, easy to maintain, throwaway knock-em-down assault rifle that a complete moron can kill with. Hits the mark 100% What’s the M16/M4 supposed to be? And whatever it is now, is that really what a battle rifle for an entire military should be?
I hope that by 2010 the soldiers have a new rifle to carry around. The whole FCS and Future Warrior thing would look fantastically stupid if the “uber soldiers” were carrying around 40 year old rifles. Kinda defeats the point, doesn’t it? Especially when replacing a simple rifle is the cheapest part of the whole deal.
SW1911,
We are “lugging around a Vietnam jungle carbine” (although the truth is today’s M4/M16 are significanly improved in a number of ways from the Vietnam-era originals) because even today it/they is/are still the standard by which all other assault rifles/carbines are judged & for good reason – nothing else (including those use listed) are that much better. A properly cared for M4/M16 is as accurate/reliable/effective as any other 5.56x45mm weapon. The one true “fault” they have is the same as all 5.56x45mm weapons, the 5.56x45mm cartidge. And you don’t need a new weapon for fix that problem – a new barrel, upper reciever & magazines in EITHER the 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel (& if you prefer to spend money on more new parts instead of proper weapons care training, a gas-piston kit) & suddenly any M4/M16 user has a significant improvement over pretty much anything else any body else has.
First and most important thing we need is reliability, must have a gas piston type design. Crome/np3 bolt, carrier upper receiver, gas tube, gas piston. This will keep the weapon clean improving reliability.
Next is stopping power.
6.8 was designed for a 14.5in barrel only because the m4 already had a 14.5in barrel and works great in 18in barrels. If we keep short barrels this is probably the best choice. It doesn’t create a big fireball out the end of a short barrel and the side of the bolt carrier.
6.5 is great in the longer barrels. If we go back to rifles this would be the better of the 2. Alexander makes 26in barrels for long range.
5.56mm was originally designed for 18-22in barrels smokeless IMR powder and chrome bolts. The ARMY BEAN-COUNTERS changed the powder and removed the chrome, there by increasing chamber pressure and fouling the weapon creating most of the operating problems.
My ideal weapon would have an 18 inch barrel fully np3 (or similar) coated internals (everything but the out side) in 6.8×39 (more powder than 6.8 SPC for longer range) with a longer overall case length than 5.56(midway between 5.56 and 7.62) allowing the use of longer/heavier/higher Ballistic Coefficient bullets than currently used by 6.8 SPC if wanted to design special purpose rounds. if it uses a m4 type lower fine just not the buffer/recoil system. it needs to have a recoil system like a AK/G36/G3/AR18AR180/Gallil so the stock can collapse like an MP5 stock or fold like an AK. Although id take a 6.8/6.5 Tavor in a heartbeat
Of course until rail guns are mass produced M4 size we will probably never get anything anyway. AMC (Army Material Command) officers probably have a job lined up with or own stock in colt (or their family does) along with the senators who will vote/approve any new contract.
Remember the best long range/sniper/dry cartridge is not the best cartridge for a carbine. In an M4, 5.56 M855 ball is only effective out to 150-175 meters for terminal velocity causalities (hydraulic damage). MK 262 MOD1 5.56 LR was designed from national match rounds, for the SPR/DMR type rifle but gives the M4 better wound characteristics. With Accurately placed shots it doesn
First and most important thing we need is reliability, must have a gas piston type design. Crome/np3 bolt, carrier upper receiver, gas tube, gas piston. This will keep the weapon clean improving reliability.
Next is stopping power.
6.8 was designed for a 14.5in barrel only because the m4 already had a 14.5in barrel and works great in 18in barrels. If we keep short barrels this is probably the best choice. It doesn’t create a big fireball out the end of a short barrel and the side of the bolt carrier.
6.5 is great in the longer barrels. If we go back to rifles this would be the better of the 2. Alexander makes 26in barrels for long range.
5.56mm was originally designed for 18-22in barrels smokeless IMR powder and chrome bolts. The ARMY BEAN-COUNTERS changed the powder and removed the chrome, there by increasing chamber pressure and fouling the weapon creating most of the operating problems.
My ideal weapon would have an 18 inch barrel fully np3 (or similar) coated internals (everything but the out side) in 6.8×39 (more powder than 6.8 SPC for longer range) with a longer overall case length than 5.56(midway between 5.56 and 7.62) allowing the use of longer/heavier/higher Ballistic Coefficient bullets than currently used by 6.8 SPC if wanted to design special purpose rounds. if it uses a m4 type lower fine just not the buffer/recoil system. it needs to have a recoil system like a AK/G36/G3/AR18AR180/Gallil so the stock can collapse like an MP5 stock or fold like an AK. Although id take a 6.8/6.5 Tavor in a heartbeat
Of course until rail guns are mass produced M4 size we will probably never get anything anyway. AMC (Army Material Command) officers probably have a job lined up with or own stock in colt (or their family does) along with the senators who will vote/approve any new contract.
Remember the best long range/sniper/dry cartridge is not the best cartridge for a carbine. In an M4, 5.56 M855 ball is only effective out to 150-175 meters for terminal velocity causalities (hydraulic damage). MK 262 MOD1 5.56 LR was designed from national match rounds, for the SPR/DMR type rifle but gives the M4 better wound characteristics. With Accurately placed shots it doesn
I think the bushmaster ACR system hits most of the salient features of what I would want out of a combat weapon, especially if they can mold it in multicam. If they could make a carbine length weapon that was urban sniper accurate, but save weight with something like carbon wrapped barrels or fluting. I would like a more consistent and lighter pull trigger than the A2/M4 burst mechanism so maybe a semi/auto configuration would be preferable. Iraq and Afghanistan environments transition from urban and built up villages to long range, so a soldier can find themselves clearing rooms one part of the day and shooting down the road a ways at somebody placing an IED or shooting RPGs, so CQB and 300-600 meter capability in the same weapon is a worthwhile goal. For these ranges the 6.8 way of thinking seems good, but every squad should also have a DMR and I think the cheytac 408 round with its 1K-2K meter range would be the way to go. I would also like to see a vehicle mounted heavy machine gun in this caliber as well. I look forward to the results of the competition, I just hope that they pick the BEST weapon and not the one that is the most cost effective at that moment. Start up cost for manufacturing will likely be very expensive initially but over time get cheaper, so building some incremental upgradeability into the weapon is something to consider as well.
Well to start with, I still carry a weapon in Iraq, and I’m the guy who designed the 6.8SPC and the 7x46UAC (Universal Assault Cartridge). One cartridge for everything, oh that’s what the 7.62×51 was for, right. The 7x46UAC outperforms all current military calibers used world wide, except the heavy AP 7.62 loadings; since no AP loadings have been made for the 7x46UAC.
But as for a rifle, let the people who carry it chose it, not some elected official, DOD engineer, or arm chair commandos. The first thing we need to do is clean out Picatinny, which is still infested with the same kind of people who’ve wasted billions of dollars over the last 40 years with nothing to show. What does futuristic and revolutionary mean, a weapon that’s made mostly of plastic and offers the greatest profit margin for the manufacturer; and it doesn’t even have to work good, it just has to look cool. Let us buy a weapon we want and need not what the manufacturer decides to make for us; or what ever they have the tooling to make.
Let the snipers and long range target shooters get their own weapon, we don’t need their help with assault rifles or machine guns. Besides, no war has ever been won by snipers. and history says no major battles have been decided by snipers either. Remember, although base on a true battle “Enemies At the Gates” was a movie.
The two weapons that have been kicking our butts, AK and RPG, haven’t changed in 40 years. You might say that’s not true, but we suck without air power. Let get a weapon that is reliable and lethal that the dumbest guy we have can use; not something that just looks good and will be in the next Star Wars movie
Why is it that just about every single article ever written concerning replacement of the M4 starts off with a picture of a dressed-up gun from some sci-fi movie, such as the Aliens M41A pulse rifle (which is actually just a dressed-up WWII-era Thompson subgun) or the above Morita Mark 3 (actually just a South African AK variant dressed up in a shell) from Starship Troopers 3?