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
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 6.8x39 (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 6.8x39 (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 7.62x51 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?