Comments on: Army Starts Down Path of M4 Replacement

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:34:48 +0000

penis

By: Rowan Drake

Rowan Drake — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:23:03 +0000

It *is* out of Starship Troopers.

By: Travis

Travis — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 07:35:14 +0000

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?

By: Cris Murray

Cris Murray — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:16:49 +0000

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

By: soldier medic WTF

soldier medic WTF — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:36:22 +0000

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.

By: TXWOLFCATM

TXWOLFCATM — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:52:37 +0000

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

By: TXWOLFCATM

TXWOLFCATM — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:39:06 +0000

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 04:04:36 +0000

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.

By: SW1911

SW1911 — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:33:32 +0000

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.

By: tontochoc

tontochoc — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 21:22:06 +0000

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.