In a move that could reverse years of Army small arms policy, the service is asking industry to send in ideas for a new combat rifle that could replace the M4 carbine.
In late August, the Army issued a solicitation to the arms industry asking companies to submit proposals that would demonstrate “improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion … reliability and durability in all environments, modularity and terminal performance.”
And in a dramatic gesture that could throw the door wide open to a totally new carbine, the service did not constrain ideas to the current 5.56mm round used in the M4.
“We’re at the point now where we’re going to go out and compete,” said Richard Audette, project manager for Soldier weapons at the Army’s Picatinny Arsenal.
“We’re looking for anyone that has a world-class carbine,” Audette told Military.com in a Sept 15 interview. “We’re interested in any new technologies out there.”
Audette couldn’t remember an Army weapons program that opened up the competition to ideas so diverse; he cited the M240 request in the 1990s and M9 solicitation in the 1980s as examples of broad requests, but they stuck with specific caliber ammunition.
The Army’s abrupt change in direction — after long stating it would stick with the M4 until there was a “leap” in technology that would far surpass current carbine performance — comes after nearly two years of pressure on the service to re-examine the M4 and entertain a nearer-term replacement.
Some in Congress have called for the Army to hold a “shoot-off” with several other carbine designs alongside the Colt-built M4 to demonstrate the state of the art in today’s military arms market. Sen. Tom Coburn (R — Okla.) briefly held up the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren in mid-2007 to force the service into side-by-side comparisons of M4 competitors in extreme dust conditions.
Many argue the M4 is more susceptible to fouling due to its gas-operated design, and say other systems are less maintenance intensive.
The move to broaden the competition is also calendar-driven: the so-called “technical data package” of the M4 — essentially the blueprints for the design — are up for release in June of next year. That means the Army can rebid the M4 to any company that can make it, potentially driving down costs and boosting production capacity.
And as if that wasn’t enough, the Army is also in the midst of re-writing its carbine requirements document, which will spell out specifically what the service needs for its primary weapon. Audette said the ideas sent in as a result of his solicitation will help inform officials at Training and Doctrine Command as they update the Army’s carbine plan.
“If there’s some new technology out there, they want to be able to write a requirement that will not limit the Army to something they could possibly have,” Audette said.
The Army is leaving itself open to carbine ideas that could stray from the nearly 40-year policy of using 5.56mm ammunition for its rifles. Recent developments in ammunition calibers have bolstered critics who contend the 5.56 round has too little “stopping power” and passes through its target without incapacitating him.
Army officials have repeatedly stated that knockdown has as much to do with marksmanship as ballistics, arguing that if you shoot more accurately, you’ll drop your target on the first shot.
But several “boutique” rounds have been making inroads with weapons developers both in and outside the government. The 6.8mm and 6.5mm round are increasingly popular, as is the old-school 7.62mm round — which Special Operations Command plans to incorporate into its new carbine program.
“We want to know about everything that’s out there, regardless of caliber,” Audette said. “If you’ve got a 6.8, we’re interested in that and seeing what that brings to the table.”
<p.The solicitation also asks for ideas on a “subcompact” weapon that Audette says should basically be a smaller version of the carbine; this one would be more suitable for vehicle crewmen and aviators, who have to maneuver the weapon in confined spaces but don’t need the same range capability that a foot Soldier would.“We don’t want to spend 20 years producing 1,000 carbines per month,” Audette said. “If we choose a new carbine we want to have a production capacity in place so that we can ramp up and get a lot of these out the door.”
Industry sources say the Army solicitation isn’t just smoke and mirrors to satisfy critics of the M4. They say a competition will likely occur next summer between different weapons and the best gun will win.
If that does happen, Soldiers — and potentially their counterparts in the other services — won’t likely see their new carbines until 2012, after all the testing and evaluation is done. The Army currently has a requirement for 450,000 M4s, though that number could climb if the service decides to replace all M-16s with the smaller M4, Audette said.
– Christian
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
One word and three little letters, Bushmaster ACR. Its modular, it can be reconfigured for whatever round they want that fits in an AR, it uses SOME AR parts, but the receiver is made of an easy to mould and assemble high temp polymer with steel inserts. The trigger pack is an easily swappable package that uses existing M-16/AR15 components. The barrels are standard AR/M16, with a piston clamped in place of the gas tube and a quick release barrel nut system for fast swaps. Its easily configurable with up to 4 rails, with the upper (12 o’oclock) rail being the only perminant one, and any barrel length and weight from lightweight short barreled carbine to longer barreled, DMR and Automatic Rifle configurations. The ergonomics are similar to the AR but with improvements. It was designed by a Marine and his company (Magpul) so it should be robust and reliable. Its also ambidexterous, easilly upgradable, etc etc etc.
Is it perfect? No. I personally think instead of having the front BUIS on the rail only, it should be attached to the barrel so you can zero the barrel to the gun and not have to worry about zeroing the gun to each barrel. I also think they should have hooked up with LWRC or come up with their own version of the LWRC closed bolt semiauto/ open bolt fullauto system so it would work better as an Automatic Rifle, but those are personal opinions
Most excellent news. Hopefully, American soldiers will get the best carbine available.
Now, if the Army would just have an “open competition” to replace the Browning M2 .50cal…. eh, maybe someday.
Outstanding. Some progress is finally being initiated. Regardless of the fact that I qualified as a 2nd Award Rifle Expert in the Marines with the M16A2, I didn’t really care for the AR15/M16-series weapons. But, in all honesty I really did get used to it, except for one major drawback: its 5.56mm NATO caliber. Regardless of the M16A2′s accuracy, the 5.56mm NATO caliber is substandard as a reliable man-killer. The vast majority of Vietnam War veterans I knew had complained of the lack of knock-down. And the current Iraq & Afghanistan war veterans pretty much have the same opinion of 5.56mm NATO ammo, even the M885 ammo. Even if the M4 & M16A2 were to continue, at least they would be far more received in a more potent caliber, say no less than 6.35mm (.257 inch bore).
5.56mm wasn’t exactly commonlace back in the late 50′s/early 60′s, either. Sure, it was known in varmint-hunting, but in the military? No way.
Personally, I’m rooting for the Magpul/Bushmaster Masada. Status-quo plus, and it’s made in the U.S., too.
david,
It’s not that there isn’t something better, or that Ma Deuce is the best… Although, I am fond of my old M2. A problem, IMHO, stems from the M2 & its replacement programs always, or seemingly so, being handed over to a single contractor. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall ever hearing of open competition for an M2 replacement.
And there is a reason why we don’t build bridges, as was done back in 1918. Primarily because materials & techniques have changed. It’s quite possible you could remove a lot of weight from the M2 through computer modeled stress testing & changing some of it’s material composition, while maintaining it’s basic design (if desired). The same could be said for the tripod and mount as well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Chicago_12th_Street_Bridge_LOC_det_4a16992.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Millau-Viaduct-France-20070909.JPG
we new im will be leaving for basic soon a M4 and a M16 are old now my grandfather and my dad both use them my grdad in vietnam and my dad in the gulf so i want something new please for us new solders and marines thank you
Audette couldn’t remember an Army weapons program that opened up the competition to ideas so diverse;
SPIW/SALVO, SAWS, CAWS just to name three. The M240 is the FN MAG-58 that was designed in the 1950s and used by most of the Free World when introduced into the US military. As for the M9 – the less said the better.
The Australian Army is placing mortar sights on the M2 to increase its effective range to 7,000 metres. Finally someone is taking adavntage of the round’s inherent ability and performance of the system as a whole.
the M4 is a fine system light and accurate and sports a major CDI factor (CDI stands for “chicks dig it”)
but if my life is going to depend on it and soon it will I want something whole-lot more reliable and with a bit more of a punch then a glorified squirrel gun. there is a reason it’s not legal to hunt anything bigger than a coyote with 5.56 or .223 just not enough stopping power. if you are ever in a fire fight and the other guy is firing the big 7.62X39 at you ask your self “does he give a rats ass about your “CDI”?
we new im will be leaving for basic soon a M4 and a M16 are old now my grandfather and my dad both use them my grdad in vietnam and my dad in the gulf so i want something new please for us new solders and marines thank you
Posted by: brandon at September 17, 2008 01:30 PM
Don’t badmouth the rifle in front of your drill instructor. They KNOW it has issuues as a main battle rifle but as a recruit it sets a bad example to bad mouth it. At basic training ‘a still tongue is a very wise tongue’. Plus it’s all you have, so best learn how to use it properly. If you think it’s a piece of crap you will not use it to the best of its or your ability.
Radical, now how about other weapons systems?
Very cool.
Needed.
Compete.
I’m fixing to leave for basic soon, I own a Ar-15 and a 7.62, and I much prefer my 7.62 for stopping power, but my 5.56 Is much better for long range steady shots..
But truthfully, I love both rounds..
I am a two tour combat vet. The M-2 is dated, heavy, and old school, lets introduce some carbon fiber, some composites and some tech. What is with this new AirBurst Weapon ???? Thats what brought me here.
Watch out Obama plans to suspend all advanced weapons research. His words as seen and heard on TV from his very own mouth.
Kevin, Air burst Munitions are “smart rounds” which are pre-programed to detonate, on-target, in-target, beyond-target, or in the middle of a room. It is designed so a laser range finder can sight in distance to a target, then allow you to place the round’s detonation inside a room. Furthermore, there are different types, fragmentation, incendiary, and possibly high explosive if my memory serves me well.
and less lethal gas rounds
coolhand77, I completely agree. I’ve tested it, best system ever.
A cartridge that the new carbine should be developed around is the old-fashioned 6mm X 45mm. An article appeared in the October 2008 issue of Handloader Magazine written by Steve Gash, titled ” A Fresh Look at the 6 X 45″ talks about everything the military needs to know about the 6 X 45. This round first appeared in 1965 and is basically a .223 case with the shoulder setback .002″. What is great about this round is that bullets up to 100 grains were fired from this rifle are not subjected to wind drift like the .223.
The 6.8mm Remington SPC cartridge lists reloading data for 90, 110, and 115 grain bullets on the Hodgdon website. The 6.8mm Remingtom SPC has plenty of kinetic energy left at 600 yards to effectively knockdown a steel target as demonstrated on “Future Weapons” with former Navy SEAL Mack Machowitz.
The next talked about cartridge is the 6.5mm Creedmoor however there was no data on the Hodgdon website to compare. The Sierra Bullet Company has bullets ranging from 85 grains to 142 grains. This caliber has more of a knockdown power however more retooling is necessary than the 6 X 45.
Retooling costs are kept to a minimum. According to the article, the only thing required to change is the bore and rifling of the barrel. The shoulder is setback .002″ and the twist rate utilized is 1 in 8 3/4″. All other pieces of equipment work fine.
Although the test data is done from a bench rest at 100 yards, I have no doubt that the data would be impressive if stretched out to the 400 to 500 yard range. All in all, this cartridge is worth giving a long hard look at!
Scott Baxter
That’s OK!But take a closer look following link,It’s great to DVD and PSP converter for mac!
DVD Ripper for Mac,
Mac DVD Ripper Suite,
Mac DVD Converter Ultimate Suite,
Mac DVD Copy,
Mac DVD Creator,
Mac DVD to iPod Converter,
Mac DVD to iPhone Converter,
Mac DVD to MP4 Converter,
Mac DVD to Apple TV Converter,
Mac DVD to PSP Converter,
Mac DVD to BlackBerry Converter,
Mac DVD Audio Ripper,
Edit DVD,
Vob Converter for Mac,
VOB to iPod Converter for Mac,
VOB to Apple TV Converter for Mac,
VOB to PSP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPEG4 Converter for Mac,
VOB to M4V Converter for Mac,
VOB to 3GP Converter for Mac,
VOB to MPG Converter for Mac,
VOB to AVI Converter for Mac
Both Magpul/Bushmaster and LWRC produce weapons that can replace the M-4. I would take the Masada-but not the 5.56 version. 6.8 would be just fine. LWRC makes a short barreled 6.8 too, just get rid of that gas system it sux, wat happens when you get into a 48 hr running gunfight [Mogadishu] and ur weapon jams after firing hundreds of rounds in the dust and sand? Colt has had a monopoly on this for too long. Change is good.
The Bushmaster/Magpul ACR is just a copy of the SCAR and the SCAR is a copy of the G36 and XM8. The really interesting rifle is the Robinson Armament XCR. It is proved it self to be a true multi-caliber platform. It’s got a better quick change barrel mechanism and has better ergonomics that either the SCAR or the ACR. The XCR uses a AK-47 type bolt system rather than the flawed Stoner multi-lug system.
Let's examine the "leap" programs so far:
SPIW ~ failed
Advanced Combat Rifle ~ Failed
XM29 OICW ~ Failed
XM8 ~ Failed
Metal Storm ~ Hasn't exactly failed yet, but, IMO, the tech has proven to be ill-suited to small arms when you have to send your rifle back to the armoror to be reloaded.
That's not a good record. The M16 platform (love it or hate it) outlived them all because it was either equal to or superior to them all in some way.
The Crye MR-C, AFAIK, is nothing more than a concept weapon that gained fame in a video game and, as such it goes, has kids clamoring that it's gonna replace the M16. Not likely. Sorry to make the kids cry (no pun intended).
The LSAT rifle/MG will more than likely fail, too. Yes, it's an interesting concept, but so was the XM29, which failed hard.
Look, I'm all for researching new small arms technology, but if the Army really wants to replace the M4, then they'll have to settle for an "M5" (or whatever it ends up being called) that's only marginally better. As cool as all these futuristic concepts are, they just aren't possible with current technology.
There was a time when I was of the opinion that the Army "isn't going to replace millions of mil-spec M16s and M4s just because the alternative runs a little bit cleaner", but I see now that the only feasible option to provide our troops with a reliable long gun in the foreseeable future is to do just that. And personally I don't give a damn who manufactures it (though I'd naturally prefer an American company like LWRC, Magpul, or whatever get the contract instead of a foreign one like HK or FNH, but that's secondary and just my personal preference). If Colt again has the best option, so be it. Throw the manufacturer bias out the F'ing window and choose according to the merits of the weapon itself, not who you think has had a "monopoly" for long enough.
But what do I know? I'm just a proud American who wants his troops to have the best weapon available.
I should also point out that Colt has offered on numerous occasions to revamp the M4 design for increased reliability, but the Army repeatedly turned them down.
But that little tidbit of info seems to get lost, apparently because Colt is so evil and likes the casualty to dollar ratio… *rolls eyes*
A bigger round like a 6.8 or 6.5 is definitely needed because in long range combat like in Afghanistan the 5.56 doesn't kill or have knock down power at longer ranges like anything over 400 yards which are becoming standard engagement ranges in modern combat. This of course must be balanced with the need for close quarters combat. In my opinion the ACR chambered in 6.8 would be a great choice plus its made in America. The SCAR would also be nice but its only available in 5.56 or 7.62 right now. I heard a 6.8 might be in the works though. Personally I think the decision to cancel the XM8 was a terrible one. It was a very viable solution and even if it wasn't fielded it still would have made headway.
Gotta agree with A Person. Personally, the M4/M16 platform is crap compared to the newer systems. Take a look at the HK416; a more reliable M4. The SCAR-H isn't bad for a battle rifle, but has way too much recoil for long-distance engagements. Not to mention, the 20-round mag is substandard in my opinion. My guess would be the Remington ACR as a replacement, since it handles 6.8, 5.56, and 7.62 equally. I've used the M16A4 and the newer M4 designs, but they're mostly just cosmetic differences. Every 6 mags or so, you'd get a double feed. My first rifle backfired on the range, the sarge jumped ten feet when he heard what he thought was a frag going off. As for the differences in calibur performance, it's marksmanship mostly, but at close range you always want the fatter round. My grandad nearly got killed in vietnam 'cause the 5.56 didn't stop a charging VC at two meters.