Comments on: Army (might) Abandon “Leap” for M4 Replacement

By: A Second Person

A Second Person — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 20:08:39 +0000

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.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:45:51 +0000

and less lethal gas rounds

By: A person

A person — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:31:14 +0000

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.

By: A Realist

A Realist — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:21:58 +0000

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*

By: A Realist

A Realist — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:49:06 +0000

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.

By: Eric VonTeufel

Eric VonTeufel — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:17:27 +0000

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.

By: Rhyno327/lrs

Rhyno327/lrs — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:59:20 +0000

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.

By: angel

angel — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:35:27 +0000

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

By: Scott Baxter

Scott Baxter — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:17:56 +0000

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

By: Tech Guru

Tech Guru — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 06:16:01 +0000

coolhand77, I completely agree. I’ve tested it, best system ever.