I know it’s a bit late, but I got my hands on some material that came out of the mid-November “industry day” held in the DC area to show the Army what’s out there to replace the M4.
You’ll remember that the service has indicated it’s finally willing to explore updated options to its standard-issue service rifle…now the M4. Whether you think the M4 sucks or not, it makes sense that the Army is breaking free of its single-minded love affair with the M16 and its variants.
I missed the industry day (dumb me) but I got a write-up on the meeting from a renowned weapons expert that many of you might know. He did not send this directly to me, I obtained it through other sources, so I’m going to protect its origins and the author.
According to the expert, “19 vendors showed up at the industry day, including Polytech, KAC, Precision Reflex, POF, S&W, FN with SCAR, Superior Tooling, AAI with LSAT, LWRC, Colt Defense, Barrett, Sabre Defense, Armwest, HK, Bushmater/Remington, Robinson Armament, Troy Industries and SIG Sauer.” Army secretary Pete Geren showed up as well, along with key players from PEO Soldier and PEO Soldier Weapons. According to one of my sources, fortunately some congressional staffers from top lawmakers who want to take up this issue also showed, including staffers for Salazar, Hutchison, Sessions and John Warner (though we know he’s retiring soon).
The weapons expert said:
Lots of AR-based systems on display, mostly off the shelf items, many op rod guns and conversions. A few medium caliber (6.5G and 6.8 Rem SPC and 7.62x39mm R) platforms on display and a few 7.62x51mm systems as well. No bullpups (Tavor, AUG or F2000)surprisingly and no XM8. Lots of discussion about op rod upgrades to M4’s versus complete new systems. Little talk that I heard anyway about user convertible (barrel, buttstock, caliber) modular family of weapons but there were one or two such systems there.
One thing my source told me — and yes, he does have a stake in the adoption of a new rifle — was that Geren’s presence, while adding senior-level gravitas to the event, was essentially meaningless because he’s probably going to leave in 60 days. And the fact that neither the service chief nor vice chief showed up at the event sent a signal the the uniformed leadership isn’t on board with the idea and could recommend to the next secretary that they abandon the effort.
Here’s more from the debrief:
Industry reps I spoke with were cautiously optimistic having been burned a time or two before in the last 10 years. A major difference here is the presence of a formal requirements document (CDD) as per the JCIDs process that is due to be completed and staffed by the end of CY08 and expected to be approved by summer CY09 with possible draft RFQ release to industry for comment w/i 4QFY09 (and a second Industry Day) and eventual final RFP release by Sept. 2009; all this as per COL Tamilio’s (new PM-SW formerly from the REF) briefing to the attendees. Each vendor was allotted 30 minutes to present to a US Govt team in private. Lots of new faces within the “small arms system” to include a new PEO Soldier, PM-SW and PM-SW IW and USAIC reps.…
This process of consulting industry in support of a real fair and open competition for the next service rifle has not occurred in more than 70 years, likely since the M1 Garand “competition” prior to WWII. This was a historic day! Lots of oversight on this one from the real end user side and at senior leadership levels. We are on the right track finally. Lets just hope it doesn’t get derailed with changes in the US Govt over the next 2 months. Time will tell. Keep the pressure on!
So chew this over for a bit. Next up: What small arms threats are the services worried about?
– Christian
My preferred replacement is the SCAR rifle. I would like to a see a 7.62 round either 39 or 51 mm. A bullpup design should defiantly be at the top of the list. They have been proven to be better than the standard in control and accuracy. Though I am sure several people would still prefer a more traditional design.
The debate should be whether it is a high end, expensive model like the M8 with the latest, and sometime useless, technologies. Or a simpler design similar to the idea behind an AK-47.
The most overlooked fact today is that even up to the Vietnam war, rifles were adopted that were easily used by a conscript army fighting in titanic conventional conflicts. Little real attention was to the way rifles are being used today. In fact, for the first time ever, the army issues carbines exclusively to it’s combat bound soldiers, not full size rifles. It seems that the highly proficient “special ops” characteristics of the battle rifles is that which is most prized not the “he who expends the most rounds wins” statistics of the late 60’s whiz kids. With today’s tech, we can have it all if we want it. Low risk upgrade to a piston for the M16 series or a higher cost change to the FN SCAR in 6.5 Grendel that spec ops can change on the fly for any mission. I believe one F22 would pay for either one.
Regardless of whatever weapon system we choose as our universal combat rifle, let us all hope that it will not be chambered for the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. We need much more firepower to kill terrorists.
just give me 77grain match 5.56 There’s no reason to replace my M4. 5.56 has plenty of stopping power in 77 grain hpbt vs the puny 62 grain. I also love its flat trajectory vs other calibers.
Slightly off topic, but not that much off…
Have you guys checked the Croatian VHS rifle? Seems quite incredible! It sends part of the gases to the back of the bolt so it reduces the recoil a lot. I know, images speak more than words…
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=wzPpqj5xedY
Re: Croatian rifle — why does that look just like a FAMAS with a different magazine?
As for the SCAR and 7.62 I’ve actually never seen the 7.62x39 conversion for the SCAR-Heavy, which I’ve always seen in 7.62x51…
As for the lack of a bullpup weapon I’m not surprised, considering that there’d be training in the new handling and ergonomics required in return for better ballistics than a conventional carbine. As for the XM8… I think it’s because the Army had been so “up” on it and it was so talked up, only for the program to go down.
Ithink it’s really too bad about the bullpups. The F2000 is a fantastic weapon although too expensive. The Tavor however is pretty great. I think that when you consider that alot of war in near future will be FISH, a short light weapon makes a good deal of sense. Retraining as a counter point to bullpup adoption doesn’t give enough credit to the soldiers. They’ll figure it out.
Re: Edward — Well, the VHS looks like the FAMAS, but internally they are very, very different weapons, they have completely different mechanisms. And the VHS is more than 1 pound lighter than the FAMAS.
There were 7.62 x 39mm rifles there? I feel bad for those guys. I don’t care how “open” people might say this competition is, there is no way that the Army is going to lose face and adopt a russian cartridge after all these years. The same goes for any AK-based proposals.
Given the absolutely enormous aftermarket for AR-type parts, can you imagine the backlash if the Army went for a different weapon? Or even one that just didn’t need that huge aftermarket. Would we need a bailout for AR parts makers?
Gentlemen,
Let’s not forget that a large number of young servicemember have NEVER fire a weapon before basic. Whatever the choice ends up being it must be #1 Reliable, #2 easy to control, #3 have good stopping power, and #4 be able to hold up to the elements (to include operators not maintaining them properly). just my 2 cents.…
- I dont get this “I like SCAR” thing. Bushmaster ACR aka Magpul Masada is obviously better. Who doesnt believe page 10 of following link:
http://www.magpul.com/pdfs/masada_technote.pdf
– Grendel/SPC are REAL good but I seriously doubt that army will ever adopt either of em. Too much lobby and corruption going on.
– These gas piston upgrades or upper receivers aint good deal enough. For example HK416 upper receiver is bout 1000 bucks. POF-415 is bout 1900 for whole rifle and 1250 for upper receiver. SCAR is GODDAMN expensive. More than 2500 for whole rifle. Masada is bout 1500 for WHOLE piece. So if U think bout it, U got the best gun which can emulate any other mainstream gun and in the same time is the cheapest on the market. Good deal, aint it
– BTW I havent mentioned any gas-piston retrofit stuff. This is because M4 is a piece of crap anyway (compared to masada, dont wanna insult any of U “M4 is great weapon but just because of the fact that I didnt try masada” guys) so I am for obvious reason for WHOLE new gun. One F22/F35 less and everything is paid for
– BTW screw 7,62x51. Single round of 308 is 24 grams and the M80 (currently used by military) hasnt got better ballistics, AP capability or terminal ballistics than Grendel, MK262 MOD1 (naturally not AP capability) or even M193 or M855 (provided effective range usage).
One more thing. This knock-down power nonsense. Think bout it. A bullet simply cannot knock a man down. If it had the energy to do so, then equal energy would be applied against the shooter and he too would be knocked down. If U think bout M82 and 338 Lapua Magnum (as two well known cartridges) which can knock a man down of his feet, its only because energy that goes against the shoulder is being compensated by compensator/muzzle brake. Otherwise the shooter would have riffle butt in the middle of his chest cavity.
They wont adopt the 7,62x39. Its just a matter of the gun being easily adaptable to the most common ammo used by the bad guys, what it can be rather useful.
All they need to do is get an inexpensive after market mod to make the M4/16s already in service piston operated. Cheap easy fix. It will also seriously extend the service life of the existing weapons. A simple mod like this will drastically improve the performance of the M4/16 in the area of reliability. Currently available kits are cheap too!
Prediction! NO NEW Assualt RIFLE!!
With the new administration will come a great reduction in defense spending. What little chance there was of replacing the much discussed M-16 issues will be off the table.
With the likes of the Slug Congressman Murtha and dear Barney Franks along with a weak President who really thinks this will happen!
The only thing that will work overtime in the new Congress is the Treasury printing press, the Congressional new regulation printing press and the IRS skimming more taxes.
As far as maintaining, and applying immediate corrective action in the case of a weapon malfunction, re-training will be an absolute necessity, regardless of whether we switch to a piston operated M4, or switch to a new weapon system entirely. The “Knock-Down Power” is a myth.
In some ops, you want to simply eliminate the enemy, in some cases, you want to wound, and leave the area. You never want to “knock him down” unless he is out of the fight for good.
I’ve never had time to have my men go check and make sure whether an EC is knocked down or neutralized.
The gas piston upgrade to the M4 sounds like the right idea. A minimum of retraining will be necessary, but it will still effectively be the same weapon system with fewer malfunctions. The ammo we are issued will most likely still be a problem at times, but I don’t see any solid fix for that without holding the taxpayers’ wallets hostage.
- OK, so if the money is the most important issue, than I do believe there will be no change. Some guys still have obsolete M16, some of them even unservicable.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003536.html
– I mean if some guys dont even have WORKING weapons how can we ask for BETTER weapons?
– BTW if the transfer of energy via projectile is so immense that it knocks the guy down, he is propably down for good. But I mean seriously knock down, I dont mean some 223 down when the guy is hit so he fells. I mean 338 down
I have owned eight AR-15’s. Been issued several while in the service and have 2 M-16A1’s at work. I have never had the problems I keep hearing about. All the rifles and carbines I shoot worked perfectly. The only problem I ever had to deal with was worn out magazines double feeding the last two rounds. New mags equalled no problems.
Also, Obama is not going to spend money on guns.
Good Morning Folks,
It too over 49 years and nearly 7 years of war to convince the powers that be that optical sights on the M-16/M-4 will increase productivity and marksmanship and now their small minds have opened up to options on the basic operating system of the rifle.
In the military change to basic institutions comes slowly but when they occur they tend to start revolutions in technology and tactics. The idea that their might be a change from the 5.56x45mm NATO round is still a generation or two off. Satisfaction is a rifle that works when you need it to.
To all my fellow soldiers who served in Vietnam and to those who died clinging to a malfunctioning M-16, you were right guys.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
For those who think “knock down” is not a factor; Why do you think the Brits and Americans went to .45 caliber pistols? How many hunters go for a Grizzly with a .22? If you care to look at a ballistics chart, you will see a section called striking energy of the bullet based on speed and weight.A .308 round loaded with a bullet of 100 grains will be faster than a 200 grain but will not have as much striking energy.An armor piercing round will travel through a body while leaving a small exit hole and expending very little of its energy,but a ball round will expand causing the body to absorb more energy and deliver more shock or “knock down”.I know that there are still many shooters who do not believe the bullet is falling from the second it leaves the muzzle and some will even tell you it rises,so do not tell them to look at the ballistics of any caliber round because facts cloud their opinions.
the “knock down” power exists, but its not really a knock down, cause by Newton’s laws, if it were really a knock down, the recoil would knock down the shooter too.
Actually, Wikipedia has a very good entry about the whole subject, with a lot of references at the end of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power
I hope that if the military is serious about replacing its small arms inventory with more advanced guns that 1) the replacement weapon is rugged and dependable as well as accurate and 2)that the Pentagon bean counters don,t get involved and decide to scrap the program before it can go into production because they think it is too expensive.
The weapon the U.S. battle troops need for a rifle is of 7.62 cal.,simple action,rugged,drop it in the sand,fire full auto, semi auto,and maintain fire power from hell.Complicated bolts need to go.Now,The best thing any service member can do with the m4/m-16 is get a chamber brush,a cleaning rod and attach it to a hand drill and clean the crap out of the chamber till it shines like a golden egg.After this being done,normal cleaning after fireing the weapon will result in operation satisfaction.I never cared for the 5.56 as i always prefered the 7.62 projectile.If you want to penitrate a target and take it out(human), mix in armor pierceing and ball ammo in the mag on a 7.62 rifle. (Thats why i loved the m-60 i carried in the nam). If you need to hammer through a block wall follow the above instructions on the 7.62.Semper Fi.A Former Marine /Vietnam vet.
re knock-down power “The .12 [beanbag] pushed it [a target on rollers] over a 2 foot distance before it hit the wall behind it.“
That’s good. Did you walk up and see how much of a shove with a hand you needed to make it roll 2 feet back. I’ll bet not much of a shove was needed.
Knock-down doesn’t come from momentum, it comes from shock and automatic nervous system responses to “fall down” when damaged.
I think that we will have 223 for another decade or two, then 308 will be used a little more.
Semper Fi
I also hope that the US and NATO stick with the American type weapons instead of some AK type thing.
Hoorah
To me, the best option at the moment seems to be the Busyhmaster ACR. It is modular system, which the Army is always talking about, and from reviews of people who have shot it, they love it. However I have a feeling we will just stick with Colt because that is how it always works out.
You know I used to say the Bushmaster ACR in 6.8mm would be a good choice to replace the M16/M4. But after reading up more on other calibers, I would now have to say the Bushmaster ACR in 6.5 Grendel would be the best possible choice.
I too though of the FN-SCAR if it is in 7.62x51mm or 6.8mm is another question, I would go for the 6.8 if I was the US board, but there is nothing wrong in having 6.8mm’s or 6.5 grendels. (a tuned up 5.56mm SCAR, the 6.8mm is very good because it is very easy to convert existing 5.56NATO caliber guns into the 6.8mm, it was intentionally designed for that purpoce).
If not the SCAR, then the gun I saw on discovery channels future weapons, where Mac shot a gun he called the 416, it had exellent performance in 5.56mm, (read, converted to 6.8mm), and had a system where the gasses didnt get into the bolt, infact the system operator gave Mac The part with the firing pin in it after firing about 30rounds full auto, and it was completely cool!
It looked kind of like the SigSauer 5.56mm assault rifle, or the Barrett 6.8mm (these two come to my mind if not the SCAR). But hey, the good old AR based system in a ‘6.something’, or 7.62x51mm is just as effective!
But the Sig, Barrett and FN-scar all have a non direct flow of gasses, so that fouling and heating isnt as rapid as in the traditional ar-15 model.
The AK-74 is good on that account, very easy to clean ect…
Vitor,
I don’t know what education you’ve had as far as weapons, but what you’ve described is pretty much how every gas-operated weapon works. I looked up the VHS and it’s pretty good, I really like the bull-pup design. But it’s still a 5.56 NATO platform, which is, I think, a major deciding factor when considering any weapon, including the M-16 and, invariably, the M-4. Definitely think the FN SCAR should win.
The evolution of rifle calibers in the military reminds me of the way cars evolved in the past 50 years.
You had the old cars from the 50’s that were big, loud and HEAVY that everyone loved! These to represent the 7.62
Then the gas crisis hit in the 70’s and the cars changed to small and light (5.56)
Now that we have better computers and design software, we can design a better caliber that has the benefits of both. I can’t see why an intermediate caliber shouldn’t be used. The benefits of the 6.8 and 6.5 look great. I think we need to get away from the old and improve the calibers we use. I’m not saying we should throw out the .308, but we should not be using this as our main battle rifle caliber.
Another vote for the 6.5 Grendel, but that will prolly never happen.
Let’s hope LSAT looks beyond 5.56 for its projectiles. 6.5 bullets have a Sectional Density that even the gods envy.
Er without trying to burst your balloon, and correct me if I am wrong, the U.S. military has never asked Colt to design a piston rod sytem for the M16/M4. Until that happens, and Colt do have one, this whole argument is just pissing into the wind.
The 6.5 or 6.8mm ain’t gonna happen because the 77grain 5.56 v 45mm cartridge is type certified, and is already in the system. people just need to get it through to the Congress to get it issued more widely.
Also NATO might be pissed of if the US goes to a high pressure round, which could have dificult pressure uissues in hot climates, whern the Btitish/Belgian 7mm got kicked on its head by the US in 1951/52. The difference in ballistics between it and the 6.8mm Grendel are miniscule.
And before you have a go at your European Allies, most countries that support the U.S. have gone to 5.56mm NATO. A great way to piss off your friends and allies after a very expensive upgrading of weapons and ammunition.
Unlike some of you “expert”, I am willing to admit that I haven’t had any combat experiance to base my opinions on. However, I am a student of military history, so you might want to concider what I have to say.
Knock-down Power: Way back when in the early 1900’s we were envolved in what is now known as the Spanish American War. Afterwards our troops were sent to the Phillipines and were tasked with the pacification of the Moro Tribe on the isle of Mindinao. As I recall the troops were armed with .38 cal. hand weapons along with their rifles. When anbushed by the Moros many of the initial survivors were killed when their attackers, when hit by numerious .38 cal rounds continued their attack and butchered the troops with their matchettes. It was in the search for a better round to replace the woefully inadiguitew .38 that the term “knock-down power” entered the venacular. In fact the .45 was adopted since it would “knock-down” an assalant who was high on narcotics and, at the same time, remove his ability to continue the fight. That dear fellows is what is meant by the phrase “knock-down power.” TO TAKE A MAn OUT OF THEFIGHT WHEN YOU HIT HIM. (Period)
Now as to what would constitute the best combat round, I wouldn’t hazard a guess. There seem to be two schools of thought on the matter. Is it better to wound an opponant, thus reguiring 2–3 others to take care of him, or simply to kill him out-right. I think the answer to that question should take into account the culture of the oppsition. It seems to my that it depends on the value they place on the lives of their soldiers. If they are like us, then wounding is perferable, but if they don’t care, then it doesn’t matter in the short term. In the long term, merely wounding them will enable them with more experianced troops to throw at us in latter ingagements. Think about it!
The diference between the Grendel and the SPC are minuscule? At short range yes…but past 400 yards the Grendel is clearly superior. Suppose they generate exactly the same initial muzzle energy, just the fact that the Grendel has a much better aerodynamic and very high BC (even higher than a match 7.62) means that the Grendel will waste much less energy on air friction than the SPC.
Just bring the Kriss Super V
I contend the US service rifle should be a product of a US manufacturer. We must maintain and support our own industries. As far as the below comment,
…There seem to be two schools of thought on the matter. Is it better to wound an opponant, thus reguiring 2–3 others to take care of him, or simply to kill him out-right. I think the answer to that question should take into account the culture of the oppsition. It seems to my that it depends on the value they place on the lives of their soldiers. If they are like us, then wounding is perferable, but if they don’t care, then it doesn’t matter in the short term. In the long term, merely wounding them will enable them with more experianced troops to throw at us in latter ingagements…
If we continue in a Counter Insurgency (COIN) environment, especially in urban areas, we cannot afford wounded enemy “soldiers” lying around cleared buildings. So the caliber of round must be lethal enough to drop them with one shot.
I am a proponent of the Barrett upper receiver with the hot 6.5 or 6.8 mm round.
BLUF-lets make a decision and put it in our soldiers hands. After all, in an all volunteer force; multiple rotations with superior weaponry extends the odds of survival!
Theres nothing wrong with today’s AR 15/ A-4 ‚its not the Nam’ era one.You just have to know the weapon and how to keep it funtioning,training is lacking on that especialy in National Guardsmen, the bullet is light yes ‚but fast for terminal damage, with steel core ammo it does penatrate well ‚just not a block wall. But if I was going into battle ‚Id have a .308 ‚M-14 type,but then its not good in building clearing, too heavy,too long. The A-4 rules there. If you have 12 soldiers you should not have 12 rifles the same,but a mix of battle rifles.The new 6.8 cal is NOT a .308 replacment at all,unless your always up close with the enemy.
Sometimes you need to shoot a heavy bullet 400–500 yardsor more, The 6.8 110 grain bullet drops 62 ” at 500 yd, the 308 47″ with 150 gr bullet. Stick with the .308! We need firepower
Stopping power is more a function of the location of the hit, the distance, barrel length and cartridge than of mere “5.56m“m” or “7.62mm”.
Some 7.672NATO cartridges are crap and have no more stopping power than pistol cartridges.
Fackler’s studies and this http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf should help to understand that.
The ideal caliber for standard infantry weapons is generally agreed to be anywhere from 6mm to 7mm. The upper end means more effect, the middle range tends to be best for long range (designated marksman), the lower end is the best compromise if you have headaches about cartridge weight.
Neither 6.8 nor 6.5mm are really perfect as a new standard for the next decades — .
http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/gunstuff/12_fa02.pdf
Sadly, we all have to get over our denial and reallistically expect that we will be stuck with another five-five-six fisco. We have to face the facts: our government doesn’t listen … period. Regardless, we are stuck in a bad marriage, and divorce is not an option. By our oathes of enlistment (commissions, too) we have to be loyal to a government that has repeatedly been unloyal to us — political liberalism are the only doctrines they embrace. Our government will never be interested in giving us anything better than the M4/M16 5.56mm fiasco series; Uncle Sam alway caters to the lowest common denominator. We will be stuck with our 22-caliber rifles until the Lord comes again at the Rapture.
The US is stuck with the 5.56. A gas/piston system would be more reliable, but the round is not good in close. Most of our future conflicts will be in urban environs, and the 6.8mm or 6.5 Grendel would be more effective. Hell, I would rather have a Thompson than a 5.56 carbine in a street fight.
Proper shot placement is more important than stopping power, regardless of the weapons platform used. Practice, practice, practice…that’s the key whether you are shooting the 5.56, 7.62, 9mm, or 6.8.… If you don’t believe that is true, then you need to rethink your tactics and get more range time.
Killing the enemy is the priority! Marksmanship is key! The ideal is one shot one kill. A larger caliber kills better. You need something that penetrates and does as much damage as possible. Larger calibers do this; smaller ones do not.
Effective range is a consideration. You need to kill both close up and at distance. Larger calibers do this better than smaller ones.
On a personal note I would rather have a larger caliber than a smaller one.
If you had a 5.56 and I had a .3006 I could laugh at you from 500+ yards and if needed kill you even if you were behind a tree! You would have no chance at all.
SCAR has nothing over the ACR
But the ACR does have alot over the SCAR
Its a clear winner if it comes out lol
Check out the vids on the HK 416. Its a complete badass in it’s testing. But I would still prefer to have the 417, its badasser.
I say that he M8 or its prototype version the XM8 will be a perfect safe and reliable weapon to replace the M4 its modifications and reliability will top its rate of performance in any weapons race. I give a full 5 stars !*****!