<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: M4 Replacement Initiative Moves Forward (Slowly)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/</link>
	<description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 04:14:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198053</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198053</guid>
		<description>The military needs an assault carbine or CBQ weapon to replace the M4.  A weapon such as LWRCI M6A2 caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC with military grade 10.5&quot; and 12.7&quot; barrel at less than 7.3 lb empty.  Also available is the LWRCI M6A1 caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with military grade 10.5&quot; or 12.7&quot; barrel at less than 7.3 lb empty and a length of 33.3&quot; for the 10.5&quot; barrel. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The military needs an assault carbine or CBQ weapon to replace the M4.  A weapon such as LWRCI M6A2 caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC with military grade 10.5″ and 12.7″ barrel at less than 7.3 lb empty.  Also available is the LWRCI M6A1 caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with military grade 10.5″ or 12.7″ barrel at less than 7.3 lb empty and a length of 33.3″ for the 10.5″ barrel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198058</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:12:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198058</guid>
		<description>In World War II and the Korean War we fielded a variety of small arms platforms and for good reason. Having different small arms using different calibers of ammunition caused logistical problems for the military. However, it was widely understood that battle field conditions required different small arms solutions.  Some of these weapons were the M1 Garand, M1A Carbine .30 Caliber, Thompson sub-machine gun, M3 sub-machine gun (grease gun), BAR M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, M1917A1 Browning machine gun, M1919 Browning machine gun, M2 Browning .50 Caliber machine gun, and the M1911A1 Browning .45 ACP pistol.   There were a few other specialty weapons which were used but the ones listed above formed our common small arm weapons during World War II. They worked and that&#8217;s why they are still venerated till this day. 
Spec Ops small arm platforms and caliber requirements may be used as our baseline to this day. 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In World War II and the Korean War we fielded a variety of small arms platforms and for good reason. Having different small arms using different calibers of ammunition caused logistical problems for the military. However, it was widely understood that battle field conditions required different small arms solutions.  Some of these weapons were the M1 Garand, M1A Carbine .30 Caliber, Thompson sub-machine gun, M3 sub-machine gun (grease gun), BAR M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, M1917A1 Browning machine gun, M1919 Browning machine gun, M2 Browning .50 Caliber machine gun, and the M1911A1 Browning .45 ACP pistol.   There were a few other specialty weapons which were used but the ones listed above formed our common small arm weapons during World War II. They worked and that’s why they are still venerated till this day.<br />
Spec Ops small arm platforms and caliber requirements may be used as our baseline to this day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198057</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:10:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198057</guid>
		<description>Pentagon bureaucracy and Congressional Committees&#8217; gridlock hold up Defense Department Small Arms Technology Strategy. 
Current U.S. Military standard assault rifle and carbine technology is forty years old and in need of replacing. 
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with carbine and assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.    
When studying small arms weapons of previous military conflicts there may be merit in that one weapon will not be the best tool for a variety of combat situations. If we conclude the military may need multiple firearms we must also consider the impact to our light machine guns. 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pentagon bureaucracy and Congressional Committees’ gridlock hold up Defense Department Small Arms Technology Strategy.<br />
Current U.S. Military standard assault rifle and carbine technology is forty years old and in need of replacing.<br />
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with carbine and assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.<br />
When studying small arms weapons of previous military conflicts there may be merit in that one weapon will not be the best tool for a variety of combat situations. If we conclude the military may need multiple firearms we must also consider the impact to our light machine guns.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198055</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:05:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198055</guid>
		<description>But the military may have to replace the light machine gun squad automatic weapon M429 caliber 5.56X51mm NATO. This would become a serious ammunition logistic problem being the only weapon to retain the 5.56X51mm NATO round. I believe a new light machine gun squad automatic weapon in caliber 6.8 Remington SPC would have to replace the M429. It is possible that a Barrett assault rifle REC7, (formally the M468), caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with a light machine gun heavier military grade 16&quot; barrel may be enough. The down side is the weapon would be clip feed instead of belt fed. However, with the additional fire power of the new assault weapons this may be sufficient if the upper receiver was better designed to fire full auto more than the base REC7 model. The new light machine gun could share clips with the REC7 model.  
One contentious point may be the merits of the 6.5mm Grendel Caliber verses the 6.8 Remington SPC. 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But the military may have to replace the light machine gun squad automatic weapon M429 caliber 5.56X51mm NATO. This would become a serious ammunition logistic problem being the only weapon to retain the 5.56X51mm NATO round. I believe a new light machine gun squad automatic weapon in caliber 6.8 Remington SPC would have to replace the M429. It is possible that a Barrett assault rifle REC7, (formally the M468), caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with a light machine gun heavier military grade 16″ barrel may be enough. The down side is the weapon would be clip feed instead of belt fed. However, with the additional fire power of the new assault weapons this may be sufficient if the upper receiver was better designed to fire full auto more than the base REC7 model. The new light machine gun could share clips with the REC7 model.<br />
One contentious point may be the merits of the 6.5mm Grendel Caliber verses the 6.8 Remington SPC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198054</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198054</guid>
		<description>The military should keep a M420B type infantry medium machine gun caliber 7.62X51mm NATO. I believe it should be a medium machine gun crew served weapon. The M420C vehicle and M420D/H aircraft mounted and egress versions would be retained as well. The Marine Corp should keep a M420G type infantry medium machine gun ground version of the M240/M240E1 light armored vehicle mounted version. This weapon should be tough with a reliable and beefier grade mil spec belt feeding mechanism and a military heavy machine gun barrel.   </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The military should keep a M420B type infantry medium machine gun caliber 7.62X51mm NATO. I believe it should be a medium machine gun crew served weapon. The M420C vehicle and M420D/H aircraft mounted and egress versions would be retained as well. The Marine Corp should keep a M420G type infantry medium machine gun ground version of the M240/M240E1 light armored vehicle mounted version. This weapon should be tough with a reliable and beefier grade mil spec belt feeding mechanism and a military heavy machine gun barrel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198052</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198052</guid>
		<description>The military needs an assault weapon to replace the M16/M4 with a 5.56X45mm NATO round that goes straight through human targets, with no cavitations, and minimal stopping power all because of the United Nations prohibition of the original 55 grain 5.56 bullet. Spec Ops has been working with the 6.8 Remington SPC to replace or augment the 5.56X51mm round. I believe it&#8217;s time we give our troops assault rifles with stopping power. Perhaps something such as Barrett assault rifle REC7, (formally the M468), caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with a military grade 16&quot; barrel at 7.2 lb empty and length 35.5&quot;. This weapon may be reconfigured as a Personal Defense Weapon or CBQ weapon with a 12&quot; barrel. An additional candidate would be the LWRCI M6A2 caliber 6.8 Remington SPC composite with a military grade 14.7&quot; or 16.1&quot; barrel at 7.3 lb empty and length 36.5&quot;.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The military needs an assault weapon to replace the M16/M4 with a 5.56X45mm NATO round that goes straight through human targets, with no cavitations, and minimal stopping power all because of the United Nations prohibition of the original 55 grain 5.56 bullet. Spec Ops has been working with the 6.8 Remington SPC to replace or augment the 5.56X51mm round. I believe it’s time we give our troops assault rifles with stopping power. Perhaps something such as Barrett assault rifle REC7, (formally the M468), caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with a military grade 16″ barrel at 7.2 lb empty and length 35.5″. This weapon may be reconfigured as a Personal Defense Weapon or CBQ weapon with a 12″ barrel. An additional candidate would be the LWRCI M6A2 caliber 6.8 Remington SPC composite with a military grade 14.7″ or 16.1″ barrel at 7.3 lb empty and length 36.5″.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198050</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198050</guid>
		<description>Spec Ops small arm platforms and caliber requirements may be used as our baseline to this day. 
The military needs a true battle rifle. The M14 is too heavy for troops continually on the move but may be fine for Naval Vessels. Instead we need something much lighter similar to the Springfield Armory MA9827 M1A caliber 7.62X51mm NATO composite with a military grade 22&quot; barrel at 11 lb empty and length of 44.3&quot;. 
The military needs a truly tough Scout rifle for the same reasons hunters, ranchers, and farmers need them. Need for a rifle to carry anywhere and perform on open ground, rolling hills, and in the mountains with range differences and rough terrain. A lighter and shorter battle rifle could be like a Springfield Armory Scout Squad AA9126 caliber 7.62X51 NATO composite with a military grade 18&quot; barrel at 9 lb empty and length of 40.3&quot;. This rifle is for humping while still being able to reach out and touch targets at good distances. 
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Spec Ops small arm platforms and caliber requirements may be used as our baseline to this day.<br />
The military needs a true battle rifle. The M14 is too heavy for troops continually on the move but may be fine for Naval Vessels. Instead we need something much lighter similar to the Springfield Armory MA9827 M1A caliber 7.62X51mm NATO composite with a military grade 22″ barrel at 11 lb empty and length of 44.3″.<br />
The military needs a truly tough Scout rifle for the same reasons hunters, ranchers, and farmers need them. Need for a rifle to carry anywhere and perform on open ground, rolling hills, and in the mountains with range differences and rough terrain. A lighter and shorter battle rifle could be like a Springfield Armory Scout Squad AA9126 caliber 7.62X51 NATO composite with a military grade 18″ barrel at 9 lb empty and length of 40.3″. This rifle is for humping while still being able to reach out and touch targets at good distances.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198049</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:55:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198049</guid>
		<description>In World War II and the Korean War we fielded a variety of small arms platforms and for good reason. Having different small arms using different calibers of ammunition caused logistical problems for the military. However, it was widely understood that battle field conditions required different small arms solutions.  Some of these weapons were the M1 Garand, M1A Carbine .30 Caliber, Thompson sub-machine gun, M3 sub-machine gun (grease gun), BAR M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, M1917A1 Browning machine gun, M1919 Browning machine gun, M2 Browning .50 Caliber machine gun, and the M1911A1 Browning .45 ACP pistol.   There were a few other specialty weapons which were used but the ones listed above formed our common small arm weapons during World War II. They worked and that&#8217;s why they are still venerated till this day. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In World War II and the Korean War we fielded a variety of small arms platforms and for good reason. Having different small arms using different calibers of ammunition caused logistical problems for the military. However, it was widely understood that battle field conditions required different small arms solutions.  Some of these weapons were the M1 Garand, M1A Carbine .30 Caliber, Thompson sub-machine gun, M3 sub-machine gun (grease gun), BAR M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, M1917A1 Browning machine gun, M1919 Browning machine gun, M2 Browning .50 Caliber machine gun, and the M1911A1 Browning .45 ACP pistol.   There were a few other specialty weapons which were used but the ones listed above formed our common small arm weapons during World War II. They worked and that’s why they are still venerated till this day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-198048</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 02:54:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-198048</guid>
		<description>Pentagon bureaucracy and Congressional Committees&#8217; gridlock hold up Defense Department Small Arms Technology Strategy. 
Current U.S. Military standard assault rifle and carbine technology is forty years old and in need of replacing. 
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with carbine and assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.    
When studying small arms weapons of previous military conflicts there may be merit in that one weapon will not be the best tool for a variety of combat situations. If we conclude the military may need multiple firearms we must also consider the impact to our light machine guns. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pentagon bureaucracy and Congressional Committees’ gridlock hold up Defense Department Small Arms Technology Strategy.<br />
Current U.S. Military standard assault rifle and carbine technology is forty years old and in need of replacing.<br />
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with carbine and assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.<br />
When studying small arms weapons of previous military conflicts there may be merit in that one weapon will not be the best tool for a variety of combat situations. If we conclude the military may need multiple firearms we must also consider the impact to our light machine guns.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Abrams, are beast</title>
		<link>http://defensetech.org/2008/12/11/m4-replacement-initiative-moves-forward-slowly/#comment-188900</link>
		<dc:creator>Abrams, are beast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=4236#comment-188900</guid>
		<description>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 !*****! </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 !*****!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

