User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:49:36 AM EDT
[#1]
So what? There is no doubt that there are rifles that can outperform the M4, the question is is the potential gain worth the billions of dollars it would cost to replace the M4 with something else? The answer is still no. The M4 is reliable, accurate and durable, the logistics for supporting it have been in place since the sixties. The Marksmanship programs of all our military services are based on the M16 platform of rifles, every serviceman serving today is trained and familiar with it.
Until we see a major advance in small arms technology there probably isn't going to be a compelling reason to replace what we have now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:49:42 AM EDT
[#2]
"the Army explained the cancellation by saying none of the eight showed a huge improvement over the M4."
I'm guessing it needs to be a hell of an improvement so that it's worth the cost and trouble to switch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:51:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They really should just stop wasting money on projects like this until there's something truly revolutionary nothing is going to depose the ar platform. It's earned its stripes and then some. Doesn't make sense to change anything at this point. But there are budgets that need to be burned. Use it or lose it, baby! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:52:13 AM EDT
[#4]
it was blind the whole time............
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:52:29 AM EDT
[#5]
Daewoo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:52:39 AM EDT
[#6]
SCAR for the win
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:51:32 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:56:56 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"the Army explained the cancellation by saying none of the eight showed a huge improvement over the M4." I'm guessing it needs to be a hell of an improvement so that it's worth the cost and trouble to switch. Exactly. Unless it's grounbreakingly better (a lot fewer parts, lighter, less recoil, easier manual of arms, more reliable, can serve as a floatation device, can serve as a club, can be used an emergency source of both food and fuel, can guide rounds onto target over the horizon, and has a built in radio, map, and GPS), it's just not going to be considered. Too much inertia in the existing platform to make a switch otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:58:24 AM EDT
[#9]
I can't believe the depth of derp in this thread. We all know exactly what gun C was:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:01:56 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. I would blame committee decision making and good ol' fashioned bureaucratic nonsense for this. Probably a bunch of different people all throwing their input into the initiative so they can feel like they accomplished something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:02:09 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Aside from cost a shitload more? I picked up a new fun yesterday, and the shop had a used SCAR 16 on the rack. $2450. My jaw dropped. Ouch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In before the "what does the SCAR do better than an AR" thread Aside from cost a shitload more? I picked up a new fun yesterday, and the shop had a used SCAR 16 on the rack. $2450. My jaw dropped. Ouch. Fuck. I paid less to mine new, almost 4 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:02:37 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Army is severely allergic to change. unless its uniforms then they want a different camo every other year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:05:06 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what? There is no doubt that there are rifles that can outperform the M4, the question is is the potential gain worth the billions of dollars it would cost to replace the M4 with something else? The answer is still no. The M4 is reliable, accurate and durable, the logistics for supporting it have been in place since the sixties. The Marksmanship programs of all our military services are based on the M16 platform of rifles, every serviceman serving today is trained and familiar with it. Until we see a major advance in small arms technology there probably isn't going to be a compelling reason to replace what we have now. Which army did you serve in? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:13:07 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. Unless it's grounbreakingly better (a lot fewer parts, lighter, less recoil, easier manual of arms, more reliable, can serve as a floatation device, can serve as a club, can be used an emergency source of both food and fuel, can guide rounds onto target over the horizon, and has a built in radio, map, and GPS), it's just not going to be considered. Too much inertia in the existing platform to make a switch otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"the Army explained the cancellation by saying none of the eight showed a huge improvement over the M4." I'm guessing it needs to be a hell of an improvement so that it's worth the cost and trouble to switch. Exactly. Unless it's grounbreakingly better (a lot fewer parts, lighter, less recoil, easier manual of arms, more reliable, can serve as a floatation device, can serve as a club, can be used an emergency source of both food and fuel, can guide rounds onto target over the horizon, and has a built in radio, map, and GPS), it's just not going to be considered. Too much inertia in the existing platform to make a switch otherwise. All true. You also have to wonder what the M4 could do with existing aftermarket upgrades and/or minor changes to the design. The article also mentions magazine failures which are the most obvious problem to tackle. I love it when they mention "mounting criticism from soldiers". How would opinions change when using decent mags would fix the majority of stoppages? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:14:31 AM EDT
[#15]
Meh
 The Army basically did the same/similar thing when what would replace the M14 was being evaluated. Heck, they did the same/similar thing when the Winchester model 73 was new technology.
Adopting a new weapon has aspects for consideration far beyond what does it do better than what we already got. I understand why the military is cautious about embracing "better" weapons, they just are not very good at explaining or rationalizing their hesitance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:15:39 AM EDT
[#16]
One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:21:33 AM EDT
[#17]
"This test was a measurement of Class 1 and Class 2 magazine stoppages, in which one soldier can clear the gun himself within 10 seconds or more than 10 seconds, respectively. The U.S. official said classes 1 and 2 are the most common stoppages in battle.
A third graphic shows the M4A1 performed best for Class 3 stoppages, which are more significant failures that require a specialist, or armorer, to clear. It achieved 6,000 mean rounds between failure. Gun “C” achieved about 4,500 rounds." ~ the end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:25:36 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But, ARFCOM has told me Colt is the bestest, so confused. Quote HistoryQuoted:
One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts.
You know the Green Beret may have said "Yeah I like the M4. I can slap on a MIAD, a CTR stock, put on this scope I brought from home as well as this MK. 12 upper" News Guy "He's rebuilding the gun  "
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:29:35 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Army is severely allergic to change. No, we are severly handicapped by what our great leaders in DC approves or disapproves. I will not go into specifics (as I very much can) but, when we looked into fielding a new standard issue rifle we were hit with constraints from the get go. Most likely one of the reasons, we will see a new GI pistol (Industry day was in July) before a new rifle. Bottom line, we as in the DOD analyst that do these type of things, who are all retired Soldiers are still left to the powers that be to approve or reject anyhting we research or try to field to the Army as new equipment. It could be the best thing since slided bread and all the members of the R&D or Program Managers office want it but, once it goes to DC, it can be shot down or changed by a simple civilian sitting at desks pen stroke (who most likely never served). Having said that.... the M4 didnt perform all that badly against the other systems, especially not poorly enuf to justify what some manufacturers wanted for several thousands units. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:29:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what? There is no doubt that there are rifles that can outperform the M4, the question is is the potential gain worth the billions of dollars it would cost to replace the M4 with something else? The answer is still no. The M4 is reliable, accurate and durable, the logistics for supporting it have been in place since the sixties. The Marksmanship programs of all our military services are based on the M16 platform of rifles, every serviceman serving today is trained and familiar with it. Until we see a major advance in small arms technology there probably isn't going to be a compelling reason to replace what we have now. so if the M4 were a bank, it would be 'too big to fail'? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:44:23 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. It really depends on what the procurement stated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:46:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know the Green Beret may have said "Yeah I like the M4. I can slap on a MIAD, a CTR stock, put on this scope I brought from home as well as this MK. 12 upper" News Guy "He's rebuilding the gun "Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts. You know the Green Beret may have said "Yeah I like the M4. I can slap on a MIAD, a CTR stock, put on this scope I brought from home as well as this MK. 12 upper" News Guy "He's rebuilding the gun "I've seen different stocks and grips used, but most other stuff isn't swapped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:47:10 AM EDT
[#23]
Oh, ADCOR had this in the bag!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:51:37 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which gun is "Gun C"? Has it been leaked yet? Sig 556 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:53:22 AM EDT
[#25]
Mini 14 FTw!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 4:56:37 AM EDT
[#26]
I wish the Army would pick something new. That way the A2's in my NG unit could be turned in for M4's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:04:09 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much did HK pay for this article? My first thought. Should have been the first post. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:19:34 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know the Green Beret may have said "Yeah I like the M4. I can slap on a MIAD, a CTR stock, put on this scope I brought from home as well as this MK. 12 upper" News Guy "He's rebuilding the gun "Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts.
You know the Green Beret may have said "Yeah I like the M4. I can slap on a MIAD, a CTR stock, put on this scope I brought from home as well as this MK. 12 upper" News Guy "He's rebuilding the gun "Exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:22:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig 556 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Which gun is "Gun C"? Has it been leaked yet? Sig 556 
And I'm a PROUD 556R owner, but still... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:23:33 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Outperform? Yeah sure. John Moses Browning didn't design the M4 to be outperformed by any of them heathen rifles That's right! When Jesus come over on the Mayflower he brought the rifle God intended with him! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:33:50 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, the M4 had less breakages than any other, and got second in stoppages, and it's still considered "unreliable"? If one rifle had more stoppages than another rifle, but less breakages, I'd rather have the one that I can fix on the spot. I'd not like the one that keeps going normally, but if it stops it's deadlined, if you please. And the "They were using M855A1 and we only prepared our rifles for M855." thing. Yeah. Tough shit, you're terrible at your job if you didn't think of that. No shit. "It's unfair, the Army switched to the ammo that the Army is switching to... Our rifles only work with the outdated ammo." is a shitty excuse. Not to defend the article's premise, but IIRC the Army hasn't published M855A1's chamber pressure spec, nor its pressure curve. Doctor Roberts has mentioned that this is one of M855A1's hidden weaknesses--that the Army won't release its actual operating pressures, and some indicators are that it runs at nearly 5.56mm proof-load pressure in order to get the "enhanced perdormance" compared to regular M855. Likewise, they announced the need to test with A1 only a month prior to the commencement of actual testing, and only provided 10k rounds to mfgs at that point. IIRC the spec originally called for M855 ammo compatibility, not M855A1. So they had to go back and rework systems that were presumably optimized around the existing standard of M855 ammo and its well-known performance. And with only a couple thousand rounds per test weapon (IIRC the testing called for numerous samples per competitor) to get each of them sorted out, which in the grand scheme of weapons design isn't all that much. Point is, while there probably isn't an individual carbine out there that's enough better than the M4 to merit a whole-force changeover, the Army played it kinda shifty with the way they solicited this one. 10,000 rounds should be more than enough to correctly gas a rifle that needs nothing but a tweak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:36:36 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryThat always cracks me up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:37:47 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One Green Beret said he and his colleagues, once in theater, rebuild the gun with better parts.
You know the Green Beret may have said "Yeah I like the M4. I can slap on a MIAD, a CTR stock, put on this scope I brought from home as well as this MK. 12 upper" News Guy "He's rebuilding the gun "Exactly. Yep, that's got to be it. Because Colt's dont fail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:38:58 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Length?  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Who cares? There are some things that matter more than performance. Length? I thought it was thickness that mattered more. You mean I've been lied to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:40:00 AM EDT
[#35]
And Gun C is....?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:41:50 AM EDT
[#36]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:42:22 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Army is severely allergic to change. If it's not a slam dunk benefit to spend a billion dollars replacing the M16/M4 family of weapons, then why spend it? Have the tests every few years in case the 40 watt plasma rifle comes out, but don't bother switching until then. They did it right going to the MAG58 over the M60, eventually the M16 will be replaced. If it's not equivalent to the MAG58/M60 swap, then don't bother. JMHO YMMV |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:44:34 AM EDT
[#38]
My shocked face
The M16/M4 design has been getting its ass kicked forever. Look up "Alaskan State Patrol rifle torture test" or something along those lines. It failed so miserably it's almost embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:44:54 AM EDT
[#39]
Oh goodie. Maybe it won't be a "weapon of war" any more, and all Americans will be able to own one!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:52:19 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so if the M4 were a bank, it would be 'too big to fail'? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what? There is no doubt that there are rifles that can outperform the M4, the question is is the potential gain worth the billions of dollars it would cost to replace the M4 with something else? The answer is still no. The M4 is reliable, accurate and durable, the logistics for supporting it have been in place since the sixties. The Marksmanship programs of all our military services are based on the M16 platform of rifles, every serviceman serving today is trained and familiar with it. Until we see a major advance in small arms technology there probably isn't going to be a compelling reason to replace what we have now. so if the M4 were a bank, it would be 'too big to fail'? Too big to fail, unless the correct pockets are greased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:55:43 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"the Army explained the cancellation by saying none of the eight showed a huge improvement over the M4." I'm guessing it needs to be a hell of an improvement so that it's worth the cost and trouble to switch. IIRC, they basically wanted twice the reliability of the M4. At least one of those weapons tested showed an increased reliability, but not up to the desired threshold. This is a non-story. The same media publications that love to publish exposés on the lavish spending of the evil military industrial complex publish this garbage, when it is clear the cost-benefit analysis doesn't justify the magnitude of expenses required by logistical changes, re-training, and fielding for a rifle that may be a fractional improvement over M16 derivative weapons. Twice the reliability of the M4 may seem like a bar placed way too high, but there is a reason for that. A replacement to the M4 will need to be a major upgrade in order to justify the full cost of equipping the entire mil (minus some SOCOM elements) with a new rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 5:57:20 AM EDT
[#42]
LMT, bitches!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:03:49 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And Gun C is....? VPC knows what's up! http://www.vpc.org/vulcan.htm left cold on purpose |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:10:37 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How much did HK pay for this article? I think they bought a time machine that recycles headlines from 2003. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:17:48 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder if the makers think we suck and hate us? Do you mean HK? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:23:51 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mini-14? Bingo. It'll shoot all day, but what direction is anyone's guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:24:18 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it's not a slam dunk benefit to spend a billion dollars replacing the M16/M4 family of weapons, then why spend it? Have the tests every few years in case the 40 watt plasma rifle comes out, but don't bother switching until then. They did it right going to the MAG58 over the M60, eventually the M16 will be replaced. If it's not equivalent to the MAG58/M60 swap, then don't bother. JMHO YMMV Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Army is severely allergic to change. If it's not a slam dunk benefit to spend a billion dollars replacing the M16/M4 family of weapons, then why spend it? Have the tests every few years in case the 40 watt plasma rifle comes out, but don't bother switching until then. They did it right going to the MAG58 over the M60, eventually the M16 will be replaced. If it's not equivalent to the MAG58/M60 swap, then don't bother. JMHO YMMV If, by a "few years" you mean at least ten years, cool. But dropping this cash on programs that won't end up going anywhere is a waste. Of time and money. Until the military gets serious about replacing the M16/ M4 series of guns (which I'm not convinced they need to do FWIW) they shouldn't waste their time. All MHO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:26:51 AM EDT
[#48]
There is nothing wrong with the M16/M4 platform. Just wish they would update it more to have ambidextrous controls and easier cleaning via a gas piston.
Yeah I know DI is what the great god Stoner intended and it's blasphemy to put a piston on, but it is easier to clean a piston AR15. I honestly think they don't want to invest in that leap because it would free up grunt time from cleaning their weapons and grunts would cause havoc with the free time by destroying random stuff through acts of stupidity and boredom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:27:25 AM EDT
[#49]
HK416
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2014 6:30:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is nothing wrong with the M16/M4 platform. Just wish they would update it more to have ambidextrous controls and easier cleaning via a gas piston. Yeah I know DI is what the great god Stoner intended and it's blasphemy to put a piston on, but it is easier to clean a piston AR15. I honestly think they don't want to invest in that leap because it would free up grunt time from cleaning their weapons and grunts would cause havoc with the free time by destroying random stuff through acts of stupidity and boredom. You really think another task wouldn't replace cleaning your rifle? LOL 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
