AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army looking for M4 replacement (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 9/23/2008 5:48:49 AM EDT
|
so it seems the Army is serious this time. They will have a shootoff and all manufacturers are welcome. They claim they are not stuck on any particular cartridge. What do you think the replacement should be? |
This might be good timing for the Magpul Masada / Bushmaster ACR - assuming it's all it's cracked up to be. |
IIRC, they were serious about the Joint pistol trials too. I think they want to see what`s available without spending any development dollars. I don`t see the army making a significant change anytime soon. I think the 6.8 SPC has potential if they go for a caliber change.
|
+1 Piston operated M4's in 6.8SPC Retrofit newer M4's in service and replace the older ones. Jay |
|
Why do ya'll like the 6.8 so much? I just found some more charts in the variants section of the forums and it looks like relatively speaking the 6.5 grendel out performs in most cases...though I could be reading them wrong - having to minimize alot at work. And explain to me this: why is it that many countries have gone to even smaller calibers over the years (ie ak74, german g11, p90) instead of back to something like an MBR? I'm actually curious, and not using that as an arguing point. |
I agree. For those who haven't seen it... www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJhPMIVgF6c Erik |
|
While everyone is invited to the party, I really cannot see the big grey machine moving away from the AR platform. The ACR and SCAR are very cool and definitely have their applications, but I just don't see the Army funding a complete refitting of their trigger-pullers. If anything, I would put my money on a piston-operated AR variant. Right now, it looks like the top of the piston tree is Hk and LWRCI. The Hk416 and LWRCI M6 series can be retrofit operations for the Army's existing weapons; either by supplying new uppers or piston kits that would replace parts in M4's. I highly doubt that the Big Army will move out of this platform. It's just too many $$$'s. As much as I would love to see them adopt a 6.8 SPC (and this would be a great opportunity to do it), you have to remember that this is a bigger change than just the Army. If Army adopts 6.8, so does every other service branch. It would just be too hard and expensive (not to mention a logistical nightmare) to have two standard primary cartridges in inventory. Let's not forget that the 5.56mm is the NATO standard as well. That means that if we switch, everyone else in NATO has to follow suit. |
|
Good grief, this again. There's at least one other thread abut this topic... www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=395832 |
|
If Bushmaster were to win a military contract, Remington who owns them would spend the money to get them up spec. I'm sure they'd be able to do whatever quality control is necessary, source whatever steel and parts etc to comply with the military specifications. Bushmaster doesn't do all of these things on their civilian guns not because they can't, but because they don't want to. Big difference. After all, what expertise did Colt have in building M16's before they build M16's for the government? |
Well I have my .002 cents but I put them in the other thread exactly like this. Please use the search button.  OTHER THREAD HERE No offense but we don't need two exact threads. 
|
|
As much as I like the Mk262, I dont' see it happening. Troops still have a requirement for pentrating light cover and obstacles. Another issue is then the SAW M249 would also require rechambering or replacement. That is way when the SS109 was adopted as the M855 cartridge we then adopted the M16A2 at the same time. Several factors to consider. I would like to see the 6.8 SPC get adopted but then again would have to have linked ammo (one thing I believe the 6.5 is short on) for a light machine gun/SAW and a long range armor peircing round. CD |
| there is nothing wrong with the M4,maybe an upgrade in ammo or caliber ,but the rifle is GTG. at this time we are have some cash flow problems if you haven't noticed ,so spending a bunch on a new rifle that MAY be slightly better is not something we should do . Damn I'm starting to sound like my ex wife . |
|
No matter how good the ACR is, there is no way it will ever replace the M16 family. Colt and FN both have way more connections, lobbies and leverage. Also, both concerns have proven they can make excellent small arms for the US military and both have similar/comperable/superior weapons/alternatives to both the M4 and ACR. Even H&K hasn't had the connections to break into a big-time contract and certainly everyone can agree that its not because of the quality of thier weapons. H&K has literally been shunned every single time they have entered a serious trial. Even with all the Mk23's, G36's, 416's, MP5's, MSG90A1's and other weapons they have sold to the DoD, its a drop in the bucket compared to all the M16's Colt and FN have sold them. SOCOM and the USMC wanted a replacement for the M21/M25 legacy system and H&K submitted the MSG90, which tested very successfully and was subsequently adopted as the MSG90A1. Only to be later replaced by the SR25 series which remains problematic even to this day. Testers at Aberdeen disassembled the trigger pack on the H&K23, reassembled it incorrectly and then deemed the weapon unsafe. FN steps in with the Minimi which is heavy, complex and not world beating in terms of reliability. These are just a few examples, but H&K and others*just ask Alex Robinson* haven't always received a fair shake in US small arms trials. Also consider the state of the US government and the small arms system. The US has one of the worst records in small arms adoption and development. We have made poor choice after poor choice. Nobody/nothing is perfect, but there is a serious pattern of bad mistakes and doing the wrong thing. This history starts around the second American revolution and extends until today. Why would the bungling stop today? Also, the economic woes are just starting and have yet to hit rock bottom. There won't be a new infantry rifle in the US because of the current economic reasons alone... MacArthur nixed the .276 Pederson because of the stockpile of 30.06 ammo availible. While we don't have a huge surplus of 5.56x45 ammo anymore, we have an infinite amount more 5.56x45 than we do 6.8SPC or something else. With NATO still relevant, our obligations intact and new members coming up to speed, 5.56x45 will be the standard issue caliber for the forseeable future. Mk262 is a specialty round at best and while being more accurate/lethal, its hardly the best "multipurpose combat round". SOCOM's new Barnes TSX load would be a far better choice, but still probably not a better "multipurpose combat round" than M855. 6.8SPC is hardly the best choice for a new caliber. It was simply a reasonably availible, field expedient "upgrade". Certainly, a protracted cartridge development program could yield some impressive results. It worked for the Chinese anyhow, and thier new 5.8 is the best thing going...The official interest in 6.8 SPC is really small and will likely be limited to guns like the Mk18, if it has much of a military future at all...The larger caliber offers an increase in performance over 5.56 given the platform, especially in suppressed applications. In any event, if there is to be a replacement for the legacy system it would more likely than not follow the natural progression of the M16. This will be the most cost effective solution and the military has proven that they are fond of this weapon and believe its worth while to upgrade. An op-rod upper/magazine upgrade would dramatically reduce the cost of the program and provide a favorable cost/performance ratio. Testing has already shown that these uppers have thier place and the continue to evolve and improve. A development program would make for an even better system. While the SCAR has the best chance of any weapon of replacing the legacy system, the better choice is likely an upper/magazine upgrade. Be it the H&K 416, Colt 1050 or something else, it will likely be a carbine length barrel. This conflict has definatly shown how antiquated a full sized infantry rifle is and how valuable the carbine is in MOUT settings. A 16 inch H&K416 upper kit with a PMAG, shooting SOCOM's Barnes TSX load would definatly be an improvement. Never happen though... |
| As cool as the masada seems to be, I just don't see the military switching to that platform because of cost. I think Magpul will have those rifles too high priced and that's the reason why they won't go with Magpul plus I think they need alittle stronger round than the standard nato round. Yes I know it can also shoot 7.62 x 39 but I think the military will go with 6.8 rifle round instead of a whole new rifle. |
|
HK haven't failed every single military trial/application! What about the refit of the SA80A2, which is now probably the most reliable and best performing rifle in a military application. I can tell you from experience, the british army like HK, and those A2's have got HK stamped all over them. I never had mine jam, or seize, or anything else. HK have shown they can outfit entire armies before, and I can see HK being the most likely candidate should a new manufacturer be chosen. (I agree that Colt and FN have strings to pull, but then again - they dont have any other types of new weapon system or caliber change parts, and with a war on probably haven't had time to create any!) Just my opinion. |
I thought in certain specialized units they already had adopted the 6.8. I would think the 6.8 is what many in the armed forces will be pulling for. As for the Bushmaster ACR, I'm sure it's a great rifle but it has yet to be proven and that might be a hangup with the decision. Personally from what I've seen, it's pretty nice and very versitile. But I agree with others here, the military has A LOT of money invested in a very nice platform in the M16/M4 and I don't see them just dumping that for something completely new, I think it would be more likely that we'll see them pick up a new caliber and stick with the M4 system. |
This would work but the MK262 bullets are expensive. It would be easier to make the jacket on M855 thinner. My idea is to change the penetrator from steel to a hard aluminum alloy. You could then either keep penetrator the same size or the same weight. If it's the same size the bullet would yaw faster because the center of gravity would be further back than it is now. Plus being lighter it would be faster. If you keep it the same weight the bullet would be longer and thus would also yaw quicker. But being the same weight the speed would be about the same and thus optics with range indicators would still work. The sad part of my plan is that although you could have a thousand bullets of each type custom made and run a full comparison test for a less than $100k and be complete in a few months, the government is so brueogractic and inefficent that it would take a couple of years and a couple million dollars to actually happen. So we'll never know if a simple low cost solution will work. |
I say just the opposite! I'd hand the engineers and AKM in 5.56 and tell them to make one no more than 7lbs unloaded and shoot 4moa or less without losing any of the AK's reliability. Then make it modular as far as rails and right/left preferences. Then design a nato spec magazine thats more durable than what we use now and can be put into a closed bolt with 30rnds in it. Shouldn't be that hard. Ron3 |
|
Something that shoots lasers. They shouldnt change shit until we are out of a War and people can be properly trained with the new weapon, and to make sure it is a GI-proof reliable weapon. If they were to change anything RIGHT now just switch to piston uppers but it is not necessary. I say hold out until we have something revolutionary. |
+1..The cheaper more sensible route and IMHO a FAR MORE EFFECTIVE ROUND. The nay sayers can trash 5.56mm all the day long but I would be willing to bet Mk262 as the standard round would silence them.
|
|
After seeing the American Rifleman article on the LSAT light machine gun and it's plastic casing's, my guess is that they will struggle on with the M-4 platform, then make a major change in about a decade. There really isn't a reason to switch rifle's until there is some major breakthrough in ammo and the 6.8mm isn't it. |
Or Mk262 with a hybrid steal core.
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Army looking for M4 replacement (Page 1 of 3)
AR Sponsor