Airsoft Arizona

Off-Topic Forums => Real Firearms => Topic started by: Rogue Fox on March 19, 2013, 10:54:58 AM

Title: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Rogue Fox on March 19, 2013, 10:54:58 AM
The Army is at it again.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/army-carbine-program-may-waste-1-8-billion-report-finds.html?cmpid=yhoo

It actually does seem like a waste of money though, since we already know alot of the special forces liked to use the 416, and not many new rifles that fit the bill have come out since the last time they did this.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: buttfacedmonkey on March 19, 2013, 11:13:27 AM
It doesn't seem like a waste to me as much as bad timing. Budgets are getting cut up the wazoo, so dropping 1.8 billion right now may not be the best option. The M4, I believe based on my vast knowledge of the military (sarcasm), has proven itself to have deficiencies. I know, when maintained, M4s and most other DI ARs can be plenty reliable, but in terms of something I am counting my life, and the lives of my team, on, I want almost total reliability.

It will probably be a close battle between the MK16 and the HK416.

 
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: nukeduster on March 19, 2013, 01:50:57 PM
They are reliable when they are NOT faced with:

1.dust
2.mud
3. submersion under water without proper draining
4. extreme cold
5. rapid firing over 100 rounds
6. needing one-shot takedown power
7. needing to defeat enemies effective behind barriers
8. needing the ability to fold the stock for more agility in MOUT environments
9. needing field replaceable barrel
10. being dirty from simply being fired (gas impingement)

Those are just the things that I've seen come up in the past as short comings to the M4 compared to other platforms that already exist, platforms which have addressed any and/or all of the above listed short comings.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Mooncruiser on March 19, 2013, 02:52:57 PM
Long past time to shitcan the Jammin' Jenny. Wish the Govt. would buy American, though.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Rogue Fox on March 19, 2013, 03:13:46 PM
Long past time to shitcan the Jammin' Jenny. Wish the Govt. would buy American, though.

It'd be nice but we havent been buying american for a while, something like 75% of all our small arms are produced by FN, including our m4s/m16s.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: buttfacedmonkey on March 19, 2013, 03:22:46 PM
The M4, the M16 (somewhat), Barrett M107, MK11, M40, M14, Remmy 870, M203, and 1911 are the only man portable firearms I can think of that we use that are made domestically. Any others I missed?
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: bailey5671 on March 19, 2013, 03:25:49 PM
Isnt the reason they aren't replacing the M4s with the HK416 is the price? I hear they can get quite expensive.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: nukeduster on March 19, 2013, 03:32:32 PM
Hk416 is only like $200 more per rifle at the bulk level. However, long term the Hk416 has a much longer service interval than the M4 (something like 50k rounds vs 10k), which makes it cheaper to run long term.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: buttfacedmonkey on March 19, 2013, 03:40:11 PM
Hk416 is only like $200 more per rifle at the bulk level. However, long term the Hk416 has a much longer service interval than the M4 (something like 50k rounds vs 10k), which makes it cheaper to run long term.

I always thought the price of the HK416 was like $1000-$1400 per rifle. I know the Army gets M4s for like $600-$700 per rifle. I would assume the HK416, knowing HK, would be much more expensive.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Bob Z Moose on March 19, 2013, 04:06:46 PM
Ah, the good, ol' fashion "M4s suck" thread. Been wondering why I haven't seen one on AA yet...

Honestly, fighting over a replacement should be moot. I don't see why the improvements that we've enjoyed on the civilian/LE side of the equation shouldn't transfer to the military side. Piston driven? Why not?

I'll be really surprised if they keep the 5.56 as the issue chamber (or at least I hope they don't). It's great again coyotes, though.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: PhoenixShadowCompany on March 19, 2013, 04:37:46 PM
The m4 with the 5.56 is still a great weapon. The problem we have now os that more than 3/4 of the ones currently issued are over 20 years old and there is a good chance they have boot been re- lined which can accounts for a good chunk of the problems. My roommate shot national match for several years without ever cleaning it and still could hold am accurate shot. Joey and Jason over at king Armory did a dirt test on several stock and several hand built ar's and they still worked, however had these rifles not been maintained like you would with any other gun then you have the problems you hear so often about. On a side note tight tolerances on a firearm is not always a good thing. Ar's/ m4's with more slop tend to jam allot less, this again applies to all firearms. Now being that I have worked on a near56 I can tell you this. It's no different than am Adams arms piston kit and the short stroke pistons fail a hell of allot than you think. If you want a piston system the only way to go is long stroke. On another side note. ALL piston system firearms inherit the same problem. Increases barrel harmonics due to the moving of the piston which causes a decrease on overall accuracy, this is one of the reasons the us military has been skeptical about adopting them. You can make an accurate piston firearm but a di can always be made better.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: XavierMace on March 19, 2013, 05:40:18 PM
Long past time to shitcan the Jammin' Jenny. Wish the Govt. would buy American, though.

I'd be all for that if, the overseas stuff wasn't better.  FN all the way.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Mooncruiser on March 19, 2013, 05:48:29 PM
Yeah. It's a bitch that U.S. Made can't be Best Made.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: xXmusicimpactXx on March 20, 2013, 12:54:50 AM
Anybody remember the M468? Seemed like the ultimate compromise to me...
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: nukeduster on March 21, 2013, 10:55:14 AM
The 5.56 is a great round, as someone said, against coyotes. Ask someone who has BTDT, 9mm and 5.56 both suck at initial take down power. Sure, you can kill someone with a single shot, but they won't be immediately out of the fight.

Remember talked to an SAS guy back in the day who was responding to a situation where a guy, who was not on drugs, took over 30 rounds center mass with 9mm, and he was still running away. Sure, he was already dead, but his brain didn't yet know it. Took a sledge hammer to his face in order to take the guy down.

Heard similar stories about 5.56, taking 4+ shots to effectively eliminate a threat.

Never heard of the same problem using 6.8spc or 7.62(x39 or x51).

The M468 is basically a Barret made M4, which they themselves stopped attempting to promote for military use since it still used DI and was largely no better than a run of the mill M4. Their latest hedge for military adaptation is the REC7.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Exarach on March 21, 2013, 03:44:49 PM
Military rifle? Why no 7.62?

Imagine if they could do for a rifle in 7.62 what the Kriss did to .45 hahah

7.62 that recoils like a 5.56........I will take that!

The FN FAL is still considered one of the better combat rifles, though that thing is an exercise in itself to carry and use. I would say the same of the M14.

Just don't make it made by the lowest bidder, and let HK touch it. And you will be fine
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: buttfacedmonkey on March 21, 2013, 05:24:33 PM
The reason why we have 5.56 (from what I've read) is because it is sometimes better to maim than to kill. Once someone is killed, you can pick up the body and equipment when you have the time. If you simply incapacitate someone to the point where they are no longer combat effective, you are now making the enemy have to drag that injured from the immediate threat, provide medical care, remove the wounded from the battlefield in a timely manner (before they bleed out), and burn up medical supplies, food, water, space, man power, and time.

In terms of killing power (especially at range), the 7.62 is superior. In terms of doing maximum damage to the opposing force in every sense, smaller calibers may be a smarter option. Not to mention the savings on weight, recoil, and overall material cost. There are still obvious liabilities to this tactic, this has obviously proven itself over time.

Even Russia, China, and North Korea have adopted this tactic with the AK-74 and QBZ-95.

The caliber, in my opinion (being 16, it is probably not a very valid one), is fine. The rifle is what needs to change.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Bob Z Moose on March 21, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Yeah, I've heard the "designed to maim" urban legend spouted by people much older and wiser than you, kiddo. It ain't a thing. :)

The story goes (or so I remember it) that the Army wanted an assault rifle caliber and settled on a hyper velocity 22. Ammo would be light and the soldier could carry a shit ton of it. Of course, the Army had its mind set at that point and they wouldn't let bad primers, unsuitable powder, or terrible ballistics tell them otherwise (at least until the end of Vietnam, anyways).

Caliber does need to be changed. 7.62 is overkill. The NATO round will bust through a brick wall and still kill, not good in urban warfare. The 7.62 Soviet has awful ballistics past 100 yards. Someone n here suggested the 6.8. That's probably the best of both worlds. Great mass, decent ballistics, and plenty of speed. Best thing is that it will feed out of STANAG magazines. Wouldn't even need to buy new rifles.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: krash on January 05, 2015, 07:12:56 PM
6.5 Grendel IF you are going to keep the Ar- M4 platform- good out to 600-800yds on man sized target and plenty of penetration to get into and through stuff-
or M14 SOCOM -  with a folding stock and 4/6 X scope good enough for the grunts --done! 

BUT first we have to teach "kids"  to SHOOT  well before they go to BOOT- or worse over seas

'head shoots'  mitigate the 30 shots to the chest thing -
ONE in the brain box-  then two in the chest- Over kill?NOPE - dead is dead-
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: Sgt. Soap on February 04, 2015, 11:55:32 AM
Long past time to shitcan the Jammin' Jenny. Wish the Govt. would buy American, though.

It'd be nice but we havent been buying american for a while, something like 75% of all our small arms are produced by FN, including our m4s/m16s.
The M16A2 I had in Basic Training was an FN. I hate the M16A2 lol
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: nukeduster on February 05, 2015, 11:50:36 PM
6.5 Grendel IF you are going to keep the Ar- M4 platform- good out to 600-800yds on man sized target and plenty of penetration to get into and through stuff-
or M14 SOCOM -  with a folding stock and 4/6 X scope good enough for the grunts --done! 

BUT first we have to teach "kids"  to SHOOT  well before they go to BOOT- or worse over seas

'head shoots'  mitigate the 30 shots to the chest thing -
ONE in the brain box-  then two in the chest- Over kill?NOPE - dead is dead-

I mean, I don't really mean this to be taken offensively I suppose, but you sound like someone who plays a bit too much video games and watches a few too many Army movies, and not enough real life training and trigger time.

Also, its against the Hague convention to do headshots, as they are considered to fall under "indiscriminate fire" since the miss probability is high, and a high probability miss could result in a civilian casualty, directly against the rules of war.



These are my ammo reserves that started in Jan and will last me until about summer... I have years of training under my belt, and I still would never rely solely on hoping to get head shots. Especially when you take into it elevated heart rates, less than ideal conditions, being shot at (you're only going to shoot someone who is shooting or threatening to shoot at you, right?), distance, wind, luck...


(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15663732/RS/Jan-2015-ammo-.jpg)


Also, the magnification scope is not necessary in the Army's view.. most engagements are within 300 yards, and you can open sight that range and a scope is an added material/maintenance cost.

Also, you'd NEVER adopt a 6.5 Grendel for military or LE use. They tend to shoot out barrels after ~5-10k rounds of ammo MAX (assuming good care of the barrel).

Usable service life for a military service military service M16 is ~10-20k, for the HK416 is 50k. They wouldn't take steps back in reliability, even if it scored points in lethality. That math isn't how Congress looks at things.

They are looking like they'll eventually adopt 6.8SPC POSSIBLY, though the 300blk is so popular these days and the fact that it requires so little retooling for mags, bolts, gas system, etc, it is the most likely contender in my book.

I doubt they'll make much if any changes to big Army anytime soon in terms of cartridge though, lack of funding an all.
Title: Re: Army M4 replacement program
Post by: SVT Cobra on March 02, 2015, 11:21:45 PM
Guys,

FN America LLC, the entity that produces a large number of US M4/M16 is located in the USA and are made by American workers. The SCAR 16/17 platform is also manufactured at FN America. Also I think the HK 416/17 are produced in the USA from both American made and German made components. If the US military decides to adopt rifles from either HK or FN, America still benefits. Lastly, I think there is a law/bill that states that the majority of our small arms must be manufactured in the USA...although I don't have a source for that one...

Here are my sources
http://www.fnhusa.com/l/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR
http://hk-usa.com/hk-models/mr762a1/