Author Topic: Army M4 replacement program  (Read 8177 times)

Offline Exarach

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Brigadier General
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
    • View Profile
Re: Army M4 replacement program
« Reply #15 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
\"Friendly fire isn\'t\"
If a speeding pellet in a quiet woods hits a noob in the face, and he cries, does anyone care?

Offline buttfacedmonkey

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 164
    • View Profile
Re: Army M4 replacement program
« Reply #16 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.

"It pays to be a winner."

Offline Bob Z Moose

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • Second Lieutenant
  • *****
  • Posts: 830
  • The $$60,000,000,000 Man
    • View Profile
Re: Army M4 replacement program
« Reply #17 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.
Team Manaconda
Don't dick with us!

Offline krash

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Corporal
  • ****
  • Posts: 79
    • View Profile
Re: Army M4 replacement program
« Reply #18 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-

Offline Sgt. Soap

  • Trade Count: (-1)
  • Sergeant First Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
  • Echo 1 Stag-15 Custom
    • View Profile
Re: Army M4 replacement program
« Reply #19 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

Offline nukeduster

  • Trade Count: (+8)
  • Sergeant Major
  • *****
  • Posts: 713
    • View Profile
Re: Army M4 replacement program
« Reply #20 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...





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.

Offline SVT Cobra

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: Army M4 replacement program
« Reply #21 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/
I am the same SVT Cobra on Airsoft Retreat.