View Full Version : "Individual Carbine" competition news
The test and evaluation period for the submissions should be well under way according to the time table I read.
Anyone have news on how each are doing?
• FN FNAC (modified SCAR)
• HK416
• Remington ACR
• Beretta ARX-160
• Colt Enhanced M4
• Adcor BEAR Elite
If any of the information or results of the testing is classified, obviously, disregard this.
Failure2Stop
06-10-12, 10:11
If anyone participating in the test shared any information about it they will bee breaking the terms of an EUA, so don't hold your breath on this one.
The biggest informative step will be the down select.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I think it's noteworthy that some serious players in the industry decided not to participate.
I think it's noteworthy that some serious players in the industry decided not to participate.
Agreed. I think some companies see this as a waste of time.
At the end of the trials, they will have confirmed, yet again, that none of the latest and greatest can improve on the M4 to such a high degree as to warrant spending the time and money to issue 500,000 new weapons. None of the other branches are interested, just the Army.
Agreed. I think some companies see this as a waste of time.
At the end of the trials, they will have confirmed, yet again, that none of the latest and greatest can improve on the M4 to such a high degree as to warrant spending the time and money to issue 500,000 new weapons. None of the other branches are interested, just the Army.
I dont think thats an accurate representation at all. it's never really been about revolutionary change, it's about evolutionary change and that is needed IMO.
One of the initial disqualifiers was the ability to produce a certain amount of weapons. this essentially only leaves the big boys or those with manufacturing subcontracts in place. further, Patents mean that some features cannot be included on some weapons, so essentially this only leaves the big players with 20-30 year old technology (at best) all designed around a marginal performing round and aluminum magazine.
At no point does this process ensure that we get "the best" or even an "improved" weapon.
sorry to break it to those few remaining true believers, but the Army process is not one that encourages innovation or advancement, particularly when it comes to the small companies that are doing those things the best.
It's just another waste of time and money for a lot of companies with the end result being more gridlock around the M4.
The marines had the right idea when they "changed their squad makeup" and got the IAR. all they wanted all along was a more reliable, accurate rifle, so thats what they got.
"The winner of the competition must be a 'measurable improvement' over the M4 carbine to replace it; otherwise, the program will instead convert all M4 carbines to the enhanced version. ". - from the Wikipedia page.
In other words, they're happy to keep the M4 if nothing else wows the shit out of them. And I predict that will be the outcome.
The DoD is NOT going to spend half a billion $ + on fielding a new weapon that's "a little better"
Failure2Stop
06-14-12, 09:08
The marines had the right idea when they "changed their squad makeup" and got the IAR. all they wanted all along was a more reliable, accurate rifle, so thats what they got.
Pray tell, when did "the Marines" (capitalized) "change their squad makeup"?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
My opinion, which really means nothing, is that the M4A1 issued should be the SOPMOD Block II with the RIS II. Longer sight radius when a front sight is put on the rail and more room
Pray tell, when did "the Marines" (capitalized) "change their squad makeup"?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Duh, when they switched from muskets. Damn, I thought you knew:D
Pray tell, when did "the Marines" (capitalized) "change their squad makeup"?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
when they adopted the IAR they changed from a certain number of the 249 per unit to a larger number of the IAR, retaining less of the 249. they changed who carried what, and how they operated as a result. Some guys with M4's or 249's previously got the IAR instead.
THE POINT WAS... that if you want anything NEW or BETTER in the system you may have to be creative about how you go about it. This "competition" is not the way to do it when the game is rigged from the start.
An army essentially looking for something better than a 556 carbine by holding a "competition" open to 556 carbines, is gonna find exactly the truth they are looking for... that all 556 carbines are pretty much the same and do the same thing.
there certainly are rifles that do better in some categories or have different advantages than the M4, but none of them are enough better than the M4 to warrant a complete replacement of the system.
If they want better then they need to permit a new cartridge and mag and allow for an optimized system based on a better cartridge to be designed. THEN they would get something better. Until then...
ClearedHot
06-18-12, 02:29
dont be a dick bro, I know it's the cool thing to do on the internets, but you know what I mean. Sometimes it's just nice to have a conversation with folks without someone being anal about silly shit you know?
when they adopted the IAR they changed from a certain number of the 249 per unit to a larger number of the IAR, retaining less of the 249. they changed who carried what, and how they operated as a result. Some guys with M4's or 249's previously got the IAR instead.
THE POINT WAS... that if you want anything NEW or BETTER in the system you may have to be creative about how you go about it. This "competition" is not the way to do it when the game is rigged from the start.
An army essentially looking for something better than a 556 carbine by holding a "competition" open to 556 carbines, is gonna find exactly the truth they are looking for... that all 556 carbines are pretty much the same and do the same thing.
there certainly are rifles that do better in some categories or have different advantages than the M4, but none of them are enough better than the M4 to warrant a complete replacement of the system.
If they want better then they need to permit a new cartridge and mag and allow for an optimized system based on a better cartridge to be designed. THEN they would get something better. Until then...
The signal to noise ratio in your posts suggests to me that you are far from an SME on Marine Corps infantry TO&E. You might want to stay in your lane.
Failure2Stop
06-18-12, 14:13
dont be a dick bro, I know it's the cool thing to do on the internets, but you know what I mean. Sometimes it's just nice to have a conversation with folks without someone being anal about silly shit you know?
when they adopted the IAR they changed from a certain number of the 249 per unit to a larger number of the IAR, retaining less of the 249. they changed who carried what, and how they operated as a result. Some guys with M4's or 249's previously got the IAR instead.
I was not being a dick, my intent was to be concise with a slight edge of "you might want to check your facts on that".
The USMC infantry did not change squad composition around the IAR, the IAR was the fit to squad composition as it has existed for around 3 decades. The M249 never really fit the job of the Automatic Rifleman, which is why it was never anything more than an interim solution until the right weapon was built and adopted (IAR). During testing it was discovered that the requirements were being surpassed and that it could do more than just hose down an area. From this all kinds of discussion came about on how the IAR could potentially be distributed and employed, but there had been no change to doctrine.
Most certainly, I agree that a larger distribution and T/O change could greatly enhance capability of the rifle squad, and a creative/forward looking company/battalion commander could experiment with composition and distribution to see if these theories are transferable to modern combat.
Considering that we are still in the initial stages of IAR distribution, along with significant budget cuts, I doubt that we will see a significant alteration of squad composition in the near future.
This is a significant derail of the thread topic, but it appears that a misunderstanding of the terms and concepts has been introduced, and I greatly prefer to discuss a subject when everyone is on the same page.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
thank you for clarifying that. :)
"The winner of the competition must be a 'measurable improvement' over the M4 carbine to replace it; otherwise, the program will instead convert all M4 carbines to the enhanced version. ". - from the Wikipedia page.
In other words, they're happy to keep the M4 if nothing else wows the shit out of them. And I predict that will be the outcome.
Hmmm... Is the Carbine Competition logo a give-away?
No bullpups please.
sinlessorrow
06-22-12, 10:18
Hmmm... Is the Carbine Competition logo a give-away?
No bullpups please.
No bullpups entered.
The IC is now on stage II. Each of the 6 companies passed stage I. Stage I from what I have seen was a look at ability to manufacture, ability to mount all current things(M9, M320, M26), the cost of each rifle, and a few other things.
So every IC entry met a price that the military is willing to pay per rifle.
Stage II will be the trials of the rifle to see parts life, how it performs in dust, and adverse condition, as well as accuracy of the rifles, and etc.
While the M4A1 is a great rifle and very reliable the TDP is built using 60's materials. The PiP is failing(operating sytem and bolt carrier group PiP were cancelled) so at the end we will have a M4A1 with FF rail.
Now that we are using M855A1 bolt and barrel life are being reported as being 5,000 rounds under heavy firing schedules.
The M4 is also a 3-5moa gun, it requires more lubrication and more maintenance(parts replacement and cleaning from M855A1)
The IC IMO is the way to go. All of the IC entries are capable of 10,000 bolt and barrel life with M855A1. Every IC gun features a CHF barrel.
If we chose the IC gun we would get a gun with twice the parts life, better accuracy(2moa vs 4moa with M855), higher cook off temp, less dependent of lubrication, more resistant dirt and dust, lighter weight(7lb and under loaded) and better ergonomics.
We always want the best for our soldiers unless it moves away from the M4.
The M4A1 is a great rifle no one can deny that, but new rifles featuring modern day material are better, and I think it's time to once again have the leading small arms in the world.
The M4 is also a 3-5moa gun.
The ammunition is the bottleneck, not the gun. M855 is what's causing the guns to group at 5 MOA. An M4 is plenty capable of shooting ~1.5-2 MOA and sometimes even better, with the right ammunition.
All of the IC entries are capable of 10,000 bolt and barrel life with M855A1. Every IC gun features a CHF barrel.
Where is this number coming from? Has testing to 10,000 rounds been completed and published for any of the IC guns (in the same conditions)?
If we chose the IC gun we would get a gun with twice the parts life, better accuracy(2moa vs 4moa with M855)
Please explain how any of the other rifles are going to shoot M855 more accurately than an M4 with a FF handguard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not arguing against selecting an IC gun. I'm simply striving for accountability and accurate information.
The ammunition is the bottleneck, not the gun. M855 is what's causing the guns to group at 5 MOA. An M4 is plenty capable of shooting ~1.5-2 MOA and sometimes even better, with the right ammunition.
Where is this number coming from? Has testing to 10,000 rounds been completed and published for any of the IC guns (in the same conditions)?
Please explain how any of the other rifles are going to shoot M855 more accurately than an M4 with a FF handguard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not arguing against selecting an IC gun. I'm simply striving for accountability and accurate information.
Isn't M855 being replaced with M855A1 and if so shouldn't that be the accuracy standard being discussed here?
Thanks
Isn't M855 being replaced with M855A1 and if so shouldn't that be the accuracy standard being discussed here?
Thanks
Yes it is. I'm just used to calling it M855 still out of habit. When the A1 came out I'd still request X rounds of M855 instead of saying M855A1, as it was implied. So that carries over to type apparently. But really, it makes no difference to what I said (yes, A1 is SO FAR more accurate than M855, but it is still the limiting factor in the equation...read the M855A1 threads if you're curious why I said "so far").
So now to the point - I have no reason to believe that any of the IC guns are "more accurate" than an M4 w/ FF HG with M855A1. If scientifically sound testing has been done in a controlled environment to prove such an assertion I have not seen it. There is also no reason to assume that to be true a priori in the absense of empirical evidence.
When and if information from Phase II of testing or from some other source comes out I'll be happy to take a look and revise my position.
So, of all of the competitors who amongst them are tooled to meet the volume? No one will take a loan in this economy to expand manufacturing capability for this.
As an engineer it's "stupid" to expect the next iteration to be "light years" ahead of the current. Engineering (outside of electronics) is about "incrementalism".
I would take an "incrementally improved" mechanical product. The best modern example would be the continual improvement of the "backasswards" - or would that be "assbackwards" Porsche 911.
The test and evaluation period for the submissions should be well under way according to the time table I read.
Anyone have news on how each are doing?
• Beretta ARX-160
If any of the information or results of the testing is classified, obviously, disregard this.
Has this been announced? I have not seen anything on the ARX-160 even having been entered in the comp. I acualy thought it odd that Beretta would take a pass on this. If they are in would love a referance as I'm interested in the ARx.
sinlessorrow
06-25-12, 21:23
Has this been announced? I have not seen anything on the ARX-160 even having been entered in the comp. I acualy thought it odd that Beretta would take a pass on this. If they are in would love a referance as I'm interested in the ARx.
the beretta reps were quoted talking about how they did indeed enter the ARX-160IC and were joking about how they had to americanize it before they could enter it, but I am not sure where I read it
Ideally, I'd like to see them adopt a Colt M4 with a midlength gas system and a factory low profile gas block. That's all. No other changes.
Boom. Inherently more reliable weapon that isn't quite as punishing on its internals, and bucket loads of adaptability and customization.
sinlessorrow
06-26-12, 08:04
Ideally, I'd like to see them adopt a Colt M4 with a midlength gas system and a factory low profile gas block. That's all. No other changes.
Boom. Inherently more reliable weapon that isn't quite as punishing on its internals, and bucket loads of adaptability and customization.
The issue there is then you wouldnt be able to mount the M9, M203, M320, or M26
ICANHITHIMMAN
06-26-12, 08:16
Ideally, I'd like to see them adopt a Colt M4 with a midlength gas system and a factory low profile gas block. That's all. No other changes.
Boom. Inherently more reliable weapon that isn't quite as punishing on its internals, and bucket loads of adaptability and customization.
Is this not what the MRP, and SR15 have done? I looked at that Bear upper.
sinlessorrow
06-26-12, 16:48
So no IC thead is omplete with out pics of said rifles
Remington ACR-IC
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/6736914153_f7b572958f_b.jpg
FN FNAC
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/fnac-tfb.jpg
HK416IC
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa273/SinlesSorrow/Mobile%20Uploads/i-i12-05-032ic02.jpg
ADCOR B.E.A.R.-IC
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/470477_382006561857079_236816513_o.jpg
No pics of the Colt entry sadly
sinlessorrow
06-26-12, 17:29
Double
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=88729
Early reports are that Adcor needs to redesign their charging handle. I don't know if their FA Govt rifles are any different than their SA Civ rifles.
Also help me understand why under barrel mounted weapons like the M203 couldn't be modified to mount onto a rifle with a midlength gas system/ 13" rail.
sinlessorrow
06-27-12, 02:15
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=88729
Early reports are that Adcor needs to redesign their charging handle. I don't know if their FA Govt rifles are any different than their SA Civ rifles.
Also help me understand why under barrel mounted weapons like the M203 couldn't be modified to mount onto a rifle with a midlength gas system/ 13" rail.
Because its the Army and I doubt they would modify mounting systems, and if they did it would require $500m to do it, just look at how much they spent on an anti tilt follower
Failure2Stop
06-27-12, 09:38
the beretta reps were quoted talking about how they did indeed enter the ARX-160IC and were joking about how they had to americanize it before they could enter it, but I am not sure where I read it
Dear Beretta:
Go to hell.
Sincerely,
Jack
Dear Beretta:
Go to hell.
Sincerely,
Jack
An instructor buddy of mine has a saying; HK would be the most F*CKED UP gun company in the world if it weren't for Beretta. :lol:
C4
sinlessorrow
06-27-12, 13:58
Dear Beretta:
Go to hell.
Sincerely,
Jack
Yeah it was something like they had to modify the LOP on the stock since we like to run it fully out and needed it longer. Also had to modify barrel to be better suited for our full auto fire that we like to use.
I mean the reps were laughing but it was kind of insulting.
ICANHITHIMMAN
06-27-12, 16:30
An instructor buddy of mine has a saying; HK would be the most F*CKED UP gun company in the world if it weren't for Beretta. :lol:
C4
Grant thats out of my relm of understanding?
Grant thats out of my relm of understanding?
LOL.
C4
ICANHITHIMMAN
06-27-12, 16:32
Nice pics I realy do not like any of the rifles at all. What the deal with the forarms getting bigger and bigger? It might be just that I have never held any of them but they just looks huge.
sinlessorrow
06-27-12, 16:40
Nice pics I realy do not like any of the rifles at all. What the deal with the forarms getting bigger and bigger? It might be just that I have never held any of them but they just looks huge.
While most are actually pretty comfortable they basically say screw you thumb over the top grip....not on me!!
Most are far to tall to get a good thumb over grip, thats one thing that makes the SOPMOD Block II great the DD RIS II.
justin_247
07-08-12, 03:33
Ideally, I'd like to see them adopt a Colt M4 with a midlength gas system and a factory low profile gas block... Inherently more reliable weapon that isn't quite as punishing on its internals...
I wish people would quit asserting this. I have yet to see any raw data proving this to be true.
Remington ACR-IC
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/6736914153_f7b572958f_b.jpg
The Brakeout isn't properly timed! If this demo is an example of what we can expect from Remington, I hope it loses.
Magic_Salad0892
07-09-12, 00:35
I wish people would quit asserting this. I have yet to see any raw data proving this to be true.
I agree. It makes a smoother shooting gun, but in the 14.5'' length, I think it'd be less reliable when dirty, or after the lube has burned off.
The Brakeout isn't properly timed! If this demo is an example of what we can expect from Remington, I hope it loses.
I noticed that too...
sinlessorrow
07-09-12, 01:02
I agree. It makes a smoother shooting gun, but in the 14.5'' length, I think it'd be less reliable when dirty, or after the lube has burned off.
I noticed that too...
are yall sure thats not timed correctly? thats how remington times all their AAC's?
http://www.acrforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1968&d=1321563906
http://www.acrforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2003&d=1321758814
http://www.acrforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2026&d=1322525608
Failure2Stop
07-09-12, 01:04
It would be neat if somebody submitted a middie DI for testing, but I am pretty sure that the requirements are written to pretty much exclude DI.
I don't want to nudge this into a middie vs CAR vs intermediate vs rifle DI go around, just thinking that it would be useful to have a real test done. Then again, I don't trust Army acquisitions to properly test anything more complex or important than a paper bag. ACU anyone?
sinlessorrow
07-09-12, 01:04
double
sinlessorrow
07-09-12, 01:05
It would be neat if somebody submitted a middie DI for testing, but I am pretty sure that the requirements are written to pretty much exclude DI.
I don't want to nudge this into a middie vs CAR vs intermediate vs rifle DI go around, just thinking that it would be useful to have a real test done. Then again, I don't trust Army acquisitions to properly test anything more complex or important than a paper bag. ACU anyone?
from what I have seen the IC was written as to not allow DI since it must be able to pass the OTB test, something the DI cannot do(must be able to fire with 0 seconds of draining)
Failure2Stop
07-09-12, 01:10
from what I have seen the IC was written as to not allow DI since it must be able to pass the OTB test, something the DI cannot do(must be able to fire with 0 seconds of draining)
I haven't read the document, but I heard that many of the requirements were very similar to that of the SCAR, and that the OTB was there. That's one of the things I was referring to as precluding DI as a competitor (I am of the understanding that the M4 will still be the control).
Failure2Stop
07-09-12, 01:11
Really though, while the requirements document is interesting, what I really want to see is the proposed testing and protocal.
sinlessorrow
07-09-12, 01:20
Really though, while the requirements document is interesting, what I really want to see is the proposed testing and protocal.
I agree, all I have seen is the requirements, IDK how true it is but I have read that the M4A1 will not be tried at all so there really is no control, there was a quote from someone who stated the M4A1 honestly wont stand a chance against the current IC rifles, ill lookf or the quote and update
but there should be a case study to compare it to the M4A1, but no actual M4A1 in the testing.
justin_247
07-09-12, 01:35
are yall sure thats not timed correctly? thats how remington times all their AAC's?
http://www.acrforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1968&d=1321563906
http://www.acrforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2003&d=1321758814
http://www.acrforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2026&d=1322525608
Yes, I'm 100% sure. From the AAC Brakeout installation instructions, step 1:
To maximize recoil reduction and minimize muzzle rise as well as the disturbance of sand, dirt, and vegetation when firing prone without the suppressor installed, the ports of the compensator must be oriented at 9, 12 and 3 o’clock.
http://www.advanced-armament.com/st/Package-BO-Card.pdf
sinlessorrow
07-09-12, 01:51
finally found the beretta quote
Beretta developed it to be lighter in weight and ergonomically similar to the M4 and emphasized reliability under sustained rates of fire. "We Americanized it," DePlano commented.
the part in red is a slap in the face by the fucking Italian company.
looks like the article that had the Army ranked guy stating the M4 wont stand a chance against the IC rifles is no longer on military.com so thats gone. who knows what will happen but I have a sneaky feeling that the IC will win even if there is no proof of benefit, just feels like the Army is going to get a new rifle no matter what.
sinlessorrow
07-11-12, 01:20
another issue the ACR faces for military adoption is this
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6008/6002397711_da9c92515d_z.jpg
unless you want to run no BUIS, or run the PEQ on the right(which will shift zero since the bottom rail(including right and left) is not repeatable.
there is no way to run a PEQ and we as we all know the military uses PEQ's
That's an easy fix
No joke, get rid of the shit magpul mbus and put real BUIS like Troy and you can run the PEQ no problem.....
Failure2Stop
07-11-12, 10:52
And the Peq-15 has a different footprint than the Peq-16.
Even if changing front sights and Peq model (the 16 is retarded and they should all be set on fire) doesn't fix the issue, I'm sure that a CH redesign wouldn't be that difficult.
Now, I'm not saying that the ACR is the best choice, or that it is better than any other competitor, but simply that the issue raised should not be seen as some insurmountable obstacle.
sinlessorrow
07-11-12, 13:01
And the Peq-15 has a different footprint than the Peq-16.
Even if changing front sights and Peq model (the 16 is retarded and they should all be set on fire) doesn't fix the issue, I'm sure that a CH redesign wouldn't be that difficult.
Now, I'm not saying that the ACR is the best choice, or that it is better than any other competitor, but simply that the issue raised should not be seen as some insurmountable obstacle.
so which PEQ is pictured?
the guy said it was a -15 and that if you mount any BUIS in front of it you run into that issue. this was over from the ACRforum.
he said the only option was the mount the PEQ before the BUIS, and while i agree with JW the magpul is in the up position and I have yet to see a BUIS smaller than that in the down position so if you ever planned on closing your buis this issue would appear.
Failure2Stop
07-11-12, 15:08
so which PEQ is pictured?
That's a PEQ16
In this image you can see a PEQ16 on the left and a PEQ15 on the right.
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/peq16.jpg
Magic_Salad0892
07-12-12, 18:54
That's a PEQ16
In this image you can see a PEQ16 on the left and a PEQ15 on the right.
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/peq16.jpg
Why the fuck would they stick a visible light on the NV laser?
Insight's lights suck ass...
Failure2Stop
07-12-12, 19:02
Why the fuck would they stick a visible light on the NV laser?
Insight's lights suck ass...
Because they're the worst people in the world. Just kidding.
An organization asked for it, and even after being told what a pain in the ass it would be, they were adamant. You get what you pay for.
I hate the 16, btw
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I agree, all I have seen is the requirements, IDK how true it is but I have read that the M4A1 will not be tried at all so there really is no control, there was a quote from someone who stated the M4A1 honestly wont stand a chance against the current IC rifles, ill lookf or the quote and update
but there should be a case study to compare it to the M4A1, but no actual M4A1 in the testing.
The "winning" rifle must be a measurable improvement over the M4A1, but the M4A1 isn't an entrant as a control?
:suicide:
Hey Army, you're stupid, over.
sinlessorrow
07-12-12, 21:33
The "winning" rifle must be a measurable improvement over the M4A1, but the M4A1 isn't an entrant as a control?
:suicide:
Hey Army, you're stupid, over.
Exactly my thought.
My thinking is they will compare the current knowledge and results of he M4 against the IC entrants, I'm telling you if your dead set on a new carbine the way to get one is make it so the current rifle stands no chance.
Failure2Stop
07-12-12, 21:55
Exactly my thought.
My thinking is they will compare the current knowledge and results of he M4 against the IC entrants, I'm telling you if your dead set on a new carbine the way to get one is make it so the current rifle stands no chance.
It's irrelevant unless it actually gets funded.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
sinlessorrow
07-12-12, 22:09
It's irrelevant unless it actually gets funded.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I thought it was already funded, just have to do the testing before you can purchase the rifle?
I may be wrong about that honestly.
Seems like the Army has taken home a lot of data from OIF/OEF. New uniforms improved over ACU, new vehicles improved over Hummers, new carbines improved over M4.
Amazing what a little OJT can do
Magic_Salad0892
07-13-12, 00:40
Because they're the worst people in the world.
I didn't know we were talking about the people at Beretta, and SIG.
sinlessorrow
07-13-12, 01:09
Seems like the Army has taken home a lot of data from OIF/OEF. New uniforms improved over ACU, new vehicles improved over Hummers, new carbines improved over M4.
Amazing what a little OJT can do
care to expand on this?
care to expand on this?
All the new toys are being designed by criteria based on data from the front.
I don't know what else I can add. I was just saying now that OIF and OEF are winding down, there are several equipment replacements coming out that take advantage of reports on what worked and what didn't.
sinlessorrow
07-13-12, 08:13
All the new toys are being designed by criteria based on data from the front.
I don't know what else I can add. I was just saying now that OIF and OEF are winding down, there are several equipment replacements coming out that take advantage of reports on what worked and what didn't.
I see what your saying, the issue is the M4 and M16 didnt fail. Aside from the occasional report like Wanat the M16FOW has a great record, and from what I have seen from Arctic1 I doubt any IC would offer us much if we keep the mind set of scraping till shite glove clean and lube is bad in the desert, cause Artic1 Has mentioned the HK416 needs lube like the M4 does.
I think the biggest factor is cost, current m4A1's with the Remington deal are $678, IC rifles are around $1400, so are the IC rifles 2x as good as a PiP M4A1(if the FF rail pans out).
The main thing you get with the IC rifles is extended parts life in the bolt and barrel, but how much I'm not sure, probably a few thousand rounds extra per part. The M4 bolt is good for 8,000-10,000(I have seen some say 5,000 but I think that is a little early) a big upgrade would be to stop HPT'ing every bolt.
The big thing I see is that certain parties in congress feel we need a new rifle because of reports like Wanat(4 m4 failures, and one was a bullet through the receiver) yet none have ever used a rifle. Their sole source of information if news reports that aleays blow it out of proportion and cry woes of the 507th maint(no need to explain here)
from what I have seen from Arctic1 I doubt any IC would offer us much if we keep the mind set of scraping till shite glove clean and lube is bad in the desert, cause Artic1 Has mentioned the HK416 needs lube like the M4 does.
Did you get that from my post over on LF?
I do not know where the not-needing-lube thing stems from, but HK has never said that it does not need lube. The statement from HK is that it has the ability to operate without lube. Extrapolated that is meant under extreme circumstances, not normal operation.
The HK416 operators manual has a lubrication guide and plan listed on page 22-24:
http://www.geekgunman.com/manuals/416_manual.pdf
If anyone states that their system does not need lube, they need to put down the crack pipe.
sinlessorrow
07-13-12, 12:06
Did you get that from my post over on LF?
I do not know where the not-needing-lube thing stems from, but HK has never said that it does not need lube. The statement from HK is that it has the ability to operate without lube. Extrapolated that is meant under extreme circumstances, not normal operation.
The HK416 operators manual has a lubrication guide and plan listed on page 22-24:
http://www.geekgunman.com/manuals/416_manual.pdf
If anyone states that their system does not need lube, they need to put down the crack pipe.
I saw your post on HKpro.com about how when ran without lube issues arose and people got hurt, thus leading to them sayin the hk416 is not fit for combat.
Also G3Kurz has commented on how the HK416 does not require lubrication.
From his technical reasons why the HK416 is superior to the M4
*Ability to fire the weapon w/o lubricant. A lack of lubricant attracts less sand and grit in harsh environments thus improving reliability.
What I said was that the guns hadn't been cleaned, and were insufficiently lubed.
And G3Kurz is not HK, he is a person who used to work at HK.
And the statement is made by him, not HK. I'll go by what the manual states, and my own experiences, not what G3Kurz says or means.
And like I also stated, I do what I do in regards to cleaning and maintenance for specific reasons. I want my gun to go bang every time I pull the trigger, so I am meticulous.
There is no magic gun.
sinlessorrow
07-13-12, 12:28
What I said was that the guns hadn't been cleaned, and were insufficiently lubed.
And G3Kurz is not HK, he is a person who used to work at HK.
And the statement is made by him, not HK. I'll go by what the manual states, and my own experiences, not what G3Kurz says or means.
And like I also stated, I do what I do in regards to cleaning and maintenance for specific reasons. I want my gun to go bang every time I pull the trigger, so I am meticulous.
There is no magic gun.
I agree.
My point was if people are still taught(like my best friend) that the rifle has to be white glove clean(thus removing the finish) and that lubrication attracts sand so less is more we will have the same issues despite what new IC rifle we get.
If you believe the media(like alot of our politicians seem to do) you would believe that the m4 is the only rifle that needs lube and that if we would just adopt the HK416 we would never need to clean or lubricate our rifles and that would keep this running far longer than our M4's.
Ive read numerous publications and reports stating just that.
Failure2Stop
07-13-12, 14:04
Ive read numerous publications and reports stating just that.
This is the crux of the issue.
They are trying to get a carbine that is "myth" proof, without realizing that there are levels of performance that are more directly relevant to the user than just "haz piston".
Now, don't get me wrong, we are way behind when it comes to service rifle replacement. Every nation that has a greater than 80% shoe ownership has upgraded their service rifle in the last 40 years. We have been long overdue for this, substituting band-aids and product improvement for full scale testing. Add to that the dire financial situation, what makes more sense to congress/funding officials: a minorly superior rifle at 2x the cost (that has still not lead to any significant loss of life, and is still hampered by ammunition), or more drones/IED finders/equipping allies? All of which are significantly more cost effective solutions.
I would be perfectly happy if the IAR was adopted across the board as the service rifle, but I would be even happier if the additional cost of a new service rifle was turned into training ammunition for all combat arms MOSs. One think I have noticed is that the higher the level of training, the less whining about the platform is heard. There are always improvements, and there is always a "better" whatever, but a force of trained shooters with a decent weapon is better than a force of shitty shooters with the latest and greatest whiz-bang carbine.
sinlessorrow
07-13-12, 14:39
This is the crux of the issue.
They are trying to get a carbine that is "myth" proof, without realizing that there are levels of performance that are more directly relevant to the user than just "haz piston".
Now, don't get me wrong, we are way behind when it comes to service rifle replacement. Every nation that has a greater than 80% shoe ownership has upgraded their service rifle in the last 40 years. We have been long overdue for this, substituting band-aids and product improvement for full scale testing. Add to that the dire financial situation, what makes more sense to congress/funding officials: a minorly superior rifle at 2x the cost (that has still not lead to any significant loss of life, and is still hampered by ammunition), or more drones/IED finders/equipping allies? All of which are significantly more cost effective solutions.
I would be perfectly happy if the IAR was adopted across the board as the service rifle, but I would be even happier if the additional cost of a new service rifle was turned into training ammunition for all combat arms MOSs. One think I have noticed is that the higher the level of training, the less whining about the platform is heard. There are always improvements, and there is always a "better" whatever, but a force of trained shooters with a decent weapon is better than a force of shitty shooters with the latest and greatest whiz-bang carbine.
I agree, the latest and greatest will not make anyone a better shot, what does that is training.
Imagine my surprise when my friend told me they fire around 500rnds a year.......thats what I do a month.
the SCAR might stand a chance but I hear it breaks SOPMOD II items quicker. doc mentioned it somewhere.
One good thing if we got a new system is everyone would have to be trained on it so we would be able to get away from the bad habits we have for the M16 and hopefully adopt proper techniques.
one thing I do want to say about the comment in red is that all those countries are generally just now adopting a 5.56 platform so of course they are upgrading, and the ones that had a 5.56 were a needed upgrade( like the british L85, before HK it was a piece of shit, now its decent) also some of those countries have adopted the DI system in the Colt/Diemeco setups.
I know the Danish just adopted the new Diemeco rifle that is a monolithic upper.
would the IC be a better option than a PiP M4A1? I mean theoretically with the cost of the M4RAS any new FF system should cost the same, maybe less.
my other question is how will these rifles look and work 10yrs from now? from what I hear the Army seems to have issues with replacing worn out parts, and only replacing them when they break and only that part.....how will the IC rifles fair 10yrs from now when parts are at the end of their lifes and springs are all worn out?
Magic_Salad0892
07-13-12, 18:18
An upgraded M4A1, and better training would solve pretty much all the issues that we have with the M4 system currently.
CHF barrel. Nitride treatment as opposed to chrome lining. SOCOM profile barrels. A5 buffer systems. Ambidextrous lowers. PMAG as standard mag. 7-9'' FF rail.
But most importantly: More training. By REPUTABLE instructors.
Problem solved.
sinlessorrow
07-14-12, 01:04
this is why I dont think we are outdated since we havent changed rifles like everyone else.
Norwegians- Hk416>G3(7.62-5.56)
Danish- C8IUR>C7(non FF-full FF mono upper)
Czech republic- CZ805>VZ.58(7.62-5.56)
Malaysian- M4>AUG(easier to maintain and build)
British- L85>L1A1(7.62-5.56)
Russia- AK-74>AK-47(7.62-5.45)
Austria- AUG>STG.58(7.62-5.56)
Israel- X95>M16, M4(part made here, part needed a small compact short barrel rifle for CQB)
Iran- Kayhbar KH2002>G3(7.62-5.56)
only 2-4 militaries have gone from a 5.56 rifle to a new 5.56 rifle.
thats the best I can do for now, but honestly the Main reason countries are changing now is that they are moving to smaller calibers, luckily we just beat everyone to the finish line so we have not had a need to change, now is there a need today? I am not sure honestly if any current small arms design offers enough performance to cost ratio to be worth a change to another 5.56 rifle.
if we get a FF rail on the M4A1 would it be similar to what everyone else is using?
for 500,000 IC rifles(at$1400 a piece) that would cost us $700,000,000, and that does not include, manuals, training, spare parts....now is that worth it over a PiP M4A1 that theoretically should be around the same price as the current contract(considering retail of the M4RAS is the same price as 99% of FF rails).
ICANHITHIMMAN
07-14-12, 12:41
I was tickled as shit when I was finally issued an m4 I still think its the greatest thing in the world. Where there some things about it I would change sure there are. I think the s opmod block II addresses all of them.
Ned Christiansen
07-14-12, 15:36
Funny what strikes one as funny sometimes.
"haz piston".
One of the funniest things I've seen in a long time! I smell a market for carbine-bumper stickers......
sinlessorrow
07-14-12, 15:42
Funny what strikes one as funny sometimes.
"haz piston".
One of the funniest things I've seen in a long time! I smell a market for carbine-bumper stickers......
....not a bumper sticker.....that said it could be like this
Who haz Piston...
I haz Piston...
Ned Christiansen
07-15-12, 12:51
How about a other take on "Got Milk?""
"Gotz Piston?"
Magic_Salad0892
07-15-12, 17:04
How about a other take on "Got Milk?""
"Gotz Piston?"
lolcatz version...
''i can haz piston?''
Littlelebowski
07-15-12, 17:08
This is the crux of the issue.
One think I have noticed is that the higher the level of training, the less whining about the platform is heard. There are always improvements, and there is always a "better" whatever, but a force of trained shooters with a decent weapon is better than a force of shitty shooters with the latest and greatest whiz-bang carbine.
Well said, my friend. Gimme a ring when you can.
sinlessorrow
07-19-12, 20:24
Theone thing that may make the cost of a new rifle worth it is as decrease in parts replacement.
If we can get a rifle with double the parts life them just maybe the $1billion would be worth it.
If we switch I do not see the SCAR, ACR, or ARX getting it. It will be a AT-15 form factor gun which is fine as I prefer them anyways. I do think a piston would be nice but its not a real reason to switch since DI does work but it is more dependant on lubrication since it burns it off.
Imo with the way the PiP is crapping out I see this coming down to the HK416-IC and the Colt Enhanced M4(6940P-IC modded).
It will be truly interesting to see the results.
let me say this:
IMO the DI system M4 should stay, the issue with the M16FOW is not the DI system but the TDP. the TDP is built using 1960's techniques and technologies, and every single part of the M4A1 could be brought to modern day using COTS items. Using certain COTS items you could easily get HK416 type reliability and parts life out of the M4A1.
1. CHF SOCOM barrel with NiCorr treatment(and CL if you want but not needed)
2. specially designed barrel extension like that of the E3 and bolt that offers 20,000 round life.
3. if 2. is not possible then a COTS BCG that could drop in would be ideal like that of the LWRCI that reduces the amount of lubrication required and offers 3x's the bolt life of standard 6,000(when SOCOM replaces them).
4. Geissele SSF allows for far greater trigger life and better accuracy through a better and consistent trigger pull
5. a FF handguard preferably 10" and if you must keep the FSB make a wrap around.
6. better flash hiders like that of the BE Meyers.
7. make Pmags and Lancer AWM mags the standard, no more GI mags.
8. NO MORE HPT!!!!
9. ambi selector.
10. VLTOR Gunfighter CH
those 10 things are easily available and could be added to the M4A1 to give it parts life and reliability similar to Piston systems. those mods would also make it one of the best rifles on the market today.
that list is just a dream though.
sinlessorrow
07-20-12, 14:26
To my surprise I found a solicitation on FBO for a new replacement barrel and sight assemblt and bolt assembly for the M4 PiP.
Looks like the Army is making some smart moves in the PiP cause the way to get a good bolt is with a new barrel and from the Q/A looks like some CHF will be entered.
Magic_Salad0892
07-24-12, 01:48
Theone thing that may make the cost of a new rifle worth it is as decrease in parts replacement.
If we can get a rifle with double the parts life them just maybe the $1billion would be worth it.
If we switch I do not see the SCAR, ACR, or ARX getting it. It will be a AT-15 form factor gun which is fine as I prefer them anyways. I do think a piston would be nice but its not a real reason to switch since DI does work but it is more dependant on lubrication since it burns it off.
Imo with the way the PiP is crapping out I see this coming down to the HK416-IC and the Colt Enhanced M4(6940P-IC modded).
It will be truly interesting to see the results.
let me say this:
IMO the DI system M4 should stay, the issue with the M16FOW is not the DI system but the TDP. the TDP is built using 1960's techniques and technologies, and every single part of the M4A1 could be brought to modern day using COTS items. Using certain COTS items you could easily get HK416 type reliability and parts life out of the M4A1.
1. CHF SOCOM barrel with NiCorr treatment(and CL if you want but not needed)
2. specially designed barrel extension like that of the E3 and bolt that offers 20,000 round life.
3. if 2. is not possible then a COTS BCG that could drop in would be ideal like that of the LWRCI that reduces the amount of lubrication required and offers 3x's the bolt life of standard 6,000(when SOCOM replaces them).
4. Geissele SSF allows for far greater trigger life and better accuracy through a better and consistent trigger pull
5. a FF handguard preferably 10" and if you must keep the FSB make a wrap around.
6. better flash hiders like that of the BE Meyers.
7. make Pmags and Lancer AWM mags the standard, no more GI mags.
8. NO MORE HPT!!!!
9. ambi selector.
10. VLTOR Gunfighter CH
those 10 things are easily available and could be added to the M4A1 to give it parts life and reliability similar to Piston systems. those mods would also make it one of the best rifles on the market today.
that list is just a dream though.
I agree with all but the removal of HPT. I have not seen any quantifiable evidence that it is detrimental to parts life.
Ambi mag release, and bolt release would be ideal as well.
sinlessorrow
07-24-12, 02:01
I agree with all but the removal of HPT. I have not seen any quantifiable evidence that it is detrimental to parts life.
Ambi mag release, and bolt release would be ideal as well.
ive never seen any proof but I have seen Reed Knight III comment on how it reduces bolt life.
Magic_Salad0892
07-26-12, 02:04
ive never seen any proof but I have seen Reed Knight III comment on how it reduces bolt life.
KAC uses a different bolt material for the E3 bolts from what I understand.
I'm wondering if that has anything to do with it. Because if HPT really caused a problem with a 158C bolt, I think the HPT process would have gone away a long time ago.
I doubt that. Colt wants to hammer the barrels but the Army won't let them, despite incredible evidence that it's better for this application. I'm therefore doubtful of the Army's willingness to move forward in time.
Magic_Salad0892
08-15-12, 19:46
I doubt that. Colt wants to hammer the barrels but the Army won't let them, despite incredible evidence that it's better for this application. I'm therefore doubtful of the Army's willingness to move forward in time.
I said if it was worse/detramental for the platform. Not if something was better.
sinlessorrow
08-15-12, 21:16
I said if it was worse/detramental for the platform. Not if something was better.
I wonder how much is the TDP. Colt can't easily change the TDP now that it's a military rifle. I know the bolt on their new 6940P is not marked HP so they may or may not do it on yheir new rifles.
Magic_Salad0892
08-15-12, 22:23
I wonder how much is the TDP. Colt can't easily change the TDP now that it's a military rifle. I know the bolt on their new 6940P is not marked HP so they may or may not do it on yheir new rifles.
I'm willing to bet you that it is, but isn't marked for whatever reason.
It wouldn't make sense for them to not HP a pistol gun's bolt, but HP a DI gun's bolt...
I said if it was worse/detramental for the platform. Not if something was better.
Once the standard is established the difference is semantics. The contract says something. One change could increase bolt life at reduced cost. One change could increase barrel life at reduced cost.
Magic_Salad0892
08-15-12, 23:00
Once the standard is established the difference is semantics. The contract says something. One change could increase bolt life at reduced cost. One change could increase barrel life at reduced cost.
But that doesn't mean that the current methods are bad, or detrimental. Just not as effective.
A bolt made of inferior steel would be detrimental. HPing a bolt isn't. It's what's current. And gives good performance. Can we do better? Maybe. Does that make the bolt shitty? Nope.
Kinda like a 1911. Is there better? I believe so. Is the 1911 bad? Nope.
Eh. If you're not first, you're last.
Magic_Salad0892
08-15-12, 23:50
Eh. If you're not first, you're last.
I get where you're comin' from, but I'm not sure if I'm on board just yet.
sinlessorrow
08-16-12, 16:25
I wonder how long it will take all these companies like Bcm, DD, etc to start making the new rifles, Be it a whole new rifle or the PiP.
99.9% of "weapon issues" are the result of a $5 disposable aluminum magazine overstaying it's welcome. Once a yr, get new ones.. solved.
Weapon issues are so far down the list of importance in tactical deficiencies in units.. it's laughable to waste $$ or time thinking about it.
Magic_Salad0892
08-18-12, 20:13
99.9% of "weapon issues" are the result of a $5 disposable aluminum magazine overstaying it's welcome. Once a yr, get new ones.. solved.
Weapon issues are so far down the list of importance in tactical deficiencies in units.. it's laughable to waste $$ or time thinking about it.
I don't think that an M4 upgrade should be persued because of ''problems''... I think it should be persued because of improvements. And a new maintenance system needs to be implimented. Troops should be required to keep round counts or something. Being an SME, would you agree?
No.
pursued.. not persued, precision in language = clarity of thought. Do not think any program is about improving anything.. it's a business.
again.. 99.9% of malfunctions are magazine derived. get new ones occasionally. much to0 cheap and easy solution for any $$ to be made.
A $5 mag, $3 recoil spring & $30 bolt replaced will make all the difference. Any extra $$ should be spent on developing warriors... BTW not the slugs repeating faux "warrior" mantra-isms on AFN.
A rd counter in the grip would make weapons maint matrix... mcdonalds simple.
97+% of ekia in the last 10yrs have been produced by less than .5% of the military. A clue on the efficacy of the herd and the hunters.
sinlessorrow
09-19-12, 21:42
No.
pursued.. not persued, precision in language = clarity of thought. Do not think any program is about improving anything.. it's a business.
again.. 99.9% of malfunctions are magazine derived. get new ones occasionally. much to0 cheap and easy solution for any $$ to be made.
A $5 mag, $3 recoil spring & $30 bolt replaced will make all the difference. Any extra $$ should be spent on developing warriors... BTW not the slugs repeating faux "warrior" mantra-isms on AFN.
A rd counter in the grip would make weapons maint matrix... mcdonalds simple.
97+% of ekia in the last 10yrs have been produced by less than .5% of the military. A clue on the efficacy of the herd and the hunters.
Great post. Whats ekia?
scoutfsu99
09-19-12, 22:31
Enemy Killed In Action. A military term. ;)
Improvements could be made which would increase the effectiveness of the rifle while decreasing its cost. Easily. This is worth pursuing.
Hammer the barrel.
Replace the RAS with a tube.
Stop HP/MPI on bolts.
Switch to PMAGs.
sinlessorrow
09-19-12, 22:48
Enemy Killed In Action. A military term. ;)
Thats what I thought but wanted to make sure.
Also Ryan they are currently working on a new handguard of the FF type.
PM SW completed bid sample testing for a forward rail assembly competition in early August.
This could be good or bad. Depending on how it's done.
Most soldiers would be best off with something NSR like. Instead I suspect they'll have extra parts weight and cost to use something that mounts a grenade launcher.
My brother has a RAS on his A2 despite not being issued anything to mount to it.
sinlessorrow
09-19-12, 23:11
This could be good or bad. Depending on how it's done.
Most soldiers would be best off with something NSR like. Instead I suspect they'll have extra parts weight and cost to use something that mounts a grenade launcher.
My brother has a RAS on his A2 despite not being issued anything to mount to it.
Even still a FF handguard will be nice, it will probably be railed so maybe slightly heavier depending on length of it, I know KAC entered a URX with a FSB cut that was a full rail.
No.
97+% of ekia in the last 10yrs have been produced by less than .5% of the military. A clue on the efficacy of the herd and the hunters.
Most of those killed in the last 10 years were killed with HE.
Most of those killed in the last 10 years were killed with HE.
. . . fired from an aircraft without an onboard pilot
Although drone strikes are what make the news, the vast majority of ordinance being dropped is still coming off of manned aircraft. *If you through in the staggering number of GMLRSs, ATACMs, Exals that has been shot since OIF 1 combined with the amount of dumb munitions used by ground forces (grenades, satchel charges, MCLCs, rockets and dumb arty) you will find probably less than 1 percent of that HE is coming from Reapers or Predators. **
That statistic has got to be crediting CCA/CAS/IDF to the GFC's unit rather than the supporting aviation unit or gun line. It's interesting nonetheless.
A gun line/FDC doesn't really report back BDA. From what I saw as a FFEC was the ACE only reported X munition expended. We often didn't know till days later the BDA. Their S2 shop analyzed the gun camera footage, but that was never reported in Sig-acts.
The BDA that went up in Sig-acts was from the maneuverer elements reporting
sinlessorrow
09-22-12, 12:11
I think instead of a carbine competition to try and fix issues that do not exist, if it was me, I would be holding magazine and lubrication competitions.
We all know magazine and lubrication is the main issues with rifles, and CLP and GI mags suck. Thats what we should be looking to replace.
justin_247
09-24-12, 11:52
For all of those calling for CHF barrels on the M-4, my understanding is the Remington M-4 that's being shipped to the military does include a CHF barrel.
97+% of ekia in the last 10yrs have been produced by less than .5% of the military. A clue on the efficacy of the herd and the hunters.
You must be talking about JTACs :big_boss:
sinlessorrow
09-24-12, 12:31
For all of those calling for CHF barrels on the M-4, my understanding is the Remington M-4 that's being shipped to the military does include a CHF barrel.
Where did you hear this? The Remington M4A1's should be built to the TDP, but if you are correct this is a good thing.
S. Galbraith
09-24-12, 22:24
I don't see many DI systems in use in other countries. Yes, we can make the system work, but there are a lot of appealing piston driven alternatives out there that have reduced maintenance and longer BCG life.
sinlessorrow
09-24-12, 22:35
I don't see many DI systems in use in other countries. Yes, we can make the system work, but there are a lot of appealing piston driven alternatives out there that have reduced maintenance and longer BCG life.
Huh? I see the M4 in use in a whole lot of countries, especially SF types. As to the BCG group life only way to increase it is to decrease the amount of lugs or redesign them(SR15), The BCG PiP showed that in the standard 8 lug pattern nothing was an improvement over the standard BCG.
Although from what I hear in November we will see some info on the ICC, so take that for whats its worth.
S. Galbraith
09-25-12, 13:24
Huh? I see the M4 in use in a whole lot of countries, especially SF types. As to the BCG group life only way to increase it is to decrease the amount of lugs or redesign them(SR15), The BCG PiP showed that in the standard 8 lug pattern nothing was an improvement over the standard BCG.
Although from what I hear in November we will see some info on the ICC, so take that for whats its worth.
I am referring to other than M16/M4 designs. Whether it be European or Asian designs.......they do not use DI systems.
sinlessorrow
09-25-12, 15:23
I am referring to other than M16/M4 designs. Whether it be European or Asian designs.......they do not use DI systems.
The Iranians do.
I still fail to see how this has anything to do with the IC?
S. Galbraith
09-25-12, 16:33
The Iranians do.
I still fail to see how this has anything to do with the IC?
Okay....so the "Iranians" have a DI system:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/iran/khaybar-kh2002-e.html
I'm sure the world will follow their lead. :rolleyes:
sinlessorrow
09-25-12, 17:09
Okay....so the "Iranians" have a DI system:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/iran/khaybar-kh2002-e.html
I'm sure the world will follow their lead. :rolleyes:
You said no one did, but this is getting off topic and slowing becoming a DI vs Piston thread about how DI sucks because no one else uses it but us.........almost like TOS.
I will say ALOT of countries use the M4, which is of course DI. So instead of making their own DI system they just choose ours, given its ability to adapt its a pretty good choice.
S. Galbraith
09-26-12, 01:43
You said no one did, but this is getting off topic and slowing becoming a DI vs Piston thread about how DI sucks because no one else uses it but us.........almost like TOS.
I will say ALOT of countries use the M4, which is of course DI. So instead of making their own DI system they just choose ours, given its ability to adapt its a pretty good choice.
Quite frankly, the Iranians weren't even on my radar for quality engineered firearms. Nor do they export their domestic equipment that often. Of the major powers in Europe and Asia that do hold global influence and export often, none use DI systems that I am aware of other than the M16 family. Is this a DI versus Piston thread?.....not from my end. I made the comment that the participants in this competition were primarily piston designs which has many appeals to military customers around the world.
Yes, a lot of countries use the M4. Just as a lot of countries use Soviet AK makes as part of international aid and weapon sales. Allied countries enjoy bargain weapon sales whether that be from western or eastern allies. Israel enjoys M4 procurement packages that make it cheaper for them to use US made M4s, than to domestically produce their own Galils or Tavors. I'm not a big fan of the AK series, but it still remains the most widely used assault rifle model in militaries around the world due to the massive proliferation of Russian equipment for decades.
A real test of design appeal is what a 1st world country chooses to produce domestically. The US is not the best model for incremental small arms advancement and adoption, and the Russians are even worse with their AK series. Good read up:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
Most western countries produce their service weapons domestically for political reasons, regardless of the relative merits of other weapons. Their special forces usually use M4s.
The M4 is a reliable weapon and extremely accurate but it's real advantage is the ease with which optical and night fighting equipment is integrated.
sinlessorrow
09-26-12, 08:31
Quite frankly, the Iranians weren't even on my radar for quality engineered firearms. Nor do they export their domestic equipment that often. Of the major powers in Europe and Asia that do hold global influence and export often, none use DI systems that I am aware of other than the M16 family. Is this a DI versus Piston thread?.....not from my end. I made the comment that the participants in this competition were primarily piston designs which has many appeals to military customers around the world.
Yes, a lot of countries use the M4. Just as a lot of countries use Soviet AK makes as part of international aid and weapon sales. Allied countries enjoy bargain weapon sales whether that be from western or eastern allies. Israel enjoys M4 procurement packages that make it cheaper for them to use US made M4s, than to domestically produce their own Galils or Tavors. I'm not a big fan of the AK series, but it still remains the most widely used assault rifle model in militaries around the world due to the massive proliferation of Russian equipment for decades.
A real test of design appeal is what a 1st world country chooses to produce domestically. The US is not the best model for incremental small arms advancement and adoption, and the Russians are even worse with their AK series. Good read up:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
Kind of like how the AUG, SA80 family are all shining examples of reliability and durability.....sarcasm.
The rest of the countries really have not seen much combat, what other country has been a major player in the GWOT? Alot of countries in the west also choose for political reasons to make their own fire arms instead of use others.
As to the link that is about a change in caliber something that wont happen for minimal improvements, cost and NATO are what keep a new caliber from coming out until something revolutionary is out.
Also from what I hear there is more than we know in the IC, and info should be out november. Just what a little birdy told me.
justin_247
09-27-12, 17:09
Where did you hear this? The Remington M4A1's should be built to the TDP, but if you are correct this is a good thing.
I remember reading it on the Remington website, but I can't find it right now.
sinlessorrow
09-27-12, 17:23
I remember reading it on the Remington website, but I can't find it right now.
that was the R4, a copy of the M4 with a 16" barrel.
justin_247
09-30-12, 17:09
that was the R4, a copy of the M4 with a 16" barrel.
Roger.
For all of those calling for CHF barrels on the M-4, my understanding is the Remington M-4 that's being shipped to the military does include a CHF barrel.
When did Remington ship any M4 carbines to the US military? Given Colt's successful GAO protest, they shouldn't have delivered any.
sinlessorrow
09-30-12, 20:17
When did Remington ship any M4 carbines to the US military? Given Colt's successful GAO protest, they shouldn't have delivered any.
There was an article here, it looked like Remington was able to deliver one shipment to the 101st Airborne.
sinlessorrow
11-19-12, 00:49
Here it is.
http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_d5178284-f2f4-11e1-8aa5-0019bb2963f4.html
Now if those are Remington's I am not sure, they may just be rebuilt rifles.
My money is on the ADCOR B.E.A.R. for the IC winner, not because its the best, but because I bet it is good enough to pass the trials and will pull the lowest bidder card. Only time will tell.
I did see something over on the NDIA slides about Phase II being finished in december so we shouldn't have much longer to wait.
Also what takes so long to test and field a FF rail? They are talking about having a winner in summer 2014....why does it take so long to do this stuff?
The ADCOR offering is laughable in design and execution. The perfect choice to confirm full retard.
sinlessorrow
11-20-12, 18:21
The ADCOR offering is laughable in design and execution. The perfect choice to confirm full retard.
Like I said I bet it will pass the trials in last place, but pull out the lowest bidder card and win. I doubt the ADCOR will actually win but I am betting it can at least pass the trials, at that point I bet who ever is the most affordable will be chosen.
All the Adcors I've seen locally had severe fitment issues, not to mention a few had material displacement caused by racking the forward charging handle.
Any updates on the IC program? I havent heard anything about it latetly.
sinlessorrow
01-12-13, 10:23
Any updates on the IC program? I havent heard anything about it latetly.
Last I saw testing was supposed to be done by December with down selects coming.
Last I saw testing was supposed to be done by December with down selects coming.
Yeah, I had heard somewhere that we would have gotten some results in by December. Just curious as to which weapons are excelling and which are slipping.
This is most likely the IC entrant from HK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7mqBiyo3jk
Looks pretty nice, fully ambidextrous, standard magwell.
Looking forward to seeing the results from the IC.
sinlessorrow
01-18-13, 14:08
This is most likely the IC entrant from HK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7mqBiyo3jk
Looks pretty nice, fully ambidextrous, standard magwell.
Looking forward to seeing the results from the IC.
Agreed, that is a very nice gun.....IF only the civilian version was the same! I like the adjustable gas block, and they finally gave us a proper mag well to support the mags in common use in the US. This has to be their entrant. Here is a pic of the 14.5" variant that my friend got from SHOT
My money is still on the adcor....The Army did give us the M26 MASS and the XM25...
Damn. Very nice. Color looks good.
sinlessorrow
01-24-13, 17:10
Looks like a few companies have made mods to their system thanks to results from the IC, Now does this mean they made it through? I do not know, it very well could since fixes have been allowed to happen during competitions before.
Colt has modified their Bolt carrier with a 1 piece carrier and added sand cuts in the skis the carrier slides on.
http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s523/556m16/IMG_0441_zps59c9915e.jpg
http://i1304.photobucket.com/albums/s523/556m16/IMG_0445_zps1eca0ee2.jpg
ADCOR according to a chat I had with them have moved to a new way to attach the carrier key/op rod on their system.
They now press fit it like before then weld it on to the carrier, practically making it a one piece. They have also beefed up the forward charging handles and added gussets to where it latches to keep it from chewing up the rail. They have also added 4 anti tilt skids to the rear of the carrier thanks to feedback from the IC.
I guess we will see soon enough who made it but this could mean both passed and were allowed to make mods to their system before testing continues. But it could also mean that these 2 are out of the competition.
Still waiting to see if Beretta actualy sat this out with the AXR-160, or if they stealthly submitted a version of the AXR and are waiting for the down select to announce.
I find it very hard to believe they would sit this out when they have a mature, fielded system like the AXR, given their political ties and the lessions learned by H&K in sitting out the SCAR program.
Unless of course they didn't think they could win. But if that were so why would they now be taking out ads in the Army Times. Something is still missing in thier story.
sinlessorrow
01-29-13, 13:03
Still waiting to see if Beretta actualy sat this out with the AXR-160, or if they stealthly submitted a version of the AXR and are waiting for the down select to announce.
I find it very hard to believe they would sit this out when they have a mature, fielded system like the AXR, given their political ties and the lessions learned by H&K in sitting out the SCAR program.
Unless of course they didn't think they could win. But if that were so why would they now be taking out ads in the Army Times. Something is still missing in thier story.
The ARX is not a widely used system and probably will have issues if it becomes fleeted like any system that goes from small fieldings to 500,000+ fieldings.
They are supposed to release the .22 this year and the ARX100 soon as well, whih would explain the ads.
The Italians are a small force true, but likely as many SCARs have been fielded as there are AXRs. Certainly more than there are ADCORs. Maybe, more than there are H&K 416s (in like configurations) fielded.
Littlelebowski
01-29-13, 13:36
The Italians are a small force true, but likely as many SCARs have been fielded as there are AXRs. Certainly more than there are ADCORs. Maybe, more than there are H&K 416s (in like configurations) fielded.
"Fielding ADCORs" is a funny statement.
"Fielding ADCORs" is a funny statement.
Until you get handed one.......:stop:
Testing will be what it is. All of the rifles submitted aappair to be new twists, so each will/may come up with blemishes. The real test will be WHO makes the down selects.
Littlelebowski
01-29-13, 13:45
Until you get handed one.......:stop:
Testing will be what it is. All of the rifles submitted aappair to be new twists, so each will/may come up with blemishes. The real test will be WHO makes the down selects.
I'll bet 5 PMags that these don't get accepted for use with the Italians nor the US.
sinlessorrow
01-29-13, 13:46
The Italians are a small force true, but likely as many SCARs have been fielded as there are AXRs. Certainly more than there are ADCORs. Maybe, more than there are H&K 416s (in like configurations) fielded.
And while the SCAR completed the trials and won it ended up with issues and the MK16 is no longer in use.
Also how many times have the Italians used their ARX's in combat gs that of the M16/HK416. I would say both rifles have seen far more combat.
I'm tapping out. I'm not a fan of the AXR, although it is interesting, and definately not of the ADCOR. I'm not defending either, just that I find it odd that nothing has been heard of if the AXR was even submitted. That is not Berrettas style if you will, to sit on the side lines for the worlds largest rifle contract, when they are fielding a rifle to their own Army which fits many of the bills. Maybe because it doesn't cut it and they know it, maybe someone screwed up, or maybe they just didn't believe, like H&K didn't believe in the SCAR program.
While the MK-16 expired, the MK-17 and now MK-20 programs live on. The son of the SCAR program is FN's submission to the IC, so to say the program is no longer in use is true, it's also beside the point.
By nature, none of the IC rifles has seen large scale fielding, AS CONFIGURED for the IC competition. Therefor you could infer that any system that wins "probably will have issues if it becomes fleeted like any system that goes from small fieldings to 500,000+ fieldings."
It's just the nature of the beast. It's the purpose of the testing to hopefuly select the right configuration, and to avoid any hijinks in the evaluations which might baise the test to a less than optimal choice. Then you add in the proposed solution to have three vendors produce the winning design/configuration on license...........
Here is a vid on the ARX-160:
http://aviationintel.com/2013/01/16/one-cool-carbine/
According to the comment in the link, the ARX is competing in the IC competition. Single Source, unverified info though.
The forend seems incredibly bulky...
sinlessorrow
02-01-13, 12:28
Here is a vid on the ARX-160:
http://aviationintel.com/2013/01/16/one-cool-carbine/
According to the comment in the link, the ARX is competing in the IC competition. Single Source, unverified info though.
The forend seems incredibly bulky...
Something about a gun with dual extractors that also act as ejectors just seems like a bad idea. I also do not like the idea of a Steel BCG riding in a polymer upper with no reinforcements and they are toutig it as a lube free gun aside from the ejector.
Well given the following comment, you can tell how well versed on the subject the writer is:
Some of their off products can be finicky but the 92/96/M9 series of pistols are one of my favorite handguns, and without a doubt my favorite steel hi-capacity pistol hands down.
Also significant is the Beretta guy didn't say a thing about the IC. Since the orginal source for the vidio is Guns & Ammo, and how it's written it sounds like the writer in the link has no first hand knowledge of the AXR. As such I'd not quote him as a reliable source.
Wikapidia also says it's a contender:secret: Following the citations it looks like theire source is Cheaper than Dirt (http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?tag=individual-carbine#)..................
Sounds like we need to sick Soldier Systems on this "lead".
sinlessorrow
02-01-13, 13:53
Well given the following comment, you can tell how well versed on the subject the writer is:
Also significant is the Beretta guy didn't say a thing about the IC. Since the orginal source for the vidio is Guns & Ammo, and how it's written it sounds like the writer in the link has no first hand knowledge of the AXR. As such I'd not quote him as a reliable source.
Wikapidia also says it's a contender:secret: Following the citations it looks like theire source is Cheaper than Dirt (http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?tag=individual-carbine#)..................
Sounds like we need to sick Soldier Systems on this "lead".
Aside from this link CTD was the only place I saw talking about the ARX in the IC.
like H&K didn't believe in the SCAR program.
HK did belive in SCAR. But they made mistake of preparing special SCAR offer based on late, railed XM-8 prototype. When they got denied right to submit it, it was too late to prepare new offer based on HK416 or even G36.
sinlessorrow
03-06-13, 16:05
Is it just me or has the army been very silent on this whole thing. Phase II ended in november/december from what I am told.
Littlelebowski
03-06-13, 16:49
Is it just me or has the army been very silent on this whole thing. Phase II ended in november/december from what I am told.
Oh, I'm sure ADCOR won it :D
sinlessorrow
03-06-13, 17:04
Oh, I'm sure ADCOR won it :D
Hah!! I knew I had a winner picked out!
Actually I am just curious to see the Phase II results.
And the plot thickens
Is the US Army’s Individual Carbine Program Doomed? (http://soldiersystems.net/2013/03/19/is-us-armys-individual-carbine-program-doomed/)
Earlier today, in a statement by Ms. Lynne M. Halbrooks, Principal Deputy Inspector General, Department of Defense Inspector General before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform entitled, “Opportunities to Reduce Waste and Improve Efficiency at the Department of Defense and Other Federal Agencies,” she made a rather interesting comment about the US Army’s proposed replacement for the M4/M16 family.
In another example, we are auditing the Army’s acquisition of the individual carbine program, which is an acquisition the Department may want to re-evaluate. We expect to report concerns that DoD may not have an established need for this weapon nor developed performance requirements for the $1.8 billion acquisition. Currently, the Army is modifying its existing M4 rifle and, at the same time, seeking to develop a new rifle. However, key performance parameters such as accuracy, reliability, and lethality have not been established. In addition, it is unclear what additional capability this new rifle will have over the modified M4. Further, the Army is seeking to acquire more rifles during a time when their total force structure will be reduced. We expect to issue our draft report within the next two months that will further elaborate on these concerns and provide recommendations for the Department to increase efficiencies.
Considering the Army’s dual path strategy that is alluded to in the statement which concurrently improves the performance of existing M4A1 carbines while simultaneously working to acquire an entirely new weapon, it is no wonder that DoD is reconsidering the replacement half of the equation. Industry analysts have long questioned the notion that a new weapon would offer a dramatic increase in performance without first undertaking a caliber and associated ammunition change. The IC program does not adequately do this. And then there’s Sequestration…
sinlessorrow
03-19-13, 22:25
Just imagine all the training $1.8 Billion would buy..
Quoting oneself is pretty gay, but . . .
At the end of the trials, they will have confirmed, yet again, that none of the latest and greatest can improve on the M4 to such a high degree as to warrant spending the time and money to issue 500,000 new weapons.
sinlessorrow
03-20-13, 13:44
Quoting oneself is pretty gay, but . . .
Yep.....GAY! Oh well I guess ADCOR won't win afterall....darn there goes my bet.
fortibus85
03-21-13, 13:52
A little bit more about the IG report. I'll see if I can find the report itself.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/03/20/pentagon-watchdog-doubts-army-needs-new-carbine.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=2
fortibus85
03-21-13, 15:52
Bloomberg doesn't have much different to say.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-19/army-carbine-program-may-waste-1-dot-8-billion-report-finds
Of course, Bloomberg is probably happy to paint _any_ gun related issue in a negative light.
I went to the DOD IG website and there is no official report that has been released in the last 10 days (on this topic). Re-reading the articles, I believe this is all from a public statement and not from an actual published report.
sinlessorrow
03-21-13, 18:28
Bloomberg doesn't have much different to say.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-03-19/army-carbine-program-may-waste-1-dot-8-billion-report-finds
Of course, Bloomberg is probably happy to paint _any_ gun related issue in a negative light.
I went to the DOD IG website and there is no official report that has been released in the last 10 days (on this topic). Re-reading the articles, I believe this is all from a public statement and not from an actual published report.
Ithought the testi was only $300,000,000 while the adoption would be $1.8 billion.
wild_wild_wes
03-24-13, 03:18
The program should be terminated. With LSAT on the horizon, it would be the Krag all over.
sinlessorrow
03-24-13, 16:11
The program should be terminated. With LSAT on the horizon, it would be the Krag all over.
Could you imagine a working LSAT carbine and LMG chambered for the 7mm!
It would be a thing of beauty.
wild_wild_wes
03-24-13, 18:29
Could you imagine a working LSAT carbine and LMG chambered for the 7mm!
It would be a thing of beauty.
Chamber it for 6.5mm, and it would be a useful thing of beauty!
Joking aside, I hope they can think outside the 5.56/7.62 box.
sinlessorrow
03-24-13, 19:01
Chamber it for 6.5mm, and it would be a useful thing of beauty!
Joking aside, I hope they can think outside the 5.56/7.62 box.
I was talking 7mm murray, though 6.5 would be useful in the cased telescoped package.
LSAT is supposed TRL7 so it won't be long until its fully ready, it's by far the most exciting thing in small arms in a long time imo.
wild_wild_wes
03-25-13, 08:59
None at all.
Well, the only reason the 6.8 exists is to fit into an M4 mag well.
If you go to something else dramatically different, like the LSAT, why restrict your choice to something that was optmized for a limit that no longer applies?
Don't get me wrong, I love the 6.8 round, but if you can move on. Then why not?
sinlessorrow
03-25-13, 10:13
Well, the only reason the 6.8 exists is to fit into an M4 mag well.
If you go to something else dramatically different, like the LSAT, why restrict your choice to something that was optmized for a limit that no longer applies?
Don't get me wrong, I love the 6.8 round, but if you can move on. Then why not?
They are currently looking into 6.5mm for the LSAT system, which is why I see no need to look at 6.8 designed for the AR.
What I like about the LSAT carbine is it features a working straight quad stack magazine that is reliable, and it is the same overall weight and size as the standard M4 BUT it features a 18.5" barrel which will gove increased velocity and range plus a quad stack mag while staying the same length and weight as the M4.
wild_wild_wes
03-25-13, 20:13
They are currently looking into 6.5mm for the LSAT system,
Interesting! I was worried that they were so oriented to weight reduction that they would not look at a larger caliber projectile.
sinlessorrow
03-25-13, 20:18
Interesting! I was worried that they were so oriented to weight reduction that they would not look at a larger caliber projectile.
Well there is a 40% weight reduction(spiral 3) in the 5.56 caliber so even going up to a larger bullet would still net a large weight reduction in ammunition.
The LMG has been testing at benning and should be ready for field trials atm and the Carbine testing began in march 2010. It features a quad stack magazine, and has the same OAL and weight as the M4 but has a 18" barrel which would be great for velocity.
Lets just skip 6.5 and go to 10mm caseless
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Pulse-Rifle-m41A.jpg
http://www.yourprops.com/movieprops/default/45d78685b5282/Aliens-1986-movie-props.jpg
http://www.yourprops.com/norm-45d7aa1f5c46c-Aliens+%281986%29.jpeg
sinlessorrow
03-25-13, 22:40
Here is a good video, this was during its testing at Benning where 8 rifles were put through testing and performed perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dMffBi-cf8
sinlessorrow
04-02-13, 22:48
Here is something interesting....
http://www.invictustacticalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Troy_Defense_Individual_Carbine_Component_Chart.jpg
Well there is a 40% weight reduction(spiral 3) in the 5.56 caliber so even going up to a larger bullet would still net a large weight reduction in ammunition.
The LMG has been testing at benning and should be ready for field trials atm and the Carbine testing began in march 2010. It features a quad stack magazine, and has the same OAL and weight as the M4 but has a 18" barrel which would be great for velocity.
Lets just skip 6.5 and go to 10mm caseless
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Pulse-Rifle-m41A.jpg
http://www.yourprops.com/movieprops/default/45d78685b5282/Aliens-1986-movie-props.jpg
http://www.yourprops.com/norm-45d7aa1f5c46c-Aliens+%281986%29.jpeg
How do 99 of those fit in one mag?
sinlessorrow
04-03-13, 01:30
How do 99 of those fit in one mag?
It is a quad stack U-bend conveyor magazine....
So according to Troy Defense they did submit to the ICC, looks like there are indeed more in than we know of competing.
No.
.....
97+% of ekia in the last 10yrs have been produced by less than .5% of the military. A clue on the efficacy of the herd and the hunters.
Great post.
Does this statistic come from a public data source? If so, mind posting or email a link? I'd be very interested in reading more on it.
Kind of supports the shift towards a more SOF oriented GWOT. Or shift back to, rather.
sinlessorrow
05-03-13, 04:26
Take it with a grain of salt given the person reporting.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/02/army-set-to-kill-improved-carbine-competition.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1
Yet they also seem to be slow walking the M-4 PIP. They have supposedly already down selected the new rail system, but have yet to release the results, and the RFP's for the parts to do the M-4A1 upgrade has yet to move past the sources sought phase. Each month it has been moved out a month since it was released. They moved it again on 1 May, but also stated they might make the award in 3rd QTR FY 13. To do so they they have till the end of June to release the RFP and then do the source selection/contract award.
Argh.............
sinlessorrow
05-03-13, 12:49
Yet they also seem to be slow walking the M-4 PIP. They have supposedly already down selected the new rail system, but have yet to release the results, and the RFP's for the parts to do the M-4A1 upgrade has yet to move past the sources sought phase. Each month it has been moved out a month since it was released. They moved it again on 1 May, but also stated they might make the award in 3rd QTR FY 13. To do so they they have till the end of June to release the RFP and then do the source selection/contract award.
Argh.............
Are you sure about the parts? I saw a contract to Colt for 300,000 M4A1 barrels recently.
I couldn't find one, but I'm also not an expert.Here's what is currently hung.
10--M4 Product Improvement Program (PIP)-Bolt
W15QKN-13-R-0039
10 -- Weapons Department of the Army
Army Contracting Command
ACC - New Jersey Presolicitation (Modified) / Partial Small Business May 01, 2013
10--M4 Replacement Barrel and Front Sight Assembly ( Heavy Variant )
W15QKN12R0088
10 -- Weapons Department of the Army
Army Contracting Command
ACC - New Jersey Presolicitation (Modified) May 01, 2013
PLEASE NOTE ON MAY 8TH 2013, PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE W15QKN-12-R-0088 WILL BE RENUMBERED TO W15QKN-13-R-0150. THE CURRENT NUMBER WILL NO LONGER BE ACTIVE AND WILL BE REPLACED BY W15QKN-13-R-0150.
10--M4 Carbine Product Improvement Program (PIP) Fire Control Selector Assembly
W15QKN13R0048
10 -- Weapons Department of the Army
Army Contracting Command
ACC - New Jersey Presolicitation (Modified) / Total Small Business May 01,
Stray electron, not sure how it relates to the PIP:
10--Market Survey for the Heavy Barrel for the M4A1 Carbine
Solicitation Number: W56HZV13R0345
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: Army Contracting Command
Location: ACC - Warren (ACC-WRN)(DTA)
sinlessorrow
05-03-13, 13:38
I couldn't find one, but I'm also not an expert.Here's what is currently hung.
10--M4 Product Improvement Program (PIP)-Bolt
W15QKN-13-R-0039
10 -- Weapons Department of the Army
Army Contracting Command
ACC - New Jersey Presolicitation (Modified) / Partial Small Business May 01, 2013
10--M4 Replacement Barrel and Front Sight Assembly ( Heavy Variant )
W15QKN12R0088
10 -- Weapons Department of the Army
Army Contracting Command
ACC - New Jersey Presolicitation (Modified) May 01, 2013
PLEASE NOTE ON MAY 8TH 2013, PRE-SOLICITATION NOTICE W15QKN-12-R-0088 WILL BE RENUMBERED TO W15QKN-13-R-0150. THE CURRENT NUMBER WILL NO LONGER BE ACTIVE AND WILL BE REPLACED BY W15QKN-13-R-0150.
10--M4 Carbine Product Improvement Program (PIP) Fire Control Selector Assembly
W15QKN13R0048
10 -- Weapons Department of the Army
Army Contracting Command
ACC - New Jersey Presolicitation (Modified) / Total Small Business May 01,
Stray electron, not sure how it relates to the PIP:
10--Market Survey for the Heavy Barrel for the M4A1 Carbine
Solicitation Number: W56HZV13R0345
Agency: Department of the Army
Office: Army Contracting Command
Location: ACC - Warren (ACC-WRN)(DTA)
Interesting, give me a minute to track down that Colt one and I'll post it.
EDIT: here it is
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4951
Colt Defense L.L.C., West Hartford, Conn., was awarded a $13,981,350 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of the M4 Product Improvement Program replacement barrel and front sight assembly. Work location will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 30, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with six bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-13-D-0040).
Very strange, since it was posted No. 009-13 January 07, 2013.
And the orginal sources sought posted on the 23rd.
licitation Number: W15QKN12R0088
Notice Type: Presolicitation Synopsis:
Added: Jan 23, 2013 1:32 pm
Of course we have more the 350,000 Carbines to modify so maybe it's just another part of the Dual path.
sinlessorrow
05-03-13, 14:20
Very strange, since it was posted No. 009-13 January 07, 2013.
And the orginal sources sought posted on the 23rd.
licitation Number: W15QKN12R0088
Notice Type: Presolicitation Synopsis:
Added: Jan 23, 2013 1:32 pm
Of course we have more the 350,000 Carbines to modify so maybe it's just another part of the Dual path.
That is what I'm thinking. It sounds like they are wanting some small businesses to make these second batches, But I could be way off to.
Grand58742
05-03-13, 17:42
Take it with a grain of salt given the person reporting.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/02/army-set-to-kill-improved-carbine-competition.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the article. Someone, somewhere in Congress and/or the DoD had to notice the Army was not only buying new carbines, but also having tests to produce another carbine to replace the ones they are buying right now and yet another program to improve the existing carbines which would include the ones they are buying right now...and ends up being more money spent on the carbines they are buying right now for planned upgrades in the near future. So they are currently buying brand new carbines they knowingly are planning to either upgrade in the next five years or replace entirely in the next five years which means they are spending twice the money to achieve the same goal. Actually, three times the same amount if you look at it. And this didn't strike anyone as being...wasteful?
No, not any waste going on there especially with sequestration going on and programs getting cut like crazy. Of course, this is coming from the same service that went through the UCP process a decade ago and yet managed to admit they just might have slightly overstated the effectiveness of the one camo does all approach and quietly issued Multicam to the OEF guys after a couple of Congressmen crawled up their ass about it. And is currently looking at a minimum of two new patterns that coincidentally are designed to blend into arid and woodland environments. Nope, nothing to see here after outfitting one million plus troops with a pattern that lasted less than a decade and was never that effective to begin with...most would call that a debacle and a huge waste of money.
Anyway, back on topic. For me, financially and looking at slashed budgets, do one of the three. PIP, ICC or new M4A1s. Simply cannot afford to do all three. And I'm hoping this won't end up as yet another debacle where a lot of money is wasted.
sinlessorrow
05-03-13, 19:23
I wouldn't doubt the veracity of the article. Someone, somewhere in Congress and/or the DoD had to notice the Army was not only buying new carbines, but also having tests to produce another carbine to replace the ones they are buying right now and yet another program to improve the existing carbines which would include the ones they are buying right now...and ends up being more money spent on the carbines they are buying right now for planned upgrades in the near future. So they are currently buying brand new carbines they knowingly are planning to either upgrade in the next five years or replace entirely in the next five years which means they are spending twice the money to achieve the same goal. Actually, three times the same amount if you look at it. And this didn't strike anyone as being...wasteful?
No, not any waste going on there especially with sequestration going on and programs getting cut like crazy. Of course, this is coming from the same service that went through the UCP process a decade ago and yet managed to admit they just might have slightly overstated the effectiveness of the one camo does all approach and quietly issued Multicam to the OEF guys after a couple of Congressmen crawled up their ass about it. And is currently looking at a minimum of two new patterns that coincidentally are designed to blend into arid and woodland environments. Nope, nothing to see here after outfitting one million plus troops with a pattern that lasted less than a decade and was never that effective to begin with...most would call that a debacle and a huge waste of money.
Anyway, back on topic. For me, financially and looking at slashed budgets, do one of the three. PIP, ICC or new M4A1s. Simply cannot afford to do all three. And I'm hoping this won't end up as yet another debacle where a lot of money is wasted.
The move to the M4A1 is part of the PiP, so they are both one in the same.
Grand58742
05-03-13, 20:55
The move to the M4A1 is part of the PiP, so they are both one in the same.
I was under the impression there was more to it. New rails, possible improved bolt, etc.
Easier to modify after production maybe, but still working a concurrent program.
sinlessorrow
05-03-13, 21:20
I was under the impression there was more to it. New rails, possible improved bolt, etc.
Easier to modify after production maybe, but still working a concurrent program.
From what has been shown they are going to purchase some M4A1's and the rest will be done through work orders(i could be weong on bame) where they rebuild the old M4's into M4A1's and I would guess when they choose a new rail system they will slowly swap out the old ones for the new ones.
wild_wild_wes
05-04-13, 01:47
What is an "M4A1" though? AFAIK there is no official difference between one with a carbine-length RIS and an FSB, and the SOCOM version with a rifle-length RISII and low-pro gas block. If they're buying new barrels with FSB pinned on at this late point in history, well then they are just ignorant.
What is an "M4A1" though? AFAIK there is no official difference between one with a carbine-length RIS and an FSB, and the SOCOM version with a rifle-length RISII and low-pro gas block. If they're buying new barrels with FSB pinned on at this late point in history, well then they are just ignorant.
Full auto.
What is an "M4A1" though? AFAIK there is no official difference between one with a carbine-length RIS and an FSB, and the SOCOM version with a rifle-length RISII and low-pro gas block. If they're buying new barrels with FSB pinned on at this late point in history, well then they are just ignorant.
M4A1's are full auto, it has nothing to do with the rail system.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
wild_wild_wes
05-04-13, 02:23
M4A1's are full auto, it has nothing to do with the rail system.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
That's the point I was making. The SOCOM version has more improvements (besides the full-auto) than the Big Army M4A1, but it doesn't have a seperate type-designation.
sinlessorrow
05-04-13, 02:29
That's the point I was making. The SOCOM version has more improvements (besides the full-auto) than the Big Army M4A1, but it doesn't have a seperate type-designation.
The M4A1 has the medium profile barrel with M203 cuts and has a auto trigger giving consistant trigger pulls in semi vs the 3 differen ones of the burst cam.
The items like the DD RIS II is a SOPMOD item. The Army uses a different system and will have a different rail system than SOCOM(or they may not, you never know), but the FSB is here to stay and there are plenty of FF rails that work with the FSB so I do not see that as a issue.
fortibus85
05-07-13, 14:13
Media rumors of ending of the program (by not entering the next phase).
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/02/army-set-to-kill-improved-carbine-competition.html?col=7000023435630&comp=7000023435630&rank=7
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.