View Full Version : Info on the Improved Carbine program
soldiersystems
04-12-10, 07:52
I had the fortune to recently speak with COL Tamilio, PM Soldier Weapons about improvements to the current M4 carbine as well as a proposed new weapon dubbed the “Improved Carbine”. It seems that there has been some confusion over this, but there are two separate projects going on, almost simultaneously... Read More (http://soldiersystems.net/2010/04/12/the-future-of-us-army-small-arms/)
It is interesting that despite the mantra that the M4 is just fine if cleaned and maintained, there is still interest in the army in a gas piston M4. I am not being critical, just saying that 2 different messages are coming from the army.
It is interesting that despite the mantra that the M4 is just fine if cleaned and maintained, there is still interest in the army in a gas piston M4. I am not being critical, just saying that 2 different messages are coming from the army.
The Army has been dragging its heels on change for a long time. They are looking for a quantum-leap and there isn't one on the horizon, but the politics are against the Army at the moment. Issues of reliability keep surfacing in the news and therefore in Congress. The fact that SOCOM went their own way to replace the M4 with the SCAR is a political hit against the M4.
So the Army plays a sleight-of-hand game. They'll make some incremental improvements to the M4, and simultaneously make a big show of requesting technology demonstrators from everyone for a completely new "Improved Carbine." They will waste millions, and then decide that the "improved" M4 is adequate.
Carlos, that is disappointing. I would presume the officer ranks would be thinking, "Do my men have a better chance of survival if they carry rifle X or rifle Y?" But I am probably naive.
I hope to be proven wrong, but I have lost count of the rifle programs the Army has developed over the past few decades. I suspect that just like with camo, they will be the last to change. Once the USMC finds a new rifle, then the Army will play catch up.
soldiersystems
04-13-10, 22:21
The Marine Corps doesn't have a rifle program and the Army does. SOCOM has one and boy is it messed up.
As a taxpayer, the rifle they have is fine.
Heavy Metal
04-13-10, 23:26
Failzero coated parts, better springs, perhaps an improved extractor and bolt along with better magazines and the current system would be fine.
We have this same discussion over at Lightfighter; Frankly, "better rifle" is bullshit.
What we need is to revamp rifle maintenance. The problem with the current Army small arms isn't the arms themselves, it's the "run them till they break" then "fix the part that broke and reissue the worn out weapon to some other schmuck" way the Army is treating maintenance..
A new rifle just means we get to fuck up new rifles and have the same problems, again. In fact, all this noise about new rifles just distracts from the real, systematic problem of lack of maintenance and the fact that we don't just trash most of the rifles out there and buy new of the same thing.
Well, the best approach would be simply introducing modular uppers, and being done with it.
I guarantee that some COTS parts could enhance the M4 significantly, throw in some currently aftermarket lower parts (ambi safety, Norgon Mag Catches, BAD Lever), switch to better extractor springs and O-Rings, utilize improved coatings.
But the underlying problem of failures caused by service life of parts being long passed will go overlooked, we'll still be doing stupid stuff like firing M855 (and it's LFA twin), not trashing broken magazines, and so forth.
Magic_Salad0892
04-14-10, 05:21
How about this.
Fail Zero Coating - Nickel Boron on upper receiver, and bolt carrier group.
Nitriting the barrel
9310 for bolt material
Cold Hammer Forged Barrel
Better trigger
Heavier barrel.
If they really HAVE to have it. Then a piston operation rod. That doesn't bother me. I like it (more than DI) but it's not really needed.
Now you have a better rifle.
Oh, replace M16A2 rifles with M16A3 rifles.
Auto > Burst.
The Army has been dragging its heels on change for a long time. They are looking for a quantum-leap and there isn't one on the horizon, but the politics are against the Army at the moment. Issues of reliability keep surfacing in the news and therefore in Congress. The fact that SOCOM went their own way to replace the M4 with the SCAR is a political hit against the M4.
So the Army plays a sleight-of-hand game. They'll make some incremental improvements to the M4, and simultaneously make a big show of requesting technology demonstrators from everyone for a completely new "Improved Carbine." They will waste millions, and then decide that the "improved" M4 is adequate.
Did SOCOM actually adopt the SCAR?
Why don't they just go with the HK416? It passed their tests, I don't see why they don't just adopt that. Same controls as the M4, but with a piston.
Misc Ex-Member
04-14-10, 17:15
All the money they're going to spend on this should instead be used to send the Soldiers to a five day TigerSwan or Vickers class.
All the money they're going to spend on this should instead be used to send the Soldiers to a five day TigerSwan or Vickers class.
Now that would make waaaaaaayyyyy too much sense. You know that's not "how we roll".
A LAV class ????? WAY too much sense........ As a taxpayer I'd rather see that than finding the magic gun, especially if it's going to stay in 5.56.
Heavy Metal
04-14-10, 21:30
Too many Jiborni's and not enough Larry's to go around.
Trust me, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Making the weapon more idiot-proof won't hurt.
Better training won't hurt either. The correct answer is to get both.
RogerinTPA
04-14-10, 21:40
Spot on Kater. They'd be better served having USAMU personnel take the LAV courses, then send them out to predeployment units and in theater, to train the trigger pullers Army wide.
All the money they're going to spend on this should instead be used to send the Soldiers to a five day TigerSwan or Vickers class.
In fact, all this noise about new rifles just distracts from the real, systematic problem of lack of maintenance and the fact that we don't just trash most of the rifles out there and buy new of the same thing.
Good point about maintenance.
Train the trainers sounds sexy, because it is effective - until cost cutting and administrative stupidity would dilute into check-in-the-box rudimentary course for the trainers, and only minimal improvement for the average guy. Some jerkoff would cut corners on the important stuff, and it'll be right back to lowest common denominator training with the aim of mediocrity. The right direction, and a better expenditure of money still.
Per this, if time were critical, just take the proven 416, convert it to 6.8SPC, and buy them as uppers-only. USMC should be starting to buy up UBR stocks in this time frame, just retrofit with ambi safeties and mag catches; so that's a pretty intelligent combination. It'll go well with the IAR.
soldiersystems
04-15-10, 07:58
You guys read the who article where it talked about how much it cost to stand up a new round? And this is the cost without having to build a new factory.
I don't think a caliber is happening.
Magic_Salad0892
04-17-10, 21:19
Caliber doesn't need to happen.
Phase out M855 and make Mk. 318 Mod. 0 the new standard round.
THAT, i completely agree with if we're going to continue using 5.56.
Running 416's alongside the 416IARs makes sense, and as much as I dislike HK, just dropping on those uppers would be a hit.
Despite the attractiveness of the R&D costs of 6.8 to the government (monumentally small), it would still be too pricy for how we use those rounds - point taken.
A three hundred million dollar hit on a calber change alone means many of the decision makers will be outclassed by budget drivers like fuel and Crye camo acquistion.
Testing isn't that expensive, the COTS are coming up, and the industry provides the sample. If in this case someone uses a different caliber and it's proprietary, ammo will be on them, not the Army. Basically it will be a show and tell, then let us try on this course with our soldiers and see.
Two iterations of that, the "upselected" winners are given the TDP and small contracts go out.
What is confusing is that we'll see two versions of this going on, a short term version with a potential contract dangling, and the long term version for the Improved rifle, with no real decision made. It'll be research to prove once again there is no quantum leap.
In the background the Army is still working on the new green gilding metal bullets - and since the holding company that owns Remington now also owns Barnes, it's a matter of time when, not if. Add the caseless development still going on, which still does hold the promise of no brass, even if using a plastic sleeve. That means a shuttle bolt operating on a pivot vertically, not reciprocally on the barrel axis, to get the chamber to seal (obturation.) Not using brass cased ammo is a juicy strategic level materials management coup, and making public ownership of military ammo difficult follows on, well, too bad.
If you add electric ignition - which Remington has already offered to the public - you get the bonus of a round counter.
There's a quantum leap - caseless copper hollowpoints in a monolithic carbine design that doesn't need a foot of bolt travel to operate. 50 round magazines either preloaded and discardable, or reloadable with AK level durability, very likely polymer. Changeable barrels at the operator level (no headspacing requirement.) The trigger group is basically a leaf switch attached to a small chip firing the electrodes.
If a hillbilly like me can figure that out, the prototype is already sitting in someone's rack, hmmm? Added to that, specifying the requirements early, and openly, gets the real front runner credibilty because it appeared as an open competition.
Then the real trials start up, and most competitors with old school bolts and bullets are outclassed right up front, like running a turbine at Indy.
In the background the Army is still working on the new green gilding metal bullets - and since the holding company that owns Remington now also owns Barnes, it's a matter of time when, not if. Add the caseless development still going on, which still does hold the promise of no brass, even if using a plastic sleeve. That means a shuttle bolt operating on a pivot vertically, not reciprocally on the barrel axis, to get the chamber to seal (obturation.) Not using brass cased ammo is a juicy strategic level materials management coup, and making public ownership of military ammo difficult follows on, well, too bad.
If you add electric ignition - which Remington has already offered to the public - you get the bonus of a round counter.
There's a quantum leap - caseless copper hollowpoints in a monolithic carbine design that doesn't need a foot of bolt travel to operate. 50 round magazines either preloaded and discardable, or reloadable with AK level durability, very likely polymer. Changeable barrels at the operator level (no headspacing requirement.) The trigger group is basically a leaf switch attached to a small chip firing the electrodes.
If a hillbilly like me can figure that out, the prototype is already sitting in someone's rack, hmmm? Added to that, specifying the requirements early, and openly, gets the real front runner credibilty because it appeared as an open competition.
Here's Crye's concept for the "Modular Rifle - Caseless."
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/2739/mrcca.jpg
http://www.cryeassociates.com/12.htm
The question is, just how far away is caseless ammo from becoming real-world useful? This is all hanging on the ammo. Then the question becomes what caliber will they choose -- because we'll be stuck with that for a long time.
It also begs the question of caseless ammo for pistols -- something I've never seen discussed.
Edit: nevermind, looks like I answered my own question. This could have been adapted for pistols but never was.
http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo07apr.htm
Magic_Salad0892
04-20-10, 19:28
I don't like the idea of caseless ammunition.
Just another set of problems to kill a weapon system without much benefit.
knoxtnshooter
04-20-10, 23:44
well this joe thinks that the m4 pattern is fine... it'd be nice to have the COTS improvements that are popular with the civ market.
of course it'd be "cool" to have the SCAR or something similar, I don't think it itself improves capabilities... except looking cool, of course.
i don't see a caliber change coming any time ever... so if the SCAR or whatever doesn't improve my ability to make hits in a timely manner, who cares.
Any idea why the LWRCi fire control group didn't take hold - the ability to run open bolt on auto was extremely attractive.
Despite the attractiveness of the R&D costs of 6.8 to the government (monumentally small), it would still be too pricy for how we use those rounds - point taken.
IIRC, the LWRC IAR used a 4 position selector switch. Safe-Semi-Safe-Auto. Going from open bolt to the first safe position meant the bolt would close. IIRC again, the USMC wanted a 3 position selector, which was a huge factor.
I think if caseless ammo were to take hold, it would be bad all around.
The first being having electronics control the firing sequence of a gun.
Second being the costs.
I don't like the idea of caseless ammunition.
Just another set of problems to kill a weapon system without much benefit.
Without much benefit? I think you need to look at the merits of caseless ammo again. There are HUGE benefits if they develop a viable system.
-Huge weight savings in the weapon due to reduced operating components and the reduced space in which those components need to reciprocate.
-Huge weight savings in the ammo.
-Reduced ammo costs after tooling.
-Reduced weapon costs after development.
-Viable bullpup designs possible due to lack of ejecting cases and the reduced foot print of the operating components.
-Reduced recoil (potentially)
It's still not revolutionary per se, but it would certainly be the evolutionary peak of current rifle technology.
Stephen
As a taxpayer, the rifle they have is fine.
Last time I checked as an AD soldier I pay taxes too! M-4 fine really? Don't get me started on all the ISSUES the M-4 has. I and a bunch of soldiers in here have numerous complaints with the M-4 from COMBAT. Do you feel that we should just soldier on with a in your opinion a "just fine" rifle? Maybe we should with your logic sell all the F-22's and go back to F-4's? Because they were fine too. Hell, lets go back to the M-14, and steel pots.
Anyone else going to be at the Indusrty Day Tuesday at the Ironworks?
theblackknight
04-23-10, 22:21
All the money they're going to spend on this should instead be used to send the Soldiers to a five day TigerSwan or Vickers class.
Dosent mean the training would stick. I just got off the rifle range, and seemed like everybody was more about hurry up and get done soo we can go home and sleep than training.
Telescoping ammo (google it) is the future. Anything we do in the meantime is just dittling around the edges.
Personally, for my money I would like to see more realistic training with current systems then buying a whole new set of toys. It is shocking that the average soldier fires less than 200 rounds a year.
Last time I checked as an AD soldier I pay taxes too! M-4 fine really? Don't get me started on all the ISSUES the M-4 has. I and a bunch of soldiers in here have numerous complaints with the M-4 from COMBAT. Do you feel that we should just soldier on with a in your opinion a "just fine" rifle? Maybe we should with your logic sell all the F-22's and go back to F-4's? Because they were fine too. Hell, lets go back to the M-14, and steel pots.
Seriously. What about Active Duty Army that you know, right now, makes you think the exact same issues won't pop up with ANY new weapon systems that replace the M4?
In about a year, whatever magic gun they buy will end up being an unreliable piece of shit because soldiers will abuse them, the Army will refuse to maintain them, and armorers/commanders/MET inspectors will be require that they be destroyed through making them spotless clean.
And, oh yeah, Joe still won't be able to fucking shoot, because training will still be jacked up.
Spare me, man.
Magic_Salad0892
04-25-10, 06:22
The lifespan of the M4 isn't over yet.
They just need to make the changes.
Army Chief
04-25-10, 08:22
Train the trainers sounds sexy, because it is effective - until cost cutting and administrative stupidity would dilute into check-in-the-box rudimentary course for the trainers, and only minimal improvement for the average guy. Some jerkoff would cut corners on the important stuff, and it'll be right back to lowest common denominator training with the aim of mediocrity.
I have to agree. We can say what we will about Armywide five-day classes and such, but this is an anecdotal recommendation at best. The Army already has the right people in the ranks to create a relevant syllabus and launch a training course like this (and could surely train up more in short order), but it would never be properly resourced, implemented or managed over time.
As an Army we simply don't do enough small arms training, and the training that is called for is barely sufficient in a time of war. Professional trigger-pullers in non-standard units fare better, but in general, it is too time-consuming, too expensive and too difficult to set and maintain new standards when "good enough" is obviously getting the job done. Even today, most troops still operate in support roles where basic competency is generally deemed adequate -- and, in most instances, it probably is.
My issue with the status quo is that, for those who might have an interest in advanced training of whatever sort, if you aren't in the right kind of unit, you really have little-to-no access to skills improvement. Historically, the Army has owned some of the best marksmanship programs on the planet, but our focus has changed, and the average recruit today brings none of the stock-to-shoulder capabilities that his grandfather, and grandfather's-father brought into the ranks.
It is admittedly harder to get a Soldier to take a graduate-level interest in marksmanship when he's handling a rifle for the first time in Basic Training. We've compensated with synthetic training systems and video games and who-knows-what, but we've done very little work on manipulations, handling or non-standard methods of employment. The training program remains much as it always has been: march out to the line in full kit, do what you're told when you're told to do it, stay in your lane, fire 40 rounds and hope to spend the shortest possible amount of time on the range. It isn't fun. It isn't interesting. It isn't engaging. It is just another annual/semi-annual block check; no different than the PT test, CS chamber (back when we still cared about such things) or Prevention Of Sexual Harrassment training.
Put simply, Army rifle marksmanship training is a pain in the fourth point of contact, and in most units, given the costs and complexities associated with change, it probably always will be. Little wonder that the average Joe feels a real ambivalence toward his weapon these days, when he fires it twice a year, is forced to carry it everywhere unloaded (but still take it seriously), and is rarely given the opportunity to do anything even remotely interesting with it. We've lost the "this is my rifle ..." mentality to a large degree, and while I would agree that it would be great to offer advanced training for some or all, the problem really runs deeper than any contracted week-long training course could ever hope to fix.
AC
Building a new rifle around current ammo technology is a waste of time and money.
Case telescope is the future.
Without much benefit? I think you need to look at the merits of caseless ammo again. There are HUGE benefits if they develop a viable system.
-Huge weight savings in the weapon due to reduced operating components and the reduced space in which those components need to reciprocate.
-Huge weight savings in the ammo.
-Reduced ammo costs after tooling.
-Reduced weapon costs after development.
-Viable bullpup designs possible due to lack of ejecting cases and the reduced foot print of the operating components.
-Reduced recoil (potentially)
It's still not revolutionary per se, but it would certainly be the evolutionary peak of current rifle technology.
Stephen
the biggest problems with caseless ammo (still) are the chamber residue and material handling issues. you simply can't transport the ammunition in the same way as conventional cased ammo; it chips easily and breaks leading to different ballistic performance.
There is also the problem with dimensional stability. Have they found a non-hygroscopic (I think that's the word) propellant yet?
Don't worry guys, no one is using caseless ammunition. The current trials are with plastic cased telescoping ammo.
The LSAT program is the best example.AAI has the contract and is developing the ammo and Ares is doing the gun. Ares is a company that Gene Stoner owned and they have numerous cased telescoped gun designs. They did them all the way up to 35 MM.
RAM Engineer
04-25-10, 20:29
Is that the same Ares that made the Shrike?
Magic_Salad0892
04-26-10, 05:25
I think it might be.
You're talking about the belt fed gas impingement AR-15 upper right?
My search fu is failing me today.
No the two companies are unrelated . This ARES has been around since the 80's. Like I said Gene Stoner's company and did lots of big guns 25 35 mm. Also did the Stoner LMG or 86 at the time and had a ACR submission , FARC rifle, folding sub-machine gun and many more.
There is another potential competitor.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/05/07/beretta-arx-glx-160/
It's something to mention in conversations when acronyms get thrown around. ACR vx. XCR vs SCAR vs. ARX vs. HK vs. SIG vs. who's next?
When things get closer it will be interesting to see who makes the first cut. Being a major player will be required. Beretta is already a supplier, another point. We've got bases in the Med they used as leverage on the M9, will we more resistant this time politically?
Having a complete list of the players means not being blindsided by the results like the 1911 fans.
Sttrongbow
05-07-10, 22:38
Looks like the SCAR is progressing:
SCAR ADM (http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/press/detail.asp?id=82)
If this means full rate production and wider use, that could give the SCAR a leg-up on the improved carbine program, especially once politics get involved (as they inevitably will).
I dont see a piston gun doing what the Army wants...
Sttrongbow
05-08-10, 21:42
I dont see a piston gun doing what the Army wants...
Why not?
At times it almost seems technically (and politically) easier to develop a major weapons system like an armored vehicle, warship, or aircraft than something as relatively simple as a rifle.
As Dr. Ezell said in one of his books, the history of US small arms development has not been a happy one.
variablebinary
05-10-10, 17:09
Short of the folding stock, there is no reason why the M4/AR15 platform cant be improved to be more in line with current small arms trends.
If you look at 3rd gen carbines like the SCAR, XCR and ACR we see a common themes:
Monolithic rail
Flip up front and rear BUIS
Piston
QD barrel
Ambi controls
Potential for multi-caliber
These features already exist in the commercial market for the AR15, its just a matter of getting them tested and approved for military use.
Then there is the debate on whether there is a future for direct impingement. As we saw with the Brits and LMT's L129A1 marksman rifle, direct gas still proves it has what it takes to be a contender.
Littlelebowski
05-10-10, 17:15
More training, please.
More training, please.
I know a couple Gunners in the USMC who did a study a while back. The average Marine, who considers him self a trained, proficient, even professional rifleman, receives 6 hours of live fire training per year. 6 hours. Can anyone here tell me what activity they spend only 6 hours per year practicing at which they even consider themselves a decent amateur?
You can't buy your way into marksmanship and increased lethality any more than you can buy your way into baseball, basketball, skiing, or golf. Tiger Woods will whip my ass up and down the course no matter what clubs he's using - for the most part, the same applies to our standard issue firearms.
If it runs like an AK, you don't have to worry about maintenance or maintenance training so much.
vicious_cb
05-11-10, 04:03
If it runs like an AK, you don't have to worry about maintenance or maintenance training so much.
Now thats just a silly statement.
Littlelebowski
05-11-10, 06:19
If it runs like an AK, you don't have to worry about maintenance or maintenance training so much.
Have you served?
Littlelebowski
05-11-10, 06:19
I know a couple Gunners in the USMC who did a study a while back. The average Marine, who considers him self a trained, proficient, even professional rifleman, receives 6 hours of live fire training per year. 6 hours. Can anyone here tell me what activity they spend only 6 hours per year practicing at which they even consider themselves a decent amateur?
You can't buy your way into marksmanship and increased lethality any more than you can buy your way into baseball, basketball, skiing, or golf. Tiger Woods will whip my ass up and down the course no matter what clubs he's using - for the most part, the same applies to our standard issue firearms.
Exactly right, me lad.
Magic_Salad0892
05-11-10, 06:47
Nickel Boron, or Teflon on upper receiver, lower parts kit, and bolt carrier group.
Nitriting the barrel
9310 for bolt material
Cold Hammer Forged Barrel
Better trigger
Heavier barrel (double chrome lined, with match chambers)
5 Coil Extractor Spring
Chrome Silicon Extra-Power Buffer Springs
H2 (or H3) buffers
Midlength gas systems
A Piston (If it REALLY makes you feel better.....)
Gas Block Mounted Front Sights (longer sight radius, lower profile sights)
Crane O-Rings
If every AR-15 in the U.S. Military had these upgrades they'd outshoot any of the new generation rifles any day of the week. I guarantee it.
BTW: Screw monolithic platforms, whole new set of problems.
I know a couple Gunners in the USMC who did a study a while back. The average Marine, who considers him self a trained, proficient, even professional rifleman, receives 6 hours of live fire training per year. 6 hours. Can anyone here tell me what activity they spend only 6 hours per year practicing at which they even consider themselves a decent amateur?
6 hours is like what JSOC shooters get per day. Training budgets are pretty lopsided.
6 hours is like what JSOC shooters get per day. Training budgets are pretty lopsided.
You know what's funny about that? You're not even kidding. Their budgets are mind blowing compared to the average Soldier or Marine.
I wish I could find the numbers reference what percentage of targets engaged are actually hit - it's something like 12%. Keep in mind, that does not mean that 12% of rounds fired hit their target - that means that only 12 out of every 100 targets fired upon, 1 round or 1 million rounds, will have holes in them.
The military has made decent progress with things like red dot optics, but equipment can only get you so far.
Tiger Woods will whip my ass up and down the course no matter what clubs he's using
In that case, start out by hitting him first. :D
In that case, start out by hitting him first. :D
Reminds me of the advice my high school English professor gave my class before taking our SAT exam: "If you're not cheating, you're not trying." :p
Littlelebowski
05-11-10, 16:11
The military has made decent progress with things like red dot optics, but equipment can only get you so far.
Apparently you haven't heard of the "piston" that will fix all problems :D
A round counter? That would be interesting to see... Leave well enough alone and give our soldiers better training with what they have.
I am a fan of the 6.8 round but not sure that is the upgrade that they are looking for.
RogerinTPA
05-11-10, 19:33
A round counter? That would be interesting to see... Leave well enough alone and give our soldiers better training with what they have.
I am a fan of the 6.8 round but not sure that is the upgrade that they are looking for.
That would be a logical step in the maintenance process, to track wear on parts and barrels, and when to replace them. Currently, no one can accurately know how many rounds have been fired through ANY Infantry weapon system in the inventory.
Lebowski, I never served in the military, although apparently I'm getting more range time than a lot of marines and I hardly get any range time anymore. That's pretty sad, we spend so much on the military but the people who hold ground and win wars get the least of it.
The biggest problems we ever had with Heavy Equipment out here were linked to devices that were either supposed to let you know when they needed maintenance, do stuff automatically, or last at least 365 days guaranteed. Stuff needs to be checked manually, monthly if not weekly, but the system should be fairly robust and nearly foolproof to begin with. The one thing I really wish the AR's had was a AK style bolt handle. FAL's, XCR's, etc have a good cocking knob too, but nothing beats having it directly on the bolt like an AK/AR18/K2/etc.
The trigger group and lower on an AR15 is pretty good, but the buffer assembly needs to go, get replaced with a folder. The upper should be made much more like an AR18 or Daewoo K2. The bolt carrier should ride on rails like an AK or G3, the bolt itself should be made more robust. There is a lot that can be done to improve the rifle. Sticking a piston in an AR15 doesn't solve much and often creates more problems without specialized components. Look at how heavily modified the HK416 is, but the modifications yielded results.
Lebowski, I never served in the military, although apparently I'm getting more range time than a lot of marines and I hardly get any range time anymore. That's pretty sad, we spend so much on the military but the people who hold ground and win wars get the least of it.
The biggest problems we ever had with Heavy Equipment out here were linked to devices that were either supposed to let you know when they needed maintenance, do stuff automatically, or last at least 365 days guaranteed. Stuff needs to be checked manually, monthly if not weekly, but the system should be fairly robust and nearly foolproof to begin with. The one thing I really wish the AR's had was a AK style bolt handle. FAL's, XCR's, etc have a good cocking knob too, but nothing beats having it directly on the bolt like an AK/AR18/K2/etc.
The trigger group and lower on an AR15 is pretty good, but the buffer assembly needs to go, get replaced with a folder. The upper should be made much more like an AR18 or Daewoo K2. The bolt carrier should ride on rails like an AK or G3, the bolt itself should be made more robust. There is a lot that can be done to improve the rifle. Sticking a piston in an AR15 doesn't solve much and often creates more problems without specialized components. Look at how heavily modified the HK416 is, but the modifications yielded results.
Sorry, I'd rather have weapons I can fight with. A folder does nothing to increase the weapon's fightability.
Fixed bolt handle makes it impossible to seal the action from foreign debris.
Sticking a piston in an AR15 doesn't solve much, because there is really nothing to solve
Round counters are idiotic. Round counts prove nothing. What is needed is a system for inspecting wear on carbines that is FOLLOWED.
Maintenance IS the answer.
Lebowski, I never served in the military, although apparently I'm getting more range time than a lot of marines and I hardly get any range time anymore. That's pretty sad, we spend so much on the military but the people who hold ground and win wars get the least of it.
The biggest problems we ever had with Heavy Equipment out here were linked to devices that were either supposed to let you know when they needed maintenance, do stuff automatically, or last at least 365 days guaranteed. Stuff needs to be checked manually, monthly if not weekly, but the system should be fairly robust and nearly foolproof to begin with. The one thing I really wish the AR's had was a AK style bolt handle. FAL's, XCR's, etc have a good cocking knob too, but nothing beats having it directly on the bolt like an AK/AR18/K2/etc.
The trigger group and lower on an AR15 is pretty good, but the buffer assembly needs to go, get replaced with a folder. The upper should be made much more like an AR18 or Daewoo K2. The bolt carrier should ride on rails like an AK or G3, the bolt itself should be made more robust. There is a lot that can be done to improve the rifle. Sticking a piston in an AR15 doesn't solve much and often creates more problems without specialized components. Look at how heavily modified the HK416 is, but the modifications yielded results.
Everything requires maintenance. Even if parts last longer, at some time you get to a point where you will have to service it. When that happens then you still have the same situation that 120MM talked about on the first page. Oh, and if you really have to have a folder, ZM weapons makes an AR with some sort of redesigned bolt carrier so that you can put a folder on. I have no idea if they are worth anything since I nor anybody I know has ever had any trigger time or even touched it. Just telling ya that it is out there.
Sorry, I'd rather have weapons I can fight with. A folder does nothing to increase the weapon's fightability.
Fixed bolt handle makes it impossible to seal the action from foreign debris.
Sticking a piston in an AR15 doesn't solve much, because there is really nothing to solve
Round counters are idiotic. Round counts prove nothing. What is needed is a system for inspecting wear on carbines that is FOLLOWED.
Maintenance IS the answer.
I agree with this, but I also would prefer to spend more on training;)
To a degree of spending more on training, we'd really see an increase in the ability to replicate malfunctions caused by poor parts in a training environment, but increasing the ammunition budget isn't the only solution. The focus of for-score shoots needs to be shifted away from static range mindset to combat mindset.
We're still being told that an M16 with a full stock is adequate over an MTV, so the disconnect is still between the brass and the guys on the ground.
Magic_Salad0892
05-12-10, 03:09
Sticking a piston on an AR doesn't solve anything.
It just replaces one set of problems with another set.
EVERY system ever developed has problems.
DI, Piston, Blowback, you name it.
I only prefer the piston because I prefer having to deal with THAT SET of problems.
Not because it makes all the problems in my AR go away.
BTW: What does a folding stock do that a collapsible stock doesn't?
IrishDevil
05-12-10, 18:10
The folding stock gives you better portability and in some cases better concealment. I personally feel the folding stock is a worthwhile addition.
In my opinion the collapsible is more useful for length of pull than anything else.
Magic_Salad0892
05-12-10, 21:10
Does it do anything that warrants an entirely new weapon system?
I saw the folding stock fad in the '70's/'80's. The biggest advantage seemed to be deployment from concealment or vehicles, and a lot of that was an attempt to emulate the submachine gun.
Does a folding stock make it shorter? Yes, and with a good design, the butt won't interfere with the grip and trigger.
Does firing with the stock folded improve hit ratio? No, it makes it worse. Exactly the opposite of where we need to go. A carbine on the shoulder will almost always be more accurately shot than free hand.
Almost all the other users of carbines won't get any benefit at all. Folding stocks are only applicable it circumstances force the carry of the weapon in the short mode, i.e., in vehicles. Under the limited tactical circumstances of exiting a vehicle to return fire, a TRAINED user can be effective. They will not be MORE effective with return fire than a adjustable or fixed stock user.
Bolt handles are problematic when they are fixed reciprocating, something the SCAR has already had surface as a complaint. They work well enough on a crew served weapon, but a light rifle is used under much tighter circumstances with the environment, and they are prone to interference and stoppages when they contact door frames, vehicles, etc. Non-reciprocating handles seem to be the majority in successful combat designs.
Ambidextrous controls for the individual soldier are largely superfluous - as noted, most soldiers don't get enough training as it is. Being proficient with the off shoulder is a luxury they have never enjoyed, and it's difficult to quantify if it would actually be an improvement. As a large unit institution, the Army would be justified doing it for left handed shooters to increase their hit probability, and because it really is a "reasonable accomodation." That only goes so far, tho. The safety, mag release, and bolt release are already available in some designs as ambi. Bolt handles as ambi mean either the charging handle design, which has it's faults, or left/right conversion, which introduces more holes in the upper. Maybe Stoner's top mounted "trigger" handle wasn't so weird after all. Too bad it can't acommodate a rail.
Blanket acceptance of some ideas doesn't always work out, and mythology isn't what it seems. Like the AK mantra that they never seem to fail, it's a reality check to discover they may be more durable, but that doesn't make them reliable, something else entirely.
If there is something to take away with Kalishnikov's design, it's likely the concept of an indestructable magazine that can't fail to feed ammo. Look at the systems in any weapon that seem to be inherently failure prone, fix them, and then the result will be good. If the DI design had a machined feed lip fiberglass magazine that was properly shaped to hold ammo, would it still be demonized as a jammomatic today?
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 12:20
I think that out of the SCAR, and ACR, the ACR will fade into the mist, while the SCAR will be more successful.
It'll get more support, but the U.S. military will still predominantly use the AR series of rifles. (GET RID OF THE FUCKING BURST GUNS.)
Littlelebowski
05-13-10, 12:24
Did you use a burst weapon in the military, MagicSalad?
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 13:30
Sadly Lebowski. I never joined the service, but I had the chance to fire a burst fire weapon, with the WORST fucking trigger pull I've ever shot in my life.
The owner said that's how all burst guns shot.
It was an M16A2 that was sold off to a local police department, that I had a shitton of friends in.
I was going to be LEO before I had a horrible accident involving breaking my sternum. (Then I made a full recovery and ended up getting a different job.)
I hate the M16A2/A4 and M4 burst cam.
Its a horrible setup, and the Full Auto trigger is both simpler, and a way better trigger pull in semi - which is 99.999% of shooting anyway.
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 13:58
The trigger pull weights are all fucked up, and stupid.
I want to fire a full-auto gun so badly.
Littlelebowski
05-13-10, 14:02
I think light triggers are highly overrated except for precision rifle work.
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 14:14
If I can pull faster follow up shots (but a heavy enough trigger to be safe 6.5 lbs. optimal) that are smooth (single stage) and consistent with ONE trigger pull weight.
Then I'm all for it.
2 stages, or burst triggers are retarded.
If I can pull faster follow up shots (but a heavy enough trigger to be safe 6.5 lbs. optimal) that are smooth (single stage) and consistent with ONE trigger pull weight.
Then I'm all for it.
2 stages, or burst triggers are retarded.
I strongly disagree on 2 Stage triggers.
If I can pull faster follow up shots (but a heavy enough trigger to be safe 6.5 lbs. optimal) that are smooth (single stage) and consistent with ONE trigger pull weight.
Then I'm all for it.
2 stages, or burst triggers are retarded.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
The impression may be wrong, but know that you're beginning to come off like an Airsofter who doesn't actually own any of the guns you're talking about, or someone who's only seen these things on Call of Duty or barfcom. Supposedly being IN college with the inability to SPELL "collage" in your profile also doesn't bode well.
reference katar's post in another thread, this is NOT a personal attack or me calling you a liar, it's just a bit of friendly advice as to the way you are coming across.
The trigger pull weights are all fucked up, and stupid.
I want to fire a full-auto gun so badly.
Full-auto is over-rated. Unless i can have bipod, a belt and a quickly changeable barrel, semi- is good enough for me.
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 15:00
First off, I do understand, that lately my input has been heavily questioned. And I'm not taking it as an attack.
Lately though most of my ''leave it all stock'' advice that I used before was proven ineffective from things I've seen. (like a friend's competition trigger spring that outlasted my standard Glock spring. Or me installing race gun parts in my Glock for an amazing trigger pull. Note: Parts longevity issues. Am trying to decide if I'll run it stock again, or replace them.)
I've kind of been of a customization craze, not because I hate stock parts now, but I'm trying to discover what works for me, and what doesn't. I'm willing to sacrifice money for that.
Also: I've always hated 2-Stage triggers. >:(
(As for the ''collage'' error. How the hell did I screw that up? I normally spell everything right.)
I'd appreciate a PM of some other things I've said that you have issues with.
I don't think this particular thread is the place for a personal debate.
(I'm fully aware all of my parts replacements sound retarded. I'm in testing, even though I trust most of the modifications.)
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 15:01
Full-auto is over-rated. Unless i can have bipod, a belt and a quickly changeable barrel, semi- is good enough for me.
True, full auto is completely useless in practicality.
But the cool-factor is undeniable. (for me)
Belmont31R
05-13-10, 15:08
If I can pull faster follow up shots (but a heavy enough trigger to be safe 6.5 lbs. optimal) that are smooth (single stage) and consistent with ONE trigger pull weight.
Then I'm all for it.
2 stages, or burst triggers are retarded.
The problem I have with USGI type triggers is they are mass produced, and completely inconsistent. You can go to any military arms room, and measure the pull weight of 10 different rifles. You'll probably get anywhere from 6-10+ lbs trigger to trigger. Some are acceptable, and some are just plain crap.
When I was AD we were basically told to leave burst alone, and we never used it. Not a single minute of instruction. MG's are "fun" to shoot but have little real world use aside from crew served weapons, and maybe CQB.
What 2 stage triggers have you shot, and what didn't you like about them. For me shooting multiple guns the SSA provides consistent trigger pull gun to gun, makes precision shots much easier as Im not fighting a crappy USGI trigger, and they are reliable enough for duty use. I also shoot with the KAC 2 stage that came in my SR15, and its pretty close in feel to the SSA. Combined I have close to 20k rounds through 2 stage AR15 triggers, and feel they are much better all around than a USGI trigger. What should not go in a duty is very light competition style triggers. I do have a DMR in my Mk12 clone but that is a different animal.
You said you were not in the military but a popular drill is the dime drill. You place a dime on the flash-hider with a person in the prone position, and they squeeze the trigger until it "breaks". If the dime falls off they pressed too hard or jarred the rifle. Its meant to teach trigger control. Its very much easier to do with a quality 2 stage like the KAC or SSA, and would likely improve the hit probability with soldiers as they are not jerking off target with a crap USGI trigger. Especially in places like Afghanistan where people are attempting to make relatively long distance shots you need all the help you can get.
Last....2 stage triggers are nothing new. Our mil has been using them in various systems including the M1 Garand. The only trick is to make them reliable, and idiot proof. The SSA is something that accomplishes this quite well.
Magic... A good rule of thumb on m4c as a new member is to post less and read more. You have 300+ post in a little over a month or so...
There are some very dialed in and squared away members here, if you take the time to just sit back and read... the knowledge that you will gain will be invaluable to you.
Take it for what its worth and also know its nothing personal...
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 15:34
The problem I have with USGI type triggers is they are mass produced, and completely inconsistent. You can go to any military arms room, and measure the pull weight of 10 different rifles. You'll probably get anywhere from 6-10+ lbs trigger to trigger. Some are acceptable, and some are just plain crap.
When I was AD we were basically told to leave burst alone, and we never used it. Not a single minute of instruction. MG's are "fun" to shoot but have little real world use aside from crew served weapons, and maybe CQB.
What 2 stage triggers have you shot, and what didn't you like about them. For me shooting multiple guns the SSA provides consistent trigger pull gun to gun, makes precision shots much easier as Im not fighting a crappy USGI trigger, and they are reliable enough for duty use. I also shoot with the KAC 2 stage that came in my SR15, and its pretty close in feel to the SSA. Combined I have close to 20k rounds through 2 stage AR15 triggers, and feel they are much better all around than a USGI trigger. What should not go in a duty is very light competition style triggers. I do have a DMR in my Mk12 clone but that is a different animal.
You said you were not in the military but a popular drill is the dime drill. You place a dime on the flash-hider with a person in the prone position, and they squeeze the trigger until it "breaks". If the dime falls off they pressed too hard or jarred the rifle. Its meant to teach trigger control. Its very much easier to do with a quality 2 stage like the KAC or SSA, and would likely improve the hit probability with soldiers as they are not jerking off target with a crap USGI trigger. Especially in places like Afghanistan where people are attempting to make relatively long distance shots you need all the help you can get.
Last....2 stage triggers are nothing new. Our mil has been using them in various systems including the M1 Garand. The only trick is to make them reliable, and idiot proof. The SSA is something that accomplishes this quite well.
The 2 stage triggers I have shot are LMT (which I kind of liked but still couldn't shoot well) RRA, Wilson Combat TTU, 2 stages that were on friend's rifles, that I couldn't identify. (Colt, BCM, DD, and a Del-Ton rifle.) and KAC (which I actually really like)
I don't like that the trigger pull is inconsistent, and that there are two points in which the trigger ''breaks'' (I can't describe it.)
I have only been into rifles for the last few years (6) and was shooting for years as a handgun guy. So I'm not used to inconsistent 2 stage pulls.
I can control a SSA, that's around 6.5 lbs. and don't have my finger on the trigger when I'm not engaging.
(I use my laser sight for dry fire practice. :))
I'd like to add that I hate you for having the cash to complete a Mk. 12 clone.
Why does everybody have more money than me?
Heavy Metal
05-13-10, 15:38
A two-stage trigger is a short single-stage trigger if you are shooting it correctly to just the reset point.
If you know what you are doing with it that is.
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 15:41
Then it sounds like I don't know what I'm doing.
I can't shoot a 2-stage well.
Also in regards to reading more than posting:
That's why I don't post on the training board. All I do there is read it.
I'm still trying to learn here.
Also: thanks for not treating me like ''oh fuck... it's that guy.''
I post what I know, or experience, even if that experience/knowledge is lacking.
Robb Jensen
05-13-10, 15:46
A two-stage trigger is a short single-stage trigger if you are shooting it correctly to just the reset point.
If you know what you are doing with it that is.
Exactly. I use a Geissele SSA on my competition and training/defensive guns. I find the 1st stage of a 2 stage SSA about 1/2 as long as it is on a RRA or LMT 2 stage.
Belmont31R
05-13-10, 15:52
The 2 stage triggers I have shot are LMT (which I kind of liked but still couldn't shoot well) RRA, Wilson Combat TTU, 2 stages that were on friend's rifles, that I couldn't identify. (Colt, BCM, DD, and a Del-Ton rifle.) and KAC (which I actually really like)
I don't like that the trigger pull is inconsistent, and that there are two points in which the trigger ''breaks'' (I can't describe it.)
I have only been into rifles for the last few years (6) and was shooting for years as a handgun guy. So I'm not used to inconsistent 2 stage pulls.
I can control a SSA, that's around 6.5 lbs. and don't have my finger on the trigger when I'm not engaging.
(I use my laser sight for dry fire practice. :))
I'd like to add that I hate you for having the cash to complete a Mk. 12 clone.
Why does everybody have more money than me?
The SSA is 4.5lbs.
A USGI trigger is crap for precision shooting unless you get a good one, and stick with that one trigger. For someone like me who shoots 5+ different guns I like having the same trigger pull no matter what gun I used. If I kept to USGI triggers none of them would be the same. Ive kept a couple USGI triggers in a couple guns but they break clean enough that I can live with them. A few I got rid of were very heavy. Yeah they maybe could have been fixed but still not to what multiple SSA's accomplished for me.
Im sure that if you stuck to one trigger type (whatever brand and model) you would better understand the value a good 2 stage trigger provides. Right now I have a bit of trouble getting used to the DMR in my Mk12 because its a bit lighter than the SSA, and Ive been surprised by a few shots so far. It took quite a while for me to warm up to the SSA before I bought one as I was a USGI believer, too. After about a year of hearing nothing but good reviews, and now all my stuff expect a few guns have them. I would probably not like 2 stages, too, if I had to shoot with many brands of them without really getting to know the feel for a particular model. Im pretty in tune with the SSA now, and need to get to know my DMR better.
But think if you have some poor sap trying to make a 400 yard plus shot with his M4 or M16, and is having to deal with a 10lb trigger pull. Even a 1/8" movement is going to pull the shot off, and its not at all hard to do in the heat of the moment. A decent 2 stage combat trigger would help enormously in our guys making shots like that. Its just simply not possible to make consistent good shots with a crappy heavy trigger.
Belmont31R
05-13-10, 16:01
Then it sounds like I don't know what I'm doing.
I can't shoot a 2-stage well.
Also in regards to reading more than posting:
That's why I don't post on the training board. All I do there is read it.
I'm still trying to learn here.
Also: thanks for not treating me like ''oh fuck... it's that guy.''
I post what I know, or experience, even if that experience/knowledge is lacking.
With a 2 stage you take up the 1st stage, and then you hit a "wall" in pull feel. If you pull any further the gun should go off.
With a single stage you have one trigger pull feel, and you keep pulling until the gun goes off. If you get used to that single particular trigger you can get a good feel for when it will go off. The issue is, as I pointed out before, is the inconsistency. If you have 5 guns with USGI triggers they are all going to be slightly different to very different from each other. I prefer to pick up any one of my guns, and it acts the same way as any other.
If you have 5 guns, and all 5 have different 2 stages triggers its as bad as having 5 USGI triggers that all feel different. Stick with one model be it the SSA, TTU, LMT, etc., and you'll be much better off. I stuck a DMR in my Mk12 because it serves a completely different purpose than anything Ive got with an SSA. The 1st time I shot it I was like...."f-ck...I should have have just put an SSA in it too." But as Im getting used to the setup I see the benefits in this particular setup. Its just something I need to be aware of because before it didn't matter what I picked up I knew how the gun would fire.
Robb Jensen
05-13-10, 16:03
I had to take my Geissele DMR out of my 3gun rifle due to the inconsistency. Unless I was shooting it a lot vs. my SSAs I'd get a suprise BOOM before I was completely ready since I'm used to applying pressure before the perfect sight picture. The DMR is now in my 6.8SPC hunting gun.
Magic_Salad0892
05-13-10, 16:33
I'm going to stick with the standard LWRCi Enhanced Fire Control (Single Stage Trigger), and KAC two stage when I build my DMR (or Mk. 12 variant.) and train on just those two.
I'll try the practices and techniques given. Then post results in a different thread.
Thanks guys, for the help. :)
I'm going to stick with the standard LWRCi Enhanced Fire Control (Single Stage Trigger), and KAC two stage when I build my DMR (or Mk. 12 variant.) and train on just those two.
I'll try the practices and techniques given. Then post results in a different thread.
Thanks guys, for the help. :)
You might like the Wilson TTU also... Worth checking out.
I use one in my SPR and it is a quality single stage trigger...
Misc Ex-Member
05-13-10, 16:53
Magic_Salad0892, please check your PMs.
Let's tighten this thread up, people.
FromMyColdDeadHand
05-14-10, 01:16
Round Counter- As long as it doesn't work like the Blue-tech diesel engines where they won't start if you run out of the urea solution.
Round Counter- As long as it doesn't work like the Blue-tech diesel engines where they won't start if you run out of the urea solution.
One of the problems with round counters, is that round count isn't the "be all, end all".
There is a difference in system wear between single shots on a range, and mag dumps at 140 F in a combat environment.
And if you DO have a round counter, how does that assist that 70 IQ, barely trained armorer who doesn't do anything but hassle you until your M4 is shiny right now?
Dumbing down the process will not help. Much.
The problem is, the Army doesn't intend to properly maintain small arms. Partly because they see small arms as relatively unimportant, and partly because the people who run the Army are anti-gun and/or ignorant of small arms to start with.
Military small arms are consumables, and the corporate mind of the military is unwilling to accept that.
Seems that the system is continuing the information campain. Should be interesting to see what actualy comes out of this effort:
Army Times:
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/05/ap_m4_052110/
"The 5.56 mm caliber is more lethal since it can put more rounds on target," said Col. Douglas Tamilio, program manager for U.S. Army firearms at the Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. "But at 500-600 meters (1,600-2,000 feet), the round doesn't have stopping power, since the weapon system was never designed for that."
The arsenal, which is the Army's center for small-arms development, is trying to find a solution.
A possible compromise would be an interim-caliber round combining the best characteristics of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, Tamilio said.
If they are going to open up the possiblity of using a new round then the dual path of a M-4 upgrade AND a improved carbine starts to make more sense. Put product improved M-4's in soldiers hands now shooting 5.56, while you develope a platform/caliber change in the out years.
Oh, the quote by Ehrhart on M-110's being used is either wrong (miss quote)or VERY new/limited. The M-14 EBR's are still being used in the DM role. A "Light" version of the M-110 was kicked around when I was still involved in the whole thing, but since the 110 itself hadn't been approved (at the time) it fell to the wayside.
What if there was a way to give flexibility to the 5.56 platform through an enhanced ammunition package.....
RAM Engineer
05-21-10, 16:22
One of the problems with round counters, is that round count isn't the "be all, end all".
There is a difference in system wear between single shots on a range, and mag dumps at 140 F in a combat environment.
Round counters can be made to take that into account. Have them count the shots, note the time the shot was made, and the temperature. This is not new technology.
And if you DO have a round counter, how does that assist that 70 IQ, barely trained armorer who doesn't do anything but hassle you until your M4 is shiny right now?
Now that you know how many round the gun has on it, you determine your critical components, serialize them, set TBOs and keep a database similar to the DA-2410 database that is used to track part ages on US rotary wing fleet.
Just my humble opinion as a reliability and maintainability engineer who deals with this stuff every day. Of course, as you say, this doesn't address the cultural mindset. That has to be driven from the top down, and there is no "technical" solution to that.
Your FBO Opportunity Search Agent called: 'Carbine' has identified the following opportunities that have either been newly posted or modified and match your search criteria.
* *Title: ************ * *10--Small Arms Technology - Individual Carbine
* *Sol. #: *********** * *W15QKN-10-X-0455
* *Agency: *********** * *Department of the Army
* *Office: *********** * *Army Contracting Command
* *Location: ********* * *JM&L Contracting Center (JM&L-CC)
* *Posted On: ******** * *May 27, 2010 2:27 pm
* *Base Type: ******** * *Sources Sought
* *Link: ***********https://www.fbo.gov/notices/57c62a20c8a79339967a5ec320f03123
I'm on my iPhone so I can't cut and paste everything. Requirements very open and specificly not limited to 5.56mm. If you were not aleady working on this you are behind the curve as they want responses by the 18th:)
And they have a requirement for US based production by the THIRD year of the contract.
IIRC SIG, HK, FN, and Beretta already have a plant in the US.
Any hint that the TDP will be property of the US Gov't and they can contract to any low bidder?
As I understand it the Army intends to own the TDP.
Finaly able to cut and paste
Small Arms Technology - Individual Carbine
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-10-X-0455
Solicitation Number:
W15QKN-10-X-0455 Notice Type:
Sources Sought Synopsis:
Added: May 27, 2010 2:27 pm
The U.S. Army, Army Contracting Command (ACC) Joint Munitions & Lethality (JM&L) Contracting Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000, on behalf of the Program Manager for Soldier Weapons (PM SW) Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07860-5000 is conducting market research through this sources sought notice to obtain information pertaining to the weapon capabilities available to fill the Carbine role for the US Army. The associated production capacity of the small arms industrial base for both domestic and foreign weapon manufacturers for a potential carbine weapon system is also of interest. To facilitate planning for this requirement, the following information is requested. Note: This request for information is not limited to 5.56mm NATO systems, however it is limited to ammunition that will meet International Convention standards.
1) Weapon Types.a) Potential weapon models that your company has that can fulfill the role of a carbine for both mounted and dismounted soldiers;b) Physical parameters such as weight, length, and control features; andc) Descriptions of proposed weapon systems to include pictures, brochures, etc. that will convey the principles, as well as general and specific capabilities behind the submissions, as well as ease of operator maintenance and clearing of jams.
2) Performance Improvements.a) Modularity which includes, but is not limited to, compatibility with accessory items such as optical sights, image intensification sights, thermal sights, laser targeting systems, bipods, tactical lights, Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), bayonets, and accessory type grenade launchers. There is specific interest in improvements to zero retention and zero repeatability. b) Weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion in 100 meter increments out to the maximum range of your proposed carbine weapon(s) without a suppressor;c) Reliability and durability in all environments including ambient temperature, low temperature (-60F), high temperature (+155F), dust, etc and stated in terms of Mean Rounds Between Stoppages (MRBS) and Mean Rounds Between Failures (MRBF).d) Terminal performance on a variety of target mediums.Note: Any claimed weapon performance or terminal performance should be supported by either information on which certified test facility was used and when, or test operating procedures utilized if conducted in-house. Independent evaluations are also acceptable.
3) Production capacity estimates.a) Request information on minimum and maximum monthly production rates for potential carbine weapon models, and the lead times to achieve these production rates. This estimate should consider a US based production facility by the third year of deliveries. This capacity should be above and beyond any current production orders or current sales. If new facilities are planned or required, so state.b) Does the manufacturer have a repair capability and is that capability part of or independent of the production/assembly line.
Interested offerors should submit the information annotated above, in hard copy, by 16 June 2010
I strongly disagree on 2 Stage triggers.
I figure the different trigger groups all have their place. I'd like to try the trigger I read about which had a 3 pound or so pull weight but it also had a secondary sear. If the rifle was jarred enough to accidently trip the first sear it was caught by a second which would still release at 8 pounds of pull.
Where do you come up with this stuff?
The impression may be wrong, but know that you're beginning to come off like an Airsofter who doesn't actually own any of the guns you're talking about, or someone who's only seen these things on Call of Duty or barfcom. Supposedly being IN college with the inability to SPELL "collage" in your profile also doesn't bode well.
reference katar's post in another thread, this is NOT a personal attack or me calling you a liar, it's just a bit of friendly advice as to the way you are coming across.
Nice disclaimer, but still, it sounded (read:confused:) a little brutal.
I'm currently in Collage too. Along with all my siblings. It's hanging on the wall at my mother's house.
barrelwrench
09-06-10, 09:34
I'm new to this forum. Man! what a source of info almost intimidating and hesitant to post something. But here it goes. I just read an interesting article in the Marine Corps Times on the M4 upgrade. I guess they are ordering 12,000 kits for the first round, 65,000 for the second round. Who is making the upgrades for the army.
Semper Fi
Guns - out
I'm new to this forum. Man! what a source of info almost intimidating and hesitant to post something. But here it goes. I just read an interesting article in the Marine Corps Times on the M4 upgrade. I guess they are ordering 12,000 kits for the first round, 65,000 for the second round. Who is making the upgrades for the army.
Semper Fi
Guns - out
Do you have a link to the article online
barrelwrench
09-06-10, 09:52
Sorry I didn't post a link, not sure on how to do that yet. Also in Vermont we still have dial up and it's not reliable for uploading or down loading attachments. If this will help. the latest MCT edition on page 24. Basically quotes Army Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, commander of program Executive Office Soldier. Interesting comment from the Marine Corps too.
Stay safe
Guns - out
Cannon_fodder11b
09-07-10, 09:06
Last time I checked as an AD soldier I pay taxes too! M-4 fine really? Don't get me started on all the ISSUES the M-4 has. I and a bunch of soldiers in here have numerous complaints with the M-4 from COMBAT. Do you feel that we should just soldier on with a in your opinion a "just fine" rifle? Maybe we should with your logic sell all the F-22's and go back to F-4's? Because they were fine too. Hell, lets go back to the M-14, and steel pots.
Well, I actually had to sit back and wait a while to post this. As an NCO in the "AD" Army (13 years as a Infantryman) 27 months total spent in combat (Since you had to put COMBAT) I had to back off and simmer down a bit. You really wanna know whats wrong with the M16/M4 family currently in the inventory? Its Joe. Joe Snuffy can be locked in a padded room, with something that cannot be lost or broken, and within 10 minutes....it will be broken and parts will be missing.
I can honestly say the majority of jams and misfeeds I have had with my M4 (And I have been using M4's since 1999 when 1-503 (AASLT) converted from m16s, to M4's and started to field the Knights Armament Rail kits) have been caused by magazine issues. And of those issues guess what...they all happened at a range in which my magazines springs were worn from years of overuse, or feed lips were damaged. Anyone who was in the military feels the pain with the issued magazines you get stuck with for training. Almost felt like it took an act of congress to get some new ones. Amount of misfeeds and jams in combat...0. Moral to the Story..TAKE CARE OF YOUR SHIT! Take the time to wipe the weapon down daily, Dont rush while PMCSing it, fill out that 5988 correctly and guess what!?! OMG! you're weapon will work when you need it!!!
Take the time to teach Joe how to maintain his weapon, and most importantly to maintain his magazines. Start enforcing the standards. Start verifying joe is doing maintenance, get your unit to order new magazines.
Honestly I think you're issue with the M4 is.....well to be blunt...the fact you are jealous you only have an M16....(Its ok its sorta like Penis envy...Grunts have all those cool nifty little toys on they're cute little compact pea shooters):blink:
To everyone else sorry about that E-penis slap. As much as I love new toys....theres no need for a new weapon system...it would just be something new for joe to break.
(EDIT: and making the M4 fully auto is a waste of money and is honestly the stupidest thing the army could ever do. I have never had to switch my weapon, or seen one of my Joes switch his weapon to burst in a fire fight. Everyone knows unless you are rocking a SAW or a 240..,,burst is a waste of ammo....and if you are in a serious firefight like diyala, or haifa street...210 rounds will be gone in a matter of minutes...why blow your load the first 5 seconds of combat? Also borked on the electronic maintenance report form number...corrected that issue..)
Littlelebowski
09-07-10, 09:25
Well, I actually had to sit back and wait a while to post this. As an NCO in the "AD" Army (13 years as a Infantryman) 27 months total spent in combat (Since you had to put COMBAT) I had to back off and simmer down a bit. You really wanna know whats wrong with the M16/M4 family currently in the inventory? Its Joe. Joe Snuffy can be locked in a padded room, with something that cannot be lost or broken, and within 10 minutes....it will be broken and parts will be missing.
I can honestly say the majority of jams and misfeeds I have had with my M4 (And I have been using M4's since 1999 when 1-503 (AASLT) converted from m16s, to M4's and started to field the Knights Armament Rail kits) have been caused by magazine issues. And of those issues guess what...they all happened at a range in which my magazines springs were worn from years of overuse, or feed lips were damaged. Anyone who was in the military feels the pain with the issued magazines you get stuck with for training. Almost felt like it took an act of congress to get some new ones. Amount of misfeeds and jams in combat...0. Moral to the Story..TAKE CARE OF YOUR SHIT! Take the time to wipe the weapon down daily, Dont rush while PMCSing it, fill out that 1059 correctly and guess what!?! OMG! you're weapon will work when you need it!!!
Take the time to teach Joe how to maintain his weapon, and most importantly to maintain his magazines. Start enforcing the standards. Start verifying joe is doing maintenance, get your unit to order new magazines.
Honestly I think you're issue with the M4 is.....well to be blunt...the fact you are jealous you only have an M16....(Its ok its sorta like Penis envy...Grunts have all those cool nifty little toys on they're cute little compact pea shooters):blink:
To everyone else sorry about that E-penis slap. As much as I love new toys....theres no need for a new weapon system...it would just be something new for joe to break.
(EDIT: and making the M4 fully auto is a waste of money and is honestly the stupidest thing the army could ever do. I have never had to switch my weapon, or seen one of my Joes switch his weapon to burst in a fire fight. Everyone knows unless you are rocking a SAW or a 240..,,burst is a waste of ammo....and if you are in a serious firefight like diyala, or haifa street...210 rounds will be gone in a matter of minutes...why blow your load the first 5 seconds of combat?)
Furiously pounding the "applause" button. Well said, said. If I had a nickel for everything PFC that blamed the M4 for his lack of maintenance and then furiously pounded his chest screaming that he's a combat vet, well......I'd have a KAC SR25-EM :D
Well, I actually had to sit back and wait a while to post this. As an NCO in the "AD" Army (13 years as a Infantryman) 27 months total spent in combat (Since you had to put COMBAT) I had to back off and simmer down a bit. You really wanna know whats wrong with the M16/M4 family currently in the inventory? Its Joe. Joe Snuffy can be locked in a padded room, with something that cannot be lost or broken, and within 10 minutes....it will be broken and parts will be missing.
I can honestly say the majority of jams and misfeeds I have had with my M4 (And I have been using M4's since 1999 when 1-503 (AASLT) converted from m16s, to M4's and started to field the Knights Armament Rail kits) have been caused by magazine issues. And of those issues guess what...they all happened at a range in which my magazines springs were worn from years of overuse, or feed lips were damaged. Anyone who was in the military feels the pain with the issued magazines you get stuck with for training. Almost felt like it took an act of congress to get some new ones. Amount of misfeeds and jams in combat...0. Moral to the Story..TAKE CARE OF YOUR SHIT! Take the time to wipe the weapon down daily, Dont rush while PMCSing it, fill out that 1059 correctly and guess what!?! OMG! you're weapon will work when you need it!!!
Take the time to teach Joe how to maintain his weapon, and most importantly to maintain his magazines. Start enforcing the standards. Start verifying joe is doing maintenance, get your unit to order new magazines.
Honestly I think you're issue with the M4 is.....well to be blunt...the fact you are jealous you only have an M16....(Its ok its sorta like Penis envy...Grunts have all those cool nifty little toys on they're cute little compact pea shooters):blink:
To everyone else sorry about that E-penis slap. As much as I love new toys....theres no need for a new weapon system...it would just be something new for joe to break.
(EDIT: and making the M4 fully auto is a waste of money and is honestly the stupidest thing the army could ever do. I have never had to switch my weapon, or seen one of my Joes switch his weapon to burst in a fire fight. Everyone knows unless you are rocking a SAW or a 240..,,burst is a waste of ammo....and if you are in a serious firefight like diyala, or haifa street...210 rounds will be gone in a matter of minutes...why blow your load the first 5 seconds of combat?)
If we had a contest for "Best First Post Ever" you would have just won.
We have this same discussion over at Lightfighter; Frankly, "better rifle" is bullshit.
What we need is to revamp rifle maintenance. The problem with the current Army small arms isn't the arms themselves, it's the "run them till they break" then "fix the part that broke and reissue the worn out weapon to some other schmuck" way the Army is treating maintenance..
A new rifle just means we get to fuck up new rifles and have the same problems, again. In fact, all this noise about new rifles just distracts from the real, systematic problem of lack of maintenance and the fact that we don't just trash most of the rifles out there and buy new of the same thing.
AMEN. Condition based maintenance (CBM) does not mean waiting until condition=broke.
28 years in the USMC taught me its not the dope on the weapon but the dope operating the weapon thats the problem.
barrelwrench
09-08-10, 12:28
+ 1 on cannon fodders statement. Mags and maintenance are the root of all evil, not the only problem, but a big problem.
Semper Fi.
Guns - out
What if there was a way to give flexibility to the 5.56 platform through an enhanced ammunition package.....
Should be the place to start. If not conceiveable, then and only then should we be upgrading the rifles, unless a drastic improvement in the platform arises or a new platform alltogether. In a different caliber, not the same caliber :suicide: More training and more time putting rounds downrange for Joe.
Cannon_fodder11b
09-18-10, 13:55
Should be the place to start. If not conceiveable, then and only then should we be upgrading the rifles, unless a drastic improvement in the platform arises or a new platform alltogether. In a different caliber, not the same caliber :suicide: More training and more time putting rounds downrange for Joe.
There have been improvements to the 5.56mm round. The Marines have adopted the SOST round http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/marine_SOST_ammo_021510w/
Sadly the Army (I love the army, and I love serving...but honestly the monkeys that become policy makers and TA-50 gear purchases needs fucking slapped. We need combat soldiers selecting ammo, uniforms, and TA-50...not office bound oldmen who last spent time in the field 20 years ago.) Is going with a lead free round with a steel core....the issue with that is just like the current green tip 5.56mm ammo in the inventory....It goes right through people. The Marines new round is designed to defeat body armor, but is designed to make as much damage as possible to drop the target.
barrelwrench
09-19-10, 12:36
Cannon fodder. I mentioned the MC Times article over on the THR site and was crucified for bogus info, then for being an idiot for believing everything I read. Not criticizing you...just FYI.
Nickel Boron, or Teflon on upper receiver, lower parts kit, and bolt carrier group.
Nitriting the barrel
9310 for bolt material
Cold Hammer Forged Barrel
Better trigger
Heavier barrel (double chrome lined, with match chambers)
5 Coil Extractor Spring
Chrome Silicon Extra-Power Buffer Springs
H2 (or H3) buffers
Midlength gas systems
A Piston (If it REALLY makes you feel better.....)
Gas Block Mounted Front Sights (longer sight radius, lower profile sights)
Crane O-Rings
If every AR-15 in the U.S. Military had these upgrades they'd outshoot any of the new generation rifles any day of the week. I guarantee it.
BTW: Screw monolithic platforms, whole new set of problems.
1. Those fancy coatings may just flake or shear off and jam up the rifle.
2. Nitriding barrel is good.
3. 9130 for bolt - why? Would that not be a downgrade from C158 for the failure more of bolts? Seems like the only people using 9130 are those who are too small to buy a mill-run of C158 but then they pretend it is better.
4. Cold hammer forged barrel - sure.
5. Better trigger. I guess since there is so much waste for other stuff we can afford it.
6. Double chrome? I thought we wanted nitrided barrels? Also heavier barrel would add too much weight for no good reason.
7. 5 coil extractor spring - adding coils lowers force.
8. The stainless buffer spring already lasts a long time, so there is no reason to go to a material with higher spring properties if it will give up corrosion resistance. If one did want higher spring properties, Rocket Wire is better than CS provided you will stay under 250 degrees F.
9. H2/H3 buffers are already used.
10. Midlength gas - sure, if the barrel was 16 inches. Carbine gas is already good for a 14.5 inch barrel.
Crane O-ring - yes, as long as the extractor spring was not extra-power.
A round counter is really needed.
Cannon_fodder11b
09-20-10, 00:57
Cannon fodder. I mentioned the MC Times article over on the THR site and was crucified for bogus info, then for being an idiot for believing everything I read. Not criticizing you...just FYI.
Tried to post this a few times and got database errors. If this is a duplicate post please delete the others it was not done with malice intent.
I have no clue whats bogus info in that article...
One thing I do know is the current 5.56mm in our inventory punches right through the enemy and half the time you end up dumping a half mag to drop a target.
Sometimes the only thing you can do is base info off whats put out, and that MC times article is not the only one that compares the SOST round to the round to the current round, or even the new army lead free round.
There are some gun forums who's members are less than knowledgeable or even aware of military weapons and ammo, much less the service Times editions, Military.com, Kit Up, Soldier Systems, the firearms bloggers, etc. They favor cheap imports or traditional American weapons that are almost out of production.
I've posted links to the '86 JAG decision stating open tipped bullets are Geneva-Hague legal, and been told I don't know what I'm talking about. Clicking on the link and reading apparently was not part of their skill set.
Their primary interest seemed to be pump rifles for wabbit season.
What's the latest news on Colt submitting the CM901 in a 7.62 chassis for the Improved trials?
double post: wouldn't display the first one.
Fancy coatings aren't much what the Army wants, as they have already spent the money on dry lubricant and ion bond research - which is nitriding.
A round counter would be good for maintenance purposes, no doubt, but won't do anything until the maintenance budget is actually increased, and procedures written into a new TM to change certain parts at selected thresholds. That may mean setting up a centralized system like the AOAP - you only do something when told to.
For armory guns at Reserve centers or training centers, it would be easy to monitor. In combat theaters, you're gonna have to field a hardened reader and scan the squad/platoon on a regular schedule, perhaps every 90 days. Will a high round count deadline it, and the commander have the authority to combat override?
At least it doesn't have taillights and SINCGARS mounted on it.
Surprised no one jumped on the wish list for 'match chambers' Including that would insure failures.
More interesting: the CM901 has interchangeable mag wells.
http://soldiersystems.net/category/weapons/
This is getting interesting.
MikeCLeonard
09-29-10, 12:18
Fancy coatings aren't much what the Army wants, as they have already spent the money on dry lubricant and ion bond research - which is nitriding.
Sorry if this sounds like nit-picking...But IonBond is a company that applies their own version of PVD coatings. These are not the same as nitriding which is quite a bit different process.
soldiersystems
09-30-10, 15:25
There are some gun forums who's members are less than knowledgeable or even aware of military weapons and ammo, much less the service Times editions, Military.com, Kit Up, Soldier Systems, the firearms bloggers, etc. They favor cheap imports or traditional American weapons that are almost out of production.
I've posted links to the '86 JAG decision stating open tipped bullets are Geneva-Hague legal, and been told I don't know what I'm talking about. Clicking on the link and reading apparently was not part of their skill set.
Their primary interest seemed to be pump rifles for wabbit season.
What's the latest news on Colt submitting the CM901 in a 7.62 chassis for the Improved trials?
thanks for your vote of confidence
barrelwrench
09-30-10, 21:55
I know a person who fills in as an instructor for Colt and he's heard very little about it but said it was at the Shot Show. Most of what I've read about it I found here on M4.
littlejerry
10-07-10, 14:02
Here is a preview of the new Colt rifle:
http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-scar-who-meet-the-colt-cm901-modular-multi-caliber-7-62mm-nato5-56mm-nato-battle-carbinesbrrifle-for-u-s-military-special-operations-forces-sof-and-general-infantry-forces-gif/
Triggers: I was issued an M16 with the burst trigger group. I didn't like it, but I shot it enough to become proficient with it. IMO, unless the trigger is complete crap, so long as it's consistent (consistently good, consistently heavy...) then there's no reason the average rifleman can't become proficient with it.
Round Counters: Looks good in the movies, just something else for me to break in the real world. There's nothing a round counter can do that a good NCO can't accomplish with regular inspections and lots of push ups.
Ken
RAM Engineer
10-10-10, 07:51
Round Counters: Looks good in the movies, just something else for me to break in the real world. There's nothing a round counter can do that a good NCO can't accomplish with regular inspections and lots of push ups.
Ken
Wrong. We already keep a strict count of flighthours, APU starts, landings, etc on our rotary wing fleet, and yet that STILL doesn't tell you everything you need to know to sufficiently implement a good "condition-based" maintenance concept.
What are you going to do, make every soldier stay in the front leaning rest until they are miraculously able to answer what the algorithms need to know?
"Did you fire your weapon at an average rate of 150, 300 or 450 rpm for the 10.25 minutes contact lasted? What? You aren't sure? Well exactly what percentage of those 10.25 minutes were you actually firing? How much of your ammo did you fire personally and how much did you hand to Hernandez here after he used all his up? What was the ambient temperature during the fight? Not sure? Stay down until you do!"
As a class, PVD's seem to be the same - to me. I'm sure I am still learning more about them. I first encountered them as clear coat applications for high end residential plumbing fixtures. "Guaranteed to never tarnish!" type claims were substantially true.
Next were knife blades - in various colors. I got to abuse those a lot more, and won't buy bare steel again. I know for a fact they will take years of abuse. The only way to scuff the finish is grind it off sharpening it.
Bonding whatever type of ion by a electro spray process that is integrated molecularly in the surface and doens't increase dimensions - like chroming - and gets better performance should get every shooters attention. It's just unfortunate so many are technically deficient. A simple post about a knife in that forum would discuss alloy, heat treat, angles of the edge, ergonomics of the handle, choice of material, how to grind or shape titanium or G10, fasteners, ad infinitum.
On a gun forum you can lose half the viewers interest if you mention throat leades. Ask around, I still can't find what alloy gas tubes for AR are made of. No doubt commercial tubes use a cheaper stainless, but try and find out what and the technical knowledge trickles to a stop.
A round counter would actually be a no brainer. it's basically a knock sensor tuned to the correct frequency range, with a cpu and memory that can process the signal and record data in a usable form. Add a mini USB port and a long life lithium, you're done. The tech has been out there since the late '80s under the hood of a lot of fuel injected cars.
If there is any sticking point to round counters, it was likely what data would be gathered and how to record it. That probably took a lot of engineers sitting around working out what needed to be known long term, and making the system with enough "band width." Not too much, though, that way the 2GEN will be viable in about 10 years because the first system didn't quite record it all. Anyone who's tried to reprogram a database so a field is one character longer has the idea.
We're going to be told it's proprietary, go fish, but what language is this thing being programmed in, and why can't I hook this netbook up to it with a simple shareware program and a cable? Oh, yeah, it's a government contract. I expect it to get hacked just as easily as jailbreaking an Iphone. The information will get to the i-net, and we'll all know what's up. If you can log into your OBDII system on your car with a program and cable, reset the fuel air and advance curve, tweak the shift points, and other stuff with a performance chip, recording round counts is more a matter of DOD finally caring enough to spend the money. No doubt the full auto owners would jump at the chance.
At times it almost seems technically (and politically) easier to develop a major weapons system like an armored vehicle, warship, or aircraft than something as relatively simple as a rifle.
As Dr. Ezell said in one of his books, the history of US small arms development has not been a happy one.
Politically, large systems have an advantage because they take more money. The big money is where the big boys play. The bigger the pockets of the big boys, the more "friends in Congress" they have. Larger programs also have more sub-contractors, and they are always strategically chosen to cover as many Congressional Districts as possible.
decodeddiesel
10-21-10, 15:55
Round Counters: Looks good in the movies, just something else for me to break in the real world. There's nothing a round counter can do that a good NCO can't accomplish with regular inspections and lots of push ups.
Ken
Ken, The round counter we are talking about is not some Aliens Space Marines digital display that tells you the amount of rounds remaining in the gun. I would agree, that would be foolish at best. What we are talking about is a device in the pistol grip of the gun (or where ever else) that tracks the number of rounds fired, and the unit Armorer can plug in a USB cable, download the data to a computer and know EXACTLY when he must replace such things as the barrel, bolt, springs, etc. based on the manufacture's recommendations. It is not accessable to the individual soldier, adds no light signature to the weapon (imagine a platoon full of glowing red LEDs at night), and minimal weight.
As far as the NCO comment. The Army and Marines have tried that numerous times. It simply doesn't work. Yelling and push-ups only go so far and they are not applicable here. Do you honestly expect an NCO to keep a running log of all rounds fired by all of the weapon systems issued to all members of the squad/fire team/platoon? I am sorry, I served with some stellar NCO's but what you are asking is all but impossible. I can't even count how many times my soldiers went to the range with some other NCO and I had duties that precluded me from going. Now it's on Joe to keep track of his shit. This may be doable with something like an M4 (doubtful that Pvt. E-nothing from bum-fuck USA will be able to keep track and report it to his NCO accurately), but on a SAW? No fucking way. Furthermore I can't even count how many times my AR's SAW was taken out of the armory and brought to the range for "familiarization" fires by god knows who. Now who the hell knows how many rounds have been put through it how fast...was the max sustainable rate of fire observed? Was the weapon properly lubed before it was fired? This doesn't even begin to account for actual combat. I can tell you the few times I have been involved in a 2 way range the last thing I was worried about was counting in my head the number of rounds fired, etc.
An integrated round counter would solve all of this.
Ken, The round counter we are talking about is not some Aliens Space Marines digital display that tells you the amount of rounds remaining in the gun. I would agree, that would be foolish at best. What we are talking about is a device in the pistol grip of the gun (or where ever else) that tracks the number of rounds fired, and the unit Armorer can plug in a USB cable, download the data to a computer and know EXACTLY when he must replace such things as the barrel, bolt, springs, etc. based on the manufacture's recommendations. It is not accessable to the individual soldier, adds no light signature to the weapon (imagine a platoon full of glowing red LEDs at night), and minimal weight.
As far as the NCO comment. The Army and Marines have tried that numerous times. It simply doesn't work. Yelling and push-ups only go so far and they are not applicable here. Do you honestly expect an NCO to keep a running log of all rounds fired by all of the weapon systems issued to all members of the squad/fire team/platoon? I am sorry, I served with some stellar NCO's but what you are asking is all but impossible. I can't even count how many times my soldiers went to the range with some other NCO and I had duties that precluded me from going. Now it's on Joe to keep track of his shit. This may be doable with something like an M4 (doubtful that Pvt. E-nothing from bum-fuck USA will be able to keep track and report it to his NCO accurately), but on a SAW? No fucking way. Furthermore I can't even count how many times my AR's SAW was taken out of the armory and brought to the range for "familiarization" fires by god knows who. Now who the hell knows how many rounds have been put through it how fast...was the max sustainable rate of fire observed? Was the weapon properly lubed before it was fired? This doesn't even begin to account for actual combat. I can tell you the few times I have been involved in a 2 way range the last thing I was worried about was counting in my head the number of rounds fired, etc.
An integrated round counter would solve all of this.
To a degree, for the same effort put forth to make 100% sure that I've slept through two SARC/EO/SH/AA breifings per year, the amount of ammunition issued to me could also be tracked, and to a degree this could be pretty easily monitored stateside by which courses of fire each rifle has been taken through. Simple as making entries when checking in/out rifles from the armory.
Any weapon system past half it's expected life on any given part would be replaced prior to a deployment, taken through verification fire (final BZO, etc.), and a quick survey of how many complete magazines have been reloaded by the user in-country would give an accurate enough estimate for the weapons that belong to multiple deployment type units.
I think there's a LOT of value to a mechanical shot counter, but it's still a problem that needs administrative solving (the model already exists from flight hardware, this isn't a foreign concept), and no matter how effective the shot counters are, a fundamental misunderstanding that M16's and M4's are mechanical systems that require regular inspections and part replacements still hasn't really permeated enough organizations and skulls.
I think there's a LOT of value to a mechanical shot counter, but it's still a problem that needs administrative solving (the model already exists from flight hardware, this isn't a foreign concept), and no matter how effective the shot counters are, a fundamental misunderstanding that M16's and M4's are mechanical systems that require regular inspections and part replacements still hasn't really permeated enough organizations and skulls.
Yep. One can propose all the gee whiz Buck Rogers bullshit solutions you want, but in the end, the Army Organization will still ignore the need for basic weapons maintenance.
At best it will become a new mandatory briefing slide, and fudge factor will be in effect.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.