View Full Version : Individual Carbine Competition Poll
Vapor Trail
08-14-12, 18:47
Please vote based on YOUR personal choice, not which company you predict will win. All the rifles listed above are way too fun to look at. Best of luck to all the competitors!
http://www.remingtonmilitary.com/Firearms/Carbines/ACR.aspx
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?gid=FNG020&fid=FNF075&mid=FNM0239
http://www.adcorindustries.com/wordpress/index.php/products/bear-elite/
http://hk-usa.com/military_products/hk416_general.asp
http://www.colt.com/ColtMilitary/Products/ColtAdvancedPistonCarbineAPC.aspx
I voted for Colt. My reasons are they are very familiar with whole procurement process and I believe that model will make for the easiest transition for the various units. As far as real knowledge of the various systems I'm probably as ignorant as anyone else, maybe more so.
I don't want any of them to replace the M4.
Vapor Trail
08-14-12, 22:29
I don't want any of them to replace the M4.
Why not? Can you honestly say none of those carbines have advantages over it?
saddlerocker
08-14-12, 22:31
This may be a dumb question, but is the M4 definitely getting replaced by one of these?
I dont think any represent a significant leap forward that would warrant the expense to implement it.
Vapor Trail
08-14-12, 22:46
This may be a dumb question, but is the M4 definitely getting replaced by one of these?
I dont think any represent a significant leap forward that would warrant the expense to implement it.
Not a dumb question at all. If none of the non-Colt firearms prove to be a significant improvement, then the "Enhanced M4" will be fielded instead. This is identical to the Colt APC. Either way, the military's going to receive a piston gun.
I voted for Colt. My reasons are they are very familiar with whole procurement process and I believe that model will make for the easiest transition for the various units. As far as real knowledge of the various systems I'm probably as ignorant as anyone else, maybe more so.
My gut says the Colt (if any) will be chosen. However i personally would prefer to see the Remington ACR. I was very impressed with the ACR at Shot Show this year and i think the refinements Remington has done with the platform offers alot.
Also Remington has stated if they are chosen then they will release the updates to the commercial market. :D
MikeCLeonard
08-14-12, 23:50
Not a dumb question at all. If none of the non-Colt firearms prove to be a significant improvement, then the "Enhanced M4" will be fielded instead. This is identical to the Colt APC. Either way, the military's going to receive a piston gun.
Are you saying that all responders to the M4PIP RFP have submitted proposed improvements and that the Colt APC has already won?
If the Colt APC hasn't been awarded the contract for the M4PIP, then how would we know what final form of the new M4 will be pitted against the winner of the IC competition?
Vapor Trail
08-14-12, 23:56
Are you saying that all responders to the M4PIP RFP have submitted proposed improvements and that the Colt APC has already won?
It hasn't already won, because the other carbines haven't had a chance to prove themselves superior in design. If the ACR, for example, scores higher than the APC during trials, then Remington will win.
Not much faith in ADCOR here huh :)
ha!
sinlessorrow
08-14-12, 23:59
Not a dumb question at all. If none of the non-Colt firearms prove to be a significant improvement, then the "Enhanced M4" will be fielded instead. This is identical to the Colt APC. Either way, the military's going to receive a piston gun.
Ummmm no.
the Colt Enhanced M4 is a 6940P with a fluted barrel, suppressed setting, and tan.
the M4 PiP is a completely different thing, and it will be DI. Honestly there is nothing wrong with the M4 that cant be fixed with the PiP. Give it a bolt made of better materials, a CHF barrel, and you have a M4A1 with double the parts life of the current M4, and its cheaper. Given the budget cuts and the requirement that the IC rifle would need to be far greater than the PiP M4A1.......well I'll let you guess.
BTW how are you still here trolling vapor? Every post you make just blows my mind. I can guarantee you the IC will not give us a new rifle and the PiP will be the way we go forward.
Vapor Trail
08-15-12, 00:06
I think there's a big difference between "trolling" and being misinformed. I'm not an expert, the APC=IC part was just what I read on DefenseReview. Sorry if I messed up, but I'm not a troll. I'm genuinely interested in people's opinions and the future of the U.S. arsenal.
MikeCLeonard
08-15-12, 00:21
It hasn't already won, because the other carbines haven't had a chance to prove themselves superior in design. If the ACR, for example, scores higher than the APC during trials, then Remington will win.
As stated above, I was talking to the point that the M4PIP rifle will not necessarily be a piston gun. It will likely be a modified DI rifle, which will then be pitted against the winner of the IC competition which will be a piston gun.
Only IF the M4PIP DI rifle is significantly beat out by one of the IC winners, and IF there are funds available, and IF a bunch of weird stars align, will the military as a whole get a piston gun. I'm doubting anything will happen in the end...but I honestly think most the choices would serve us well. For the most part, they all seem like great rifles.
BTW, I voted for the 416. I've had a couple, and they are amazingly nice rifles which have already been well vetted here and abroad. The only thing I wasn't a fan of was the cost of replacement parts...but that's a really only a problem for civilian owners.
sinlessorrow
08-15-12, 00:28
As stated above, I was talking to the point that the M4PIP rifle will not necessarily be a piston gun. It will likely be a modified DI rifle, which will then be pitted against the winner of the IC competition which will be a piston gun.
Only IF the M4PIP DI rifle is significantly beat out by one of the IC winners, and IF there are funds available, and IF a bunch of weird stars align will the military as a whole get a piston gun.
I'm doubting anything will happen in the end...but I honestly think most the choices would serve us well. For the most part, they all seem like great rifles.
The PiP is pretty much a go, though it will take a long time to get all the rifles completed. First stage of the PiP was adding a heavy barrel and ambi selector(basically purchasing M4A1's instead of M4's)
Current PiP's right now are:
BARREL AND FRONT SIGHT ASSEMBLY (HEAVY VARIANT) AND THE BOLT ASSEMBLY(this one is actually 2 different RFP's put into one)
Forward Rail Assembly
That is honestly the easiest way to go about getting a modern M4.
Why trade a rifle that works for one that may or may not?
Vapor Trail
08-15-12, 00:36
Why trade a rifle that works for one that may or may not?
The competition is designed to find out if they work or not. We're not just going to give troops an untested rifle. Why trade? Because in theory the new one will perform better. Have an open mind.
sinlessorrow
08-15-12, 00:44
The competition is designed to find out if they work or not. We're not just going to give troops an untested rifle. Why trade? Because in theory the new one will perform better. Have an open mind.
In theory yes, but what about 10-15 years from now when the rifles have been rebuilt 2-3 times? The current rifle works, even after being rebuilt numerous times and when the receivers have 30,000+ rounds on them. IMO the best way to move forward is with the PiP. Now if we are talking new caliber, bring us a new gun. As long as we are still using 5.56 give the M4A1 the few upgrades it needs and work on better bullet designs.
Ummmm no.
the Colt Enhanced M4 is a 6940P with a fluted barrel, suppressed setting, and tan.
the M4 PiP is a completely different thing, and it will be DI. Honestly there is nothing wrong with the M4 that cant be fixed with the PiP. Give it a bolt made of better materials, a CHF barrel, and you have a M4A1 with double the parts life of the current M4, and its cheaper. Given the budget cuts and the requirement that the IC rifle would need to be far greater than the PiP M4A1.......well I'll let you guess.
BTW how are you still here trolling vapor? Every post you make just blows my mind. I can guarantee you the IC will not give us a new rifle and the PiP will be the way we go forward.
Trolling huh...? Funny you should say that.
Here is a recent posting by you on LF:
Excellent post, and the 1911 analogy was perfect. Luckily the IC entrants all seem like good contenders, well the BEAR im not sure about but their HPWhite test was promising.
While a new rifle is needed the argument Coburn makes is a poor one, the argument you make is the perfect one.
Here is a statement by one LF user in another thread:
I don't think it's a matter of the M16 FOW simply being "good enough." I think it's the realization that there isn't anything out there right now that's substantially better than the M16 FOW. I realize that the word "substantial" is subjective and hard to quantify, but current and near future (next 1-3 years) rifles don't offer the Warfighter any major advantages over the M16 FOW.
and your answer is:
Wouldnt parts life alone be worth the change?
look at the M27, guaranteed 10,000 rounds bolt life but they are apparently getting 20,000 out of their bolts.
using an M4 you would need to replace the bolt nearly 4 times to equal that life.
the M16FOW is a great family of weapons but newer piston designs offer double or more in parts life alone which would be worth it, correct?
I can post several more comments from you from other boards, where you are not as adamant about the M4 and needed changes, as you are on here.
Perhaps you would also like to expound on the info about you supposedly read the IC, on a board you did not name, that you stated would blow peoples mind come November? Your link was removed over on LF because of hot-linking.
Vapor Trail
08-15-12, 00:49
I would personally be in favor of switching the 5.56 with the 6.5 Grendel.
sinlessorrow
08-15-12, 00:53
Trolling huh...? Funny you should say that.
Here is a recent posting by you on LF:
Here is a statement by one LF user in another thread:
I don't think it's a matter of the M16 FOW simply being "good enough." I think it's the realization that there isn't anything out there right now that's substantially better than the M16 FOW. I realize that the word "substantial" is subjective and hard to quantify, but current and near future (next 1-3 years) rifles don't offer the Warfighter any major advantages over the M16 FOW.
and your answer is:
Wouldnt parts life alone be worth the change?
look at the M27, guaranteed 10,000 rounds bolt life but they are apparently getting 20,000 out of their bolts.
using an M4 you would need to replace the bolt nearly 4 times to equal that life.
the M16FOW is a great family of weapons but newer piston designs offer double or more in parts life alone which would be worth it, correct?
I can post several more comments from you from other boards, where you are not as adamant about the M4 and needed changes, as you are on here.
Perhaps you would also like to expound on the info about you supposedly read the IC, on a board you did not name, that you stated would blow peoples mind come November? Your link was removed over on LF because of hot-linking.
nvm, not worth my time. I explained all this to you in PM.
The competition is designed to find out if they work or not. We're not just going to give troops an untested rifle. Why trade? Because in theory the new one will perform better. Have an open mind.
It's claimed that the SCAR was more thoroughly tested than any weapon before it and there were still issues when it got to group and batt boys in the field. The US has deployed the M16 FOW for 50 years. We know it intimately. They even refuse to make simple changes to correct known deficiencies. Fix those, then decide what to do next.
Not the part in red. And you never did reply to my PM.
A couple more statements:
I just think it is time to move past the M4, it has served us well(sorta) and its time for a rifle that does not require such TLC to keep it running in a desert environment.
The fact that no DI rifles even come close to the reliability of the HK416 says alot to me. This was confirmed by G3Kurz on Hkpro.com
All i am saying is we should want the best for our soldiers and the M4 is not that, and from the sound of it the HK416IC is the answer
Your ambiguity on the matter, depending on where you post is my point. That is why it is sort of ironic that you call people out for trolling.
Can you guys assault each other's TOS/TOBBS character by PM? You are really detracting from my enjoyment of this discussion........
:cray: :D
As for the Grendel comment, IIRC there is a shit ton of 5.56 floating around that is perfectly good for social work. To gear up enough brand new ammo ( I mean we are talking everything down to the brass/bullets etc.) to outfit the common soldier would be very cost prohibitive dont you think? That has to be a factor here..... Same goes for .300 wtf and 6.8 secret......right...?
ETA thats your personal choice LOL I got it. Never ever going to happen. $$$$$$$$$$$ talks and Grendel walks ;)
sinlessorrow
08-15-12, 01:35
Not the part in red. And you never did reply to my PM.
A couple more statements:
Your ambiguity on the matter, depending on where you post is my point. That is why it is sort of ironic that you call people out for trolling.
Have I stepped out of my lane, listened to some people I probably shouldn't have, said some stupid shit, been bitch slapped, and stuck in the corner for time out before? sure, who hasn't. Anyways I'll be sure to PM you about the part in red here.
Firstly, while I am a critic of the M4 bolt it DOES last longer than 5,000 rounds. If it didn't the two rifles a month that Colt fires 6,000 through wouldn't pass. In an M4 I'd want to consider replacement at ten thousand, a few thousand earlier on a MK18. Sometimes they fail earlier, mostly later.
Secondly piston type AR rifles share the common flaw, magazines. In a properly maintained rifle you will rarely have a malfunction that was not caused by magazines.
The main advantage of an external piston rifle is that it doesn't burn off lubricant as quickly. Secondly, you don't need new rings at 3k.
Secondly piston type AR rifles share the common flaw, magazines. In a properly maintained rifle you will rarely have a malfunction that was not caused by magazines.
The main advantage of an external piston rifle is that it doesn't burn off lubricant as quickly. Secondly, you don't need new rings at 3k.
Can we please please please not turn this thread into another DI/Internal Piston vs External Piston thread? I am getting tired of how any discussion of potential M16 fow replacements ends up like that.
sinlessorrow
08-15-12, 02:05
Can you guys assault each other's TOS/TOBBS character by PM? You are really detracting from my enjoyment of this discussion........
:cray: :D
As for the Grendel comment, IIRC there is a shit ton of 5.56 floating around that is perfectly good for social work. To gear up enough brand new ammo ( I mean we are talking everything down to the brass/bullets etc.) to outfit the common soldier would be very cost prohibitive dont you think? That has to be a factor here..... Same goes for .300 wtf and 6.8 secret......right...?
ETA thats your personal choice LOL I got it. Never ever going to happen. $$$$$$$$$$$ talks and Grendel walks ;)
But it has to be GREEN By far the dumbest thing the Army has ever decided, we are fighting a war, killing people, and we need to save the earth? Give me a break.
The US has deployed the M16 FOW for 50 years
And that might be the key issue in this discussion.
Granted, I don't know how old the weapons that are in rotation now actually are, but weapons should be cycled out of service eventually, regardless of repairs and rebuilds. I am not saying that there are 50 year old weapons in service, though. To do this, a system to accomplish this must be implemented. Regular parts inspections, parts replacements and proper testing to establish weapon serviceability. From what I can gather, that is what is lacking. And perhaps new technology can help extend a weapons life before it needs to be cycled out of service.
For example, in the last years before we replaced our G3's, they did not bother reparing guns if the cost was more than 40$. We had enough brand new weapons in storage after dismantling our invasion based armed forces, and focusing more on operations abroad. And god knows how many MG-3's we had in service that should probably have been melted into nails.
Granted, it is easier said than done considering the amount of weapons that are in service.
The poll seems statistically a dead heat between FN, HK, Colt, and Remington with zero votes for Adcor.
That tells me that Adcor will surely win the competition.
I only have experience with the HK416/417 series of rifles and I love them. I prefer the 416 over a standard DI AR15 (which I shoot privately). You can shoot a 416 all day and the BCG still looks nice and shiny, no dirt at all. In my experience they are just extremely reliable and accurate rifles which manipulate exactly the same as an M4. The only downside is the weight of the weapon compared to a regular M4.
jasonhgross
08-15-12, 06:30
This may be a dumb question, but is the M4 definitely getting replaced by one of these?
I dont think any represent a significant leap forward that would warrant the expense to implement it.
Agree 100% I think the piston guns are extra expense with very little provided to advance their case over the DI guns already in service.
I don't want any of them to replace the M4.
No kidding! :blink:
I wouldn't want to own any of those guns. I'd only take the HK because I could sell it to a Fanboy and make money... other than that. I'll pass.
I didnt vote because the Colt M4 wasn't on the list. That being said I'm choosing it because it's cost effective and it works. It doesn't have to be fancy or expensive in order to fill its role.
Honestly too, I don't know enough about any of the other choices to make an educated guess.
Larry Vickers
08-15-12, 08:40
My prediction ( shared by many others) ;
HK 416 will win the IC down select; I will be very surprised if it doesn't
It will then be competed against the current and/or improved M4- it will beat the M4 in this comparison; however the Army will say the improvement in performance is not so great as to spend the $$$$ to upgrade and/or replace the M4 - so we will stay with the M4 and a lot of money will have been spent in the mean time
LAV
My prediction ( shared by many others) ;
HK 416 will win the IC down select; I will be very surprised if it doesn't
It will then be competed against the current and/or improved M4- it will beat the M4 in this comparison; however the Army will say the improvement in performance is not so great as to spend the $$$$ to upgrade and/or replace the M4 - so we will stay with the M4 and a lot of money will have been spent in the mean time
LAV
^^ What he said.
Agree 100% I think the piston guns are extra expense with very little provided to advance their case over the DI guns already in service.
And that is the view that is clouding the entire frigging issue IMO. I'm sorry, but the whole "pistons don't offer any significant improvement over a DI gun" view clearly shows that the reason for the competition is not fully grasped.
The point of the competition is not to determine if a piston system is better than a DI system for military use. It is not a driving factor when it comes to choosing the design either. Why does it matter what kind of mechanism unlocks the bolt? The emotional investment in the DI system is kind of surprising.
The whole point of the competition is to see if there are weapons out there that offer increased accuracy, reliability, durability and maintainability over the existing systems. Ie, is there anything out there better than the M4/M4A1 SYSTEM.
Again, it has nothing to do with the mechanism used to cycle the bolt, but if new technology can offer improvements that will benefit the Army over a variety of different areas, compared to what they are using.
And if they determine that one of the systems above actually do it, isn't that for the betterment of the guys on the ground doing the fighting?
Some people will probably say that the new guns aren't mil-spec, or that the lowest bidder will win. First, the military decides what the mil-spec requirements are. Second, the "lowest bidder" will have to meet the spec, so the point is moot. If the point is valid, then Colt should be considered the lowest bidder, and the way some people throw around that term, it could be mistaken for something other than a ringing endorsement. We all know that Colt is quality.
It's not a knock on the M4/M4A1/DI system, it is just to see if something is better.
Now, the financial issue is something else, and even though a new weapon might be better in some areas, it might not be so much better that it is financially beneficial to replace it. Upgrading the current system might give more bang for the buck in that case.
In either case, there will also be a need to enforce higher standards in training and instruction; marksmanship, maintenance routines (at all levels), breed SME's at lower levels etc; to ensure longevity of the new system. New technology/materials can compensate for inadequate maintenance for a little while, but sooner or later it will take it's toll on the new guns as well.
Like an american Soldier I worked with said:
"If you lock two Privates in a padded room containing nothing but a bowling ball, and come back 2 hours later you can bet that they have found a way to break the damn ball."
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=106985
"But-but-but it's not a POLL..."
Precisely.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.