View Full Version : US Army kills Individual Carbine program
wetidlerjr
06-13-13, 17:39
GEARSCOUT US Army kills Individual Carbine program (http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gearscout/2013/06/13/us-army-kills-individual-carbine-program/)
Not to seem too out of the loop....
What were the contenders?
wetidlerjr
06-13-13, 18:06
Not to seem too out of the loop....
What were the contenders?
Weapons submitted included the XCR by Robinson Armament Co., an off-the-shelf or derivative of the M6A4 by LWRC, the ACR by Remington, the SR-16 by Knight's Armament Company, the FN SCAR by FN Herstal, the CM901 by Colt's Manufacturing Company, and the HK416 by Heckler & Koch.
WIKIPEDIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Carbine)
And how much money was pissed away on this one...?
WIKIPEDIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Carbine)
Oh no you di'ent! Boi.....
Wikipedia - "...your source is the academic-integrity equivalent of Milli Vanilli." - JSantoro
"The use of the M855A1 round likely resulted in lower than expected reliability performance."
By not sticking with M855Regular these guys pissed away development money.
If that ammo was an absolute requirement they should have included the current weapon with the new submissions in the testing.
MountainRaven
06-13-13, 20:09
"The use of the M855A1 round likely resulted in lower than expected reliability performance."
By not sticking with M855Regular these guys pissed away development money.
If that ammo was an absolute requirement they should have included the current weapon with the new submissions in the testing.
That might force the Army to admit that M855A1 is another of their multi-million dollar boondoggles.
Of course the Army knows that LV could conduct the best rifle selection board that would be in the top 99.99 pecentile in each performance category. Larry has the technical, administrative, and social skills to manage the program. His combat experience would strongly complement his other skill sets.
So why does the Big Army overlook the proven experts when making these decisions?
And how much money was pissed away on this one...?
And would the money have been better spent on training and ammunition.....?
They just would have wasted the money on some other dumb shit anyways.
Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
Exactly what were they looking to accomplish?
Magic_Salad0892
06-13-13, 23:15
Of course the Army knows that LV could conduct the best rifle selection board that would be in the top 99.99 pecentile in each performance category. Larry has the technical, administrative, and social skills to manage the program. His combat experience would strongly complement his other skill sets.
So why does the Big Army overlook the proven experts when making these decisions?
I think that putting him in charge would yield positive results. But it'd never happen.
Failure2Stop
06-13-13, 23:41
Of course the Army knows that LV could conduct the best rifle selection board that would be in the top 99.99 pecentile in each performance category. Larry has the technical, administrative, and social skills to manage the program. His combat experience would strongly complement his other skill sets.
So why does the Big Army overlook the proven experts when making these decisions?
Unless he wrote the requirements document, put 0% weighting on cost, designed the testing criteria, performed all of the testing, and compiled all of the data, I don't think that even his expertise could overcome the hurdles in this program.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Magic_Salad0892
06-13-13, 23:45
Unless he wrote the requirements document, put 0% weighting on cost, designed the testing criteria, performed all of the testing, and compiled all of the data, I don't think that even his expertise could overcome the hurdles in this program.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
But putting dudes like him, or you in charge of testing alone would definitely deliver real, and likely cost effective results.
wetidlerjr
06-14-13, 00:41
Oh no you di'ent! Boi.....
Wikipedia - "...your source is the academic-integrity equivalent of Milli Vanilli." - JSantoro
Yeah, well, "Life is a bitch and then you die."
I have to wonder what is going to happen to rifles like the ACR that struggle on the civilian market.
Failure2Stop
06-14-13, 08:57
Weapons submitted included the XCR by Robinson Armament Co., an off-the-shelf or derivative of the M6A4 by LWRC, the ACR by Remington, the SR-16 by Knight's Armament Company, the FN SCAR by FN Herstal, the CM901 by Colt's Manufacturing Company, and the HK416 by Heckler & Koch.
WIKIPEDIA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Carbine)
KAC did not submit.
wetidlerjr
06-14-13, 09:13
KAC did not submit.
My info was not first hand, thus the link.
There are highly qualified people with experience who could offer great insight into the development of a new service rifle, but they are not politicians. That is unfortunate. The politics involved in procurement would frighten a shark.
KAC did not submit.KAC never submits, they fight it out and usually win.
KAC never submits, they fight it out and usually win.
Thats what she said....
On a serious note. If I had the "final say" on what would be changed, it would be a Mid Length Gas System a 12 - 13 inch handguard (RIS II, C4 or Geissele SMR Mk1), 14.5in barrel and a Compensator such as the BC 2.0 or BCM Gunfighter.
But then again, I'm just a moron
Failure2Stop
06-14-13, 10:11
Thats what she said....
On a serious note. If I had the "final say" on what would be changed, it would be a Mid Length Gas System a 12 - 13 inch handguard (RIS II, C4 or Geissele SMR Mk1), 14.5in barrel and a Compensator such as the BC 2.0 or BCM Gunfighter.
But then again, I'm just a moron
Flash suppression and dust mitigation is far more important during military employment than reducing recoil of 5.56 carbines.
Thats the thing, with the BattleComps I've had less dust and flash than a A2 hider. But then again I'm not using Mil-surplus ammo so that is probably why. I forgot stuff like M855 and 193 has more flash, so I understand that one.
hmnnn.... choose your fights and win.. contracting with the USG is it's own art form.
If some semi-savvy type with fiscal and operational sense would drive a sensible solution.. =
Middy 16" FF rail of any sort that didn't suck and was substantial enough for a grenade launcher (and hence probably joe proof) would serve well for the next 50yrs. And.. be just enough backwards compatible to make sense.
-optics.. whatever is in service a good enough ballistic match
-GL's. good enough
-spare parts.. new barrel & FF rail only, the rest legacy
There are highly qualified people with experience who could offer great insight into the development of a new service rifle, but they are not politicians. That is unfortunate. The politics involved in procurement would frighten a shark.
One thing has been consistent with small arms development and procurement. That is that politics always play a major role to the point of becoming a major obstruction. You would think we would have learned after 238 years of finding weapons for soldiers.
Failure2Stop
06-15-13, 09:35
One thing has been consistent with small arms development and procurement. That is that politics always play a major role to the point of becoming a major obstruction. You would think we would have learned after 238 years of finding weapons for soldiers.
Never underestimate the ability of the Army to ignore lessons learned.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the next major evolutionary step should be caseless ammo, ala the 4.73 x 33mm caseless round developed for the HK G11. That way all the greenie-weenies will be just as happy as all the troops able to carry double+ the amount of ammo on their person.
Magic_Salad0892
06-15-13, 12:30
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the next major evolutionary step should be caseless ammo, ala the 4.73 x 33mm caseless round developed for the HK G11. That way all the greenie-weenies will be just as happy as all the troops able to carry double+ the amount of ammo on their person.
I think caseless ammo would work better if the guns designed for them still had ejection ports to allow for cooling, and malfunction diagnosis.
I think caseless ammo would work better if the guns designed for them still had ejection ports to allow for cooling, and malfunction diagnosis.
But there's nothing to eject! Maybe some kind of access panel on the side would work... Plus think of all the money the military would save on the rising costs of the metals used to produce cases... and no more getting hit by flying brass. I think they abandoned that idea way too early. It was ahead of its time and needs to be re-explored.
Failure2Stop
06-15-13, 12:48
But there's nothing to eject!
Failure to fire
Failure to feed
Failure to chamber
Failure to lock
Unload
Obstruction of feedway
Plenty of reasons to need to remove a round from the chamber.
Not saying that it cannot be done, but there needs to be a way to get a loaded cartridge out of the gun.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Failure to fire
Failure to feed
Failure to chamber
Failure to lock
Unload
Obstruction of feedway
Plenty of reasons to need to remove a round from the chamber.
Not saying that it cannot be done, but there needs to be a way to get a loaded cartridge out of the gun.
Yes, I suppose I was living in the fantasy world of 100% reliability. So some kind of lock-openable, side-cocking, bolt-clearing lever and ejection port would have to be implemented. Easy enough. One day... one day...
would be a necessity
Grand58742
06-15-13, 17:32
Yes, I suppose I was living in the fantasy world of 100% reliability. So some kind of lock-openable, side-cocking, bolt-clearing lever and ejection port would have to be implemented. Easy enough. One day... one day...
would be a necessity
I dunno. Even in Starship Troopers they were still using brass ammo.
We figured out interstellar travel, but somehow could not master caseless ammunition lol
Thats what she said....
On a serious note. If I had the "final say" on what would be changed, it would be a Mid Length Gas System a 12 - 13 inch handguard (RIS II, C4 or Geissele SMR Mk1), 14.5in barrel and a Compensator such as the BC 2.0 or BCM Gunfighter.
But then again, I'm just a moron
Muzzle flash is far worse under NODs. Battlecomps suck as flash hiders, but that's because they aren't FH's.
Carbine length gas is perfectly fine. I can't tell the difference between the two to be honest.
We need to just upgrade our M4's with RIS II's and the full auto FCG so we have a consistent semi-auto pull to learn. The RIS II is a great rail and already being fielded. Also, in many units, it's still an SOP to mount GL's on M4's. In my Company, we aren't allowed to employ the M320 as a stand alone weapon system. It HAS to be on the M4. Having a free float rail is essential because of this and for some guys still rocking the 203, they can FF it to the RIS II.
Send more NCOs in the Big Army to train with companies like TMACS, VTAC, and TigerSwan so they can bring that knowledge back to their units and teach it. So many of the good leaders leave to go to SF/Regiment and take all of their knowledge with them. We need that proficiency forcewide and unfortunately it's lacking.
We also need to stretch our qual distance further than 300m. Anyone can make a shot at 300, even with only semi-solid fundamentals. I even hear Soldiers say "I'm not gonna even try to hit the 300, I'll just save those rounds for closer shots if I miss" and they never push past that psychological barrier of making an intermediate range shot.
There's a lot wrong with the software of the Big Army, and there's no upgrade in hardware that's going to fix that.
Never underestimate the ability of the Army to ignore lessons learned.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Fact.
Never underestimate the ability of the Army to ignore lessons learned.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
The army does not own that. The rest of the services have there fair share of it.
The old adage "200 years of tradition unhampered by progress" comes to mind.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.