View Full Version : M4 Product Improvement Program Forward Rail Assembly Kit progress?
As the currently issued RAS soldiers on, has there been any progress in this aspect of the product improvement program? The only thing that I've seen so far on this was this mention of the KAC submission on soldiersystems.net:
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/09/26/mdm-knights-armament-company/
Any other info out there on the entries? I certainly wouldn't be upset if we went with a DD RIS II for everyone...not that most servicemembers would be able to take advantage of it.
sinlessorrow
12-21-13, 08:55
As the currently issued RAS soldiers on, has there been any progress in this aspect of the product improvement program? The only thing that I've seen so far on this was this mention of the KAC submission on soldiersystems.net:
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/09/26/mdm-knights-armament-company/
Any other info out there on the entries? I certainly wouldn't be upset if we went with a DD RIS II for everyone...not that most servicemembers would be able to take advantage of it.
Latest update I heard was it is in Phase III field trials with 30 of each entrant in use.
It's down to KAC, PPI who makes a non FF powered rail system, and Adams Arms I believe.
kaltesherz
12-21-13, 15:11
There's an ongoing thread covering it on LF.net, but not too much additional info
http://www.lightfighter.net/topic/m4a1-frak-goes-forward
Just read the LF thread. I'm sure KAC put together the best solution possible within the constraints given. It's a shame that they were shoehorned into pretty much the same profile as the RAS so that a bayonet can be mounted, as well as the legacy attachment method for a 203. Not to mention being forced to use the 1913 rail system instead of something like the Keymod system.
sinlessorrow
12-21-13, 22:34
Just read the LF thread. I'm sure KAC put together the best solution possible within the constraints given. It's a shame that they were shoehorned into pretty much the same profile as the RAS so that a bayonet can be mounted, as well as the legacy attachment method for a 203. Not to mention being forced to use the 1913 rail system instead of something like the Keymod system.
Could you imagine how many spare rail pieces they would have to replace annually from lost one if they went Keymod???
That said I agree a 12" rail similar to the RIS II would have been ideal but a FF rail is still an improvement over the outdated KAC RAS.
kaltesherz
12-21-13, 23:39
Just read the LF thread. I'm sure KAC put together the best solution possible within the constraints given. It's a shame that they were shoehorned into pretty much the same profile as the RAS so that a bayonet can be mounted, as well as the legacy attachment method for a 203. Not to mention being forced to use the 1913 rail system instead of something like the Keymod system.
I agree that KAC seems to have the best solution, but Keymod? Uh- everything in the .mil is based around using 1913, and Joe Snuffy would be losing extra rails not to mention having rails loosen and lose their zero on PEQ-15s etc etc. I'm glad they kept traditional rails. Plus I'm still a 203 fan, and if I deploy again one of the first things I'm doing is finding a TPE one and throw that bitch on.
Now bayonets... we didn't even get tot rail with them in basic, and that was back in 2007. I've only been issued a bayonet once, for the first day of EIB and they shitcanned them after that.
But in the end, god knows if we'll get the budget to ever go through with the upgrade.
Valid points about the 1913 system vs. Keymod.
I remember we had bayonet training at OSUT in 2006, Benning must have phased it out shortly after that.
Though I would definitely like to see this go forward, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it got canned like the BCG portion of the PIP for not offering enough of an improvement over the currently fielded system. Although KevinB did state in the LF thread that this new rail would be cheaper to acquire than the per unit cost of the RAS.
I'm not that well versed on acquisitions, but I wonder if there would have been a way to get the RIS II to the general purpose force, and not just SOCOM. From what I understand, the RAS was originally part of SOPMOD block I, then over time started trickling out into the big Army as the M4 was more widely fielded.
sinlessorrow
12-22-13, 08:37
Valid points about the 1913 system vs. Keymod.
I remember we had bayonet training at OSUT in 2006, Benning must have phased it out shortly after that.
Though I would definitely like to see this go forward, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it got canned like the BCG portion of the PIP for not offering enough of an improvement over the currently fielded system. Although KevinB did state in the LF thread that this new rail would be cheaper to acquire than the per unit cost of the RAS.
I'm not that well versed on acquisitions, but I wonder if there would have been a way to get the RIS II to the general purpose force, and not just SOCOM. From what I understand, the RAS was originally part of SOPMOD block I, then over time started trickling out into the big Army as the M4 was more widely fielded.
I doubt this will get canned, it is easy to see the benefits of a FF rail in accuracy and zero retention.
Back when the RAS was adopted it was pretty much the RAS and the SIR, now days everyone and their mama makes rail so an open competition had to happen.
I am curious to see Adams entrant, as PPI is un interesting and we have seen the awesomeness of the KAC entrant.
JBecker 72
12-22-13, 09:07
I'm curious why they didn't just go with the RIS II? This KAC rail does look neat though. I have a RAS on one of my rifles, and I'm gonna be swapping it out with a Centurion FSP rail soon as it has a pinned flash hider. If it weren't for that, I would go with the DD rail most likely.
kaltesherz
12-22-13, 11:48
I'm not that well versed on acquisitions, but I wonder if there would have been a way to get the RIS II to the general purpose force, and not just SOCOM. From what I understand, the RAS was originally part of SOPMOD block I, then over time started trickling out into the big Army as the M4 was more widely fielded.
From what I understand RIS II is SOCOM only, and while it would make sense to just add them when doing the M4 to M4A1 upgrade- it's the Army. When do they EVER do anything that makes sense. They waste time, money, and when they do make a decision it's almost guaranteed to be the wrong one. Refer to UCP /ACU, IOTV, MOLLE II, KDH PC, M855A1, etc etc...
Anyone have anything new on this? I thought something was supposed to be decided by this summer (2014) but in typical government fashion it's probably late. :rolleyes:
sinlessorrow
11-27-14, 10:18
Anyone have anything new on this? I thought something was supposed to be decided by this summer (2014) but in typical government fashion it's probably late. :rolleyes:
The FRAK is down to KAC and Adcor, and shoukd be decided by december.
Forgot I started this thread. Good to see that there is some (albeit slow) forward progress on this. As a side note regarding the M4 PIP, I saw my first non SOF M4A1's today showing up overs here: these were in the hands of soldiers from 3rd ID. The one I got a close look at appeared to be a repurposed FN M16A4 or A2 lower, re stamped M4A1 and "Auto", with a new upper and ambi selector switch.
sinlessorrow
11-27-14, 13:52
Forgot I started this thread. Good to see that there is some (albeit slow) forward progress on this. As a side note regarding the M4 PIP, I saw my first non SOF M4A1's today showing up overs here: these were in the hands of soldiers from 3rd ID. The one I got a close look at appeared to be a repurposed FN M16A4 or A2 lower, re stamped M4A1 and "Auto", with a new upper and ambi selector switch.
They are doing MWOs and converting rifles to the new M4A1 spec, I know 2 companies got the contract for the ambi safety, Colt got the contract for the bolt assembly and the SOCOM profile barrel.
My money is on KAC getting the FRAK contract though, and they are offering an extended bottom rail attachment which looks awesome.
Any pics of this stuff floating around?
sinlessorrow
11-27-14, 15:51
Any pics of this stuff floating around?
Heres knights submission
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/09/26/mdm-knights-armament-company/
Only thing I could find on the ADCOR was the patent, but its basically the BEAR handguard minus the gas block and charging handle.
The FRAK is down to KAC and Adcor, and shoukd be decided by december.
Thanks!
Is the KAC candidate already commercially available? This looks close?
http://shop.knightarmco.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=KM30210
sinlessorrow
11-27-14, 20:41
Thanks!
Is the KAC candidate already commercially available? This looks close?
http://shop.knightarmco.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=KM30210
Not it, and it more than likely will be available if they win the competition once they get the breathing room to push some for the civilian market.
Just checking in ... Any word on the winning FRAK entry yet?
No replies??
I'm curious about this as well.
Unless you operationally require all of the things that this system is built to cater around, it looks like a huge step back from what's currently available on the civilian market.
Last I heard that entire program was scrubbed and new requirements are being written. So this will all start again soon.
sinlessorrow
02-08-15, 13:21
Last I heard that entire program was scrubbed and new requirements are being written. So this will all start again soon.
Seriously?
My brother in law just got stationed in Korea and told me he was issued a brand new M4. From the talk with him its a standard M4 with none of the upgrades.
sinlessorrow
02-08-15, 20:22
My brother in law just got stationed in Korea and told me he was issued a brand new M4. From the talk with him its a standard M4 with none of the upgrades.
M4A1s are probably going to deploying soldiers first.
Here at Campbell every brigade but 2/101 has the A1's.
I guess this explains the cancellation of the FRAK program:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b3949d1291d55ce72cdc9be45c907fcd&tab=core&_cview=0
In particular:
" b. Improved extended forward rails: The improved extended forward rails shall provide for a MIL-STD-1913 compatible rail that is fixed at the 12 o'clock position, with numbered attachment points. The rail must also provide for the attachment of modular, MIL-STD-1913 enabler(s) attaching capability on the hand guard. The improved extended forward rails shall provide for a hand guard allowing for a free-floated barrel, and for a design/redesign of the under-barrel weapon systems/module interface to use the MIL-STD-1913 compatible rail surface on the hand guard as the attachment point(s), instead of the barrel.
i. Length: The length of the improved extended forward rails shall be twelve (+/- .5 quote mark ) inches.
ii. Mounting surfaces: The improved extended forward rails shall have sufficient removable mounting surfaces of varying lengths (e.g. 3 quote mark , 5 quote mark , 7 quote mark ) to allow selective, simultaneous mounting of standard U.S. military accessories (e.g., lasers, illuminators, slings, bipods, vertical grips/grip-pods, etc.).
iii. Zero Retention: The improved extended forward rails mounting surfaces will allow for zeroed accessories/enablers to retain zero with 90% confidence (excluding optic/enabler malfunctions) no more than 1 Minute of Angle (MOA).
iv. Color: The improved extended forward rails shall provide for reduced visual detection via a neutral (non-black) color and shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective, coating/finish that retains paint. The color range will be Coyote 498 not lighter than Light Coyote 481, IAW FED-STD-595 #20150 not lighter than #20220; flat dull finish.
v. Protective Materials (coatings): The improved extended forward rails shall be corrosion, abrasion, impact, as well as nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) contaminants and decontaminants resistant. The improved extended forward rails shall be protected from corrosion in all environments and weather conditions, including marine, high humidity, rain, and desert conditions.
vi. Low Profile Gas Block: The extended forward rails shall include a low profile gas block. The gas block will be compatible with current M4A1 heavy barrel and gas tube.
vii. Forward Sling Mount: The extended forward rail shall include a forward sling mount compatible with 1 quote mark sling.
c. Improved back-up sights: The M4A1+ shall include a removable back-up sight(s) to be used in the event of damage to the primary sight. These back-up sights (front and rear) shall stow down/away to reduce interference with the mounted primary sights and flip up to enable Soldiers to engage targets out to 300 meters. The sight aperture(s) shall provide for both near threat (to 200 m) and for longer (to 300m) engagements and shall allow for windage and elevation adjustments; 600 meters w/o degrading threshold capabilities. "
I'm not waiting for this new program to come to a conclusion, so I decided to just go with the Daniel Defense 12" SLiM rail:
https://danieldefense.com/rail-systems/slim-railtm/slim-rail-12-0-rifle.html
Flankenstein
04-27-15, 19:15
My brother in law just got stationed in Korea and told me he was issued a brand new M4. From the talk with him its a standard M4 with none of the upgrades.
Gov't profile bbl, carry handle, and M4 Handguards? Burst or FA?
sinlessorrow
04-27-15, 19:28
I guess this explains the cancellation of the FRAK program:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b3949d1291d55ce72cdc9be45c907fcd&tab=core&_cview=0
In particular:
" b. Improved extended forward rails: The improved extended forward rails shall provide for a MIL-STD-1913 compatible rail that is fixed at the 12 o'clock position, with numbered attachment points. The rail must also provide for the attachment of modular, MIL-STD-1913 enabler(s) attaching capability on the hand guard. The improved extended forward rails shall provide for a hand guard allowing for a free-floated barrel, and for a design/redesign of the under-barrel weapon systems/module interface to use the MIL-STD-1913 compatible rail surface on the hand guard as the attachment point(s), instead of the barrel.
i. Length: The length of the improved extended forward rails shall be twelve (+/- .5 quote mark ) inches.
ii. Mounting surfaces: The improved extended forward rails shall have sufficient removable mounting surfaces of varying lengths (e.g. 3 quote mark , 5 quote mark , 7 quote mark ) to allow selective, simultaneous mounting of standard U.S. military accessories (e.g., lasers, illuminators, slings, bipods, vertical grips/grip-pods, etc.).
iii. Zero Retention: The improved extended forward rails mounting surfaces will allow for zeroed accessories/enablers to retain zero with 90% confidence (excluding optic/enabler malfunctions) no more than 1 Minute of Angle (MOA).
iv. Color: The improved extended forward rails shall provide for reduced visual detection via a neutral (non-black) color and shall be of a rough, dull, non-reflective, coating/finish that retains paint. The color range will be Coyote 498 not lighter than Light Coyote 481, IAW FED-STD-595 #20150 not lighter than #20220; flat dull finish.
v. Protective Materials (coatings): The improved extended forward rails shall be corrosion, abrasion, impact, as well as nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) contaminants and decontaminants resistant. The improved extended forward rails shall be protected from corrosion in all environments and weather conditions, including marine, high humidity, rain, and desert conditions.
vi. Low Profile Gas Block: The extended forward rails shall include a low profile gas block. The gas block will be compatible with current M4A1 heavy barrel and gas tube.
vii. Forward Sling Mount: The extended forward rail shall include a forward sling mount compatible with 1 quote mark sling.
c. Improved back-up sights: The M4A1+ shall include a removable back-up sight(s) to be used in the event of damage to the primary sight. These back-up sights (front and rear) shall stow down/away to reduce interference with the mounted primary sights and flip up to enable Soldiers to engage targets out to 300 meters. The sight aperture(s) shall provide for both near threat (to 200 m) and for longer (to 300m) engagements and shall allow for windage and elevation adjustments; 600 meters w/o degrading threshold capabilities. "
I'm not waiting for this new program to come to a conclusion, so I decided to just go with the Daniel Defense 12" SLiM rail:
https://danieldefense.com/rail-systems/slim-railtm/slim-rail-12-0-rifle.html
DD RIS II incoming.
DD RIS II incoming.
Very nice!
What's interesting is they appear to now be open to something like Keymod:
ii. Mounting surfaces: The improved extended forward rails shall have sufficient removable mounting surfaces of varying lengths (e.g. 3 quote mark , 5 quote mark , 7 quote mark ) to allow selective, simultaneous mounting of standard U.S. military accessories (e.g., lasers, illuminators, slings, bipods, vertical grips/grip-pods, etc.).
sinlessorrow
04-28-15, 11:54
Very nice!
What's interesting is they appear to now be open to something like Keymod:
There's really no telling.
There is also mention of enhanced reliability in the RFI. I wonder what the chances are of a new upper being submitted. It wouldn't surprise me to see a whole upper being submitted.
Look I have this upper that has everything you want, it also costs about the same as the M4A1 upper plus all those accessories.
BufordTJustice
04-28-15, 12:37
There's really no telling.
There is also mention of enhanced reliability in the RFI. I wonder what the chances are of a new upper being submitted. It wouldn't surprise me to see a whole upper being submitted.
Look I have this upper that has everything you want, it also costs about the same as the M4A1 upper plus all those accessories.
I see this as a perfect opportunity to lengthen the gas system with that new upper.
sinlessorrow
04-28-15, 12:54
I see this as a perfect opportunity to lengthen the gas system with that new upper.
Honeslty I wouldn't be opposed to a middy.
Digital_Damage
04-28-15, 13:44
There's really no telling.
There is also mention of enhanced reliability in the RFI. I wonder what the chances are of a new upper being submitted. It wouldn't surprise me to see a whole upper being submitted.
Look I have this upper that has everything you want, it also costs about the same as the M4A1 upper plus all those accessories.
Their would be 0 chance, they are trying to pass this through appropriations not as an upgrade but rather a maintenance choice. The cost in replacing all the uppers would never fly.
BufordTJustice
04-28-15, 13:52
Honeslty I wouldn't be opposed to a middy.
Especially not with M855A1. It would run bone dry with an H3 buffer on that mess.
sinlessorrow
04-28-15, 14:28
Their would be 0 chance, they are trying to pass this through appropriations not as an upgrade but rather a maintenance choice. The cost in replacing all the uppers would never fly.
That makes sense. I've often heard modern rails would actually cost less than the KAC RIS.
... I wonder what the chances are of a new upper being submitted. ...
Anything is possible I suppose, but in the solicitation itself it says:
" The M4A1+ components will seamlessly integrate with the current M4A1 Carbine (to include but not limited to the barrel, gas tube, upper receiver, bolt and bolt carrier) "
Sounds like those are the minimum current components they want to retain?
I would love to see a middy system, along with a new forend. Preferably something lighter than the RIS II, but it would still need to be strong enough.
I feel like swapping to keymod or m-lok wouldn't fly with the army though, given their current inventory of 1913 accessories and that they'd have to purchase a heck of a lot of rail sections.
... I feel like swapping to keymod or m-lok wouldn't fly with the army though, given their current inventory of 1913 accessories and that they'd have to purchase a heck of a lot of rail sections.
From the solicitation, it seems like that is what they are asking for?
"Mounting surfaces: The improved extended forward rails shall have sufficient removable mounting surfaces of varying lengths (e.g. 3 quote mark , 5 quote mark , 7 quote mark ) to allow selective, simultaneous mounting of standard U.S. military accessories (e.g., lasers, illuminators, slings, bipods, vertical grips/grip-pods, etc.). "
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.