View Full Version : Military CQB carbines-Why still 10.5"?
parishioner
06-06-10, 21:58
I think it is well documented that the 10" AR's have served and are still serving our military admirably. Despite the stigma of them being somewhat finicky, when assembled and tuned properly they have shown to be reliable and effective obviously by our military's tier one groups as well as many members here at M4c.
On the other hand, as far as SBR's are concerned, the 10" guns seem to be the bare minimum length one should utilize for serious use due to depreciating velocity of the 5.56/fragmentation range and reliability issues.
If you have been keeping up with the SBR world I guess you could say, you would have noticed a trend over the past few years that shows shooters somewhat shying away from the 10.5" and steadily moving toward 11.5" and now recently the 12.5". Benefits include increased dwell time allowing for more forgiving ammo choices, less wear on parts as well more velocity. I think I even recall KevinB who is a highly respected professional, state he vastly prefers and 11" to a 10".
Given the trend toward longer SBR barrel lengths in recent years, I sometimes wonder why companies capable of supporting military contracts continue to have the 10.5" as their major offering in the CQB config. LMT, H&K, Colt (although they do offer 11.5"), and FN come to mind. Why is this? Is it something that the military specifies?
My guess would be that suppressed use of the weapon is why the 10.5" remains the standard as it keeps OAL down and with a steady diet of 77gr.,which the military is capable of sustaining, it gets the job done, so why change what works.
Does anyone foresee a change in barrel lengths in the future or would a caliber change most likely come before?
parishioner
06-10-10, 21:18
Nothing? I'll admit I had a few beers before I wrote that post(nba finals and the stanley cup was on) but I still think the question has some merit to it.
Maybe I'll rephrase it slightly.
Why is the standard CQB configuration still a 10.5" when there has been a move towards longer length barrels in the past few years? Has the military just not caught up to the times yet and they will in the near future? The answer may be as simple as the military specifies this length because they are perfectly satisfied with it, Im not sure.
It just makes me wonder when I see professionals and serious shooters on this site verbalize their preference for a barrel longer than 10.5" and companies that could possibly vie for military contracts with their brand new weapon systems, continue to produce their CQB carbine with a 10.5" barrel like the HK 416, SCAR, and ACR.
Just tell me if this is a stupid question and I'll shut up and go in the corner.
its not a stupid question, it just has a stupid answer. if an established something works, even if there's some glitches, it stays until there's a strong compelling reason to change. the CQBRs work. adding different barrel lengths is just added complication, for an institution like the army.
variablebinary
06-10-10, 21:29
The military marches to the beat of their own drum.
Some groups have been touting the merits of mid-lengths for a few years. Military does not care. They can't chase every latest and greatest trend or fad that hits the market. Every so-called fix or improvement introduces new issues that need to be considered and addressed in some fashion. "Innovation" always has a penalty.
Also, on next generation weapons, the 10.5" reliability barrier is irrelevant, as they all use pistons, not direct gas
parishioner
06-10-10, 21:48
Some groups have been touting the merits of mid-lengths for a few years. Military does not care. They can't chase every latest and greatest trend or fad that hits the market.
This is definitely understandable because it costs money to implement change and if they won't see significant improvement from the change it probably isn't worth it.
I figured they were working well enough and getting the job done because if they weren't, there would have been a change.
This just leads me to believe that maybe the 10.5" isn't as bad as perceived.
Nothing? I'll admit I had a few beers before I wrote this(nba finals and the stanley cup was on) but I still think the question has some merit to it.
stanley cup ended last night :p
parishioner
06-10-10, 22:07
stanley cup ended last night :p
My bad. I meant a had a few when I wrote the initial post on Sunday when it was game five bro with the series tied at two a piece. ;)
I wrote the initial post on Sunday when it was game five bro with the series tied at two a piece. ;)
touche! maybe I missed it cuz i have already drank a few beers and watching NBA finals
Belmont31R
06-10-10, 22:56
Mil uses what works, and don't really change unless something breaks or becomes unserviceable NOT because there is something better out there.
The 10.5 may not be the best short gun out there but it still works in its intended roll. There is some innovation, too, like going to the DD RIS II rails for the shorties. Thats a newish rail not too many people are using but IMO is the best DD rail out there.
They are buying newer generation Aimpoints, and the relatively new PEQ15 is already being replaced. The LMT SOPMOD stock came from the Crane stock.
The mil does change with the times but its not always the latest and greatest. Sometimes they take things from the civilian world, and sometimes we take stuff from them.
vicious_cb
06-10-10, 23:08
10.3" barrel + a suppressor is about the same length as an M4. Using a suppressor also negates the lack of barrel past the gas port.
variablebinary
06-11-10, 00:23
Time for the shallow answer.
The MK18 Mod 0 is far cooler than any of these new SBR configs :p
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u235/FLDiveCop71/MK18ManCovShot.jpg
westcoastfrog
06-11-10, 00:32
as stated the military is very resistant to change. that being said i also believe that the higher ranking individuals in charge of getting us new shit are rarely ever the best guys for those jobs. often times those slots are filled by guys punching a ticket and are so far removed from the actual operational aspect that we get what they perceive to be the latest and greatest ie. the eotech, elcan or dare i say it...the scar.
westcoastfrog
06-11-10, 00:34
one more thing, nsw-crane devision....worthless....absolutely worthless
one more thing, nsw-crane devision....worthless....absolutely worthless
...oh?
one more thing, nsw-crane devision....worthless....absolutely worthless
...oh?
This is where the "Subscribe to thread" option comes in handy, as this thread is quickly on its way to becoming an M4C classic.
decodeddiesel
06-11-10, 09:47
one more thing, nsw-crane devision....worthless....absolutely worthless
That is a bold statement Sir. While I understand that there are many things which cannot be discussed over an open forum such as this which could lend credence to this claim, I do hope that you are prepared to substantiate this claim somehow.
one more thing, nsw-crane devision....worthless....absolutely worthless
Please share your specific concerns and I will pass them along to Gary and Greg. I will be happy to inform you of their feedback. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome.
I think it is well documented that the 10" AR's have served and are still serving our military admirably. Despite the stigma of them being somewhat finicky, when assembled and tuned properly they have shown to be reliable and effective obviously by our military's tier one groups as well as many members here at M4c.
On the other hand, as far as SBR's are concerned, the 10" guns seem to be the bare minimum length one should utilize for serious use due to depreciating velocity of the 5.56/fragmentation range and reliability issues.
If you have been keeping up with the SBR world I guess you could say, you would have noticed a trend over the past few years that shows shooters somewhat shying away from the 10.5" and steadily moving toward 11.5" and now recently the 12.5". Benefits include increased dwell time allowing for more forgiving ammo choices, less wear on parts as well more velocity. I think I even recall KevinB who is a highly respected professional, state he vastly prefers and 11" to a 10".
Given the trend toward longer SBR barrel lengths in recent years, I sometimes wonder why companies capable of supporting military contracts continue to have the 10.5" as their major offering in the CQB config. LMT, H&K, Colt (although they do offer 11.5"), and FN come to mind. Why is this? Is it something that the military specifies?
My guess would be that suppressed use of the weapon is why the 10.5" remains the standard as it keeps OAL down and with a steady diet of 77gr.,which the military is capable of sustaining, it gets the job done, so why change what works.
Does anyone foresee a change in barrel lengths in the future or would a caliber change most likely come before?
Climb into a HMMWV or MRAP fully kitted up for a few hours and you will understand that everything counts in large amounts.
I agree...
The MK18 has set a really great standard for real application SBRs. THe one I put together at home and the ones I have worked on here have been flawless (not counting operator error)
Velcro
This just leads me to believe that maybe the 10.5" isn't as bad as perceived.
That's the winner. Back when the short barrels didn't run as well we didn't have extractor upgrades, chambers were often tight .223, buffers were carbine, barrels were often cut down and the gas port left small or drilled out to a ridiculous size...
parishioner
06-11-10, 12:18
Climb into a HMMWV or MRAP fully kitted up for a few hours and you will understand that everything counts in large amounts.
This certainly puts it into perspective. Thanks.
I thought there were some posts on here stating SF operators made some kills out to 600m with 10.5 SBRs?
westcoastfrog
06-11-10, 17:19
sorry, if my statement is too harsh. i know that a lot of the people at craine are good people many of whom know a lot more than i do about guns....i'm just saying that in my opinion and personal experience the organization as a whole and the power that they have to make decisions for my community has left me with some sour feelings for them.
parishioner
06-11-10, 17:52
I thought there were some posts on here stating SF operators made some kills out to 600m with 10.5 SBRs?
Holy hell, that's impressive. Could you provide a link?
Holy hell, that's impressive. Could you provide a link?
The referenced thread can be found here: The Myth of The M4 And Its' Effectiveness (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54977).
While some members of the SF team had MK18 uppers, the 600m and 800m kills discussed were from an "M4 carbine loaded with Black Hills Mk 262 MOD 1 ammunition, produced in 2004."
Also, on next generation weapons, the 10.5" reliability barrier is irrelevant, as they all use pistons, not direct gas
Can you tell us what these 10.5 piston guns are? Thanks.
variablebinary
06-11-10, 20:57
Can you tell us what these 10.5 piston guns are? Thanks.
On the military side HK416 (10.3") & SCAR (10")
Though, as others have said, the reliability issues associated with 10.5" MK18 type weapons is probably overstated.
1. Tradition/organizational inertia.
2. Minimum effective length with a carbine gas system.
3. The purpose is compactness.
While Crane has done some good things, there is also much truth in what westcoastfrog has said...
On the military side HK416 (10.3") & SCAR (10")
Though, as others have said, the reliability issues associated with 10.5" MK18 type weapons is probably overstated.
Thanks. A guy at DD said they had an order from socom for 8,000 MK18 uppers, so perhaps there is still some uncertainty about which direction DoD is heading with their SBRs.
http://www.danieldefense.com/img/product/a650d8baa8f44a56f40a73ff1cd80cfa.jpg
2/75 was supposed to get MK18 uppers and got SCARs instead.
westcoastfrog
06-12-10, 17:11
The scar light/16 is going away...at least for us.
Can anybody say without violating OPSEC what military units are using/issued the SBRs?
Just curious,
LeonCarr
While Crane has done some good things, there is also much truth in what westcoastfrog has said...
Yeah, there's room for improvement for sure. I agree as well, having dealt with Crane first hand for 6 years getting the good, the bad, and the ugly side of things.
I got the new MK18 upper in November of 2008 with the DD rail and KAC front sight, they have fielded a ton of them. I would imagine most of the Crane supported MK18s (IE those who are maintained by Crane, not those sold to units through Crane outside sales) are of the DD RIS variety now.
Has .mil purchased any LMT piston SBRs? If so, how did they work out?
http://www.lewismachine.net/images/product/CQBPU12%20WITH%20L7A3P.jpg
Has .mil purchased any LMT piston SBRs? If so, how did they work out?
http://www.lewismachine.net/images/product/CQBPU12%20WITH%20L7A3P.jpg
No. The piston driven systems in service are those offered by HK and the SCAR-H.
Not sure if anyone will adopt the SCAR-L; many believe it offers no advantage over a MK18/M4A1 service rifle.
Magic_Salad0892
06-13-10, 05:03
In my opinion the SCAR-L system is obsolete by design.
It's a step backward.
Holy hell, that's impressive. Could you provide a link?
My old squad leader is in Afghan now as a SF guy. He told me his 10.5 inch rifle with DD rail has been good for him out to 400 meters.
Running a 10.5" with Mk262 isn't that huge a disadvantage compared to M855 from a 14.5" - neither is terribly effective past 250yd on two-legged critters, and being suppressed is a much larger advantage.
I'm still at a complete loss which direction the DoD is really heading, given the IAR (HK), SCAR, and proliferation of good product improved M4's, and the Mk318 clouding the caliber change issue.
decodeddiesel
06-13-10, 10:06
I agree with what has said about the SCAR-L. It is a "neat" weapon, but yeah, really don't see the huge improvement over the MK18/M4A1.
It pisses me off though thinking about the vast sums of money that were thrown at the project only to be flushed down the toilet now. It really makes something like the Remington ACR (though I have hard feelings about that weapon system as well) which was developed privately and without the involvement of tax dollars that much more appealing. Being involved in the whole .gov R/D side of things now a days I shudder to think how much tax money has been wasted on the SCAR.
Belmont31R
06-13-10, 10:26
I agree with what has said about the SCAR-L. It is a "neat" weapon, but yeah, really don't see the huge improvement over the MK18/M4A1.
It pisses me off though thinking about the vast sums of money that were thrown at the project only to be flushed down the toilet now. It really makes something like the Remington ACR (though I have hard feelings about that weapon system as well) which was developed privately and without the involvement of tax dollars that much more appealing. Being involved in the whole .gov R/D side of things now a days I shudder to think how much tax money has been wasted on the SCAR.
A drop in the bucket man....:cool:
I think it has more to do with the fact we have reached a plateau in weapons evolution. You can really only make minor improvements here and there but nothing ground breaking that everyone would want to jump on.
The AR system is ancient in the world of military guns yet its still one of the best. As has been said in this thread the "new" guns like the SCAR don't do anything significantly different than the AR.
Even if we upgraded to a 6.8 round that idea is not new. An intermediate round was pushed as far back as when the 5.56 became the NATO round, and even earlier with the Garand.
It really surprises me that folks aren't viewing it as a significant improvement over previous options given how much time, energy and money went into its development. I mean, didn't our most elite folks essentially guide it into being what it is?
I have shot it and would take it over a DI platform any day of the week. I'm shocked that others wouldn't see what it brings to the table.
I agree with what has said about the SCAR-L. It is a "neat" weapon, but yeah, really don't see the huge improvement over the MK18/M4A1.
It pisses me off though thinking about the vast sums of money that were thrown at the project only to be flushed down the toilet now. It really makes something like the Remington ACR (though I have hard feelings about that weapon system as well) which was developed privately and without the involvement of tax dollars that much more appealing. Being involved in the whole .gov R/D side of things now a days I shudder to think how much tax money has been wasted on the SCAR.
A drop in the bucket man....:cool:
I think it has more to do with the fact we have reached a plateau in weapons evolution. You can really only make minor improvements here and there but nothing ground breaking that everyone would want to jump on.
The AR system is ancient in the world of military guns yet its still one of the best. As has been said in this thread the "new" guns like the SCAR don't do anything significantly different than the AR.
Even if we upgraded to a 6.8 round that idea is not new. An intermediate round was pushed as far back as when the 5.56 became the NATO round, and even earlier with the Garand.
Well said... Allowing various military units to make COTS purchases for weapons platforms or specialty ammo they feel is tailored to their mission is a realistic move and is certainly more cost effective than this red herring push for a substitution to a proven platform.
decodeddiesel
06-13-10, 11:43
A drop in the bucket man....:cool:
True, especially when compared to various flops like Crusader, Comanche, F-35* (maybe this project will come around and it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but thus far it has been a big expensive flop) , Sea Wolf, etc. etc. etc.
Even if we upgraded to a 6.8 round that idea is not new. An intermediate round was pushed as far back as when the 5.56 became the NATO round, and even earlier with the Garand.
Well sure, the FAL in 7x43mm comes to mind.
Still though so long as the .mil sticks to the ridiculous limitations set forth in the Hague Conventions I don't really think the jump from 5.56 to 6.8 (or 6.5) is really worth it. Sure, by all means it's a superior cartridge, but given the projectile restrictions it just doesn't seem like a lot of "value added".
Al U. 5811
06-13-10, 12:50
Holy shit. Talk about drop in the bucket. Being attached to rotor-head squadrons as a CE, then MP for 14 years, you cannot fathom the amount spent on the Osprey program. How about the Army's Land Warrior program?
I had crossed over to the blue before the Marine Corps started making the M4 standard for MP's. Being that the platform is standard for AF Security Forces, and having deployed with it. I can appreciate the advantage of an SBR for vehicle op's. The 14.5" is even too cumbersome in that role.
Belmont31R
06-13-10, 12:55
It really surprises me that folks aren't viewing it as a significant improvement over previous options given how much time, energy and money went into its development. I mean, didn't our most elite folks essentially guide it into being what it is?
I have shot it and would take it over a DI platform any day of the week. I'm shocked that others wouldn't see what it brings to the table.
How is it a significant improvement?
The AR/M4/M16 is a MUCH more modular system.
justin_247
06-13-10, 13:34
True, especially when compared to various flops like Crusader, Comanche, F-35* (maybe this project will come around and it will be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but thus far it has been a big expensive flop) , Sea Wolf, etc. etc. etc.
Calling these systems "flops" is wrongheaded. They were significant improvements over the current systems being fielded, but the level of improvement in terms of cost-benefit analysis, especially in light the need for cash for combat operations, means they were shelved.
There is no question that the F-35 will be a huge leap over the current AV-8, F-16, and F-18s currently being fielded.
As for the Sea Wolf, it was an amazing submarine that was cancelled due to the cost ($2 billion a boat)... however, it would have been cheaper if the government hadn't have cut the total numbers they were going to purchase. Many of the improvements from it were integrated into the Virginia-class program and, although it is an inferior submarine, it now costs more than the Sea Wolf cost after the reductions in the totals being built (about $2.5 billion right now). So, we're now building inferior subs for most cost than it would have been if we had just pressed with the originals.
The F-22 was attacked on cost, as well. If the government had purchased 750 like it was originally programmed to do, it would have been about $100 million a pop. Then the government cut the number down to 341, and the cost went up to $170 million apiece. Then they cut the final number down to ~180, and it went up to $250 million apiece. If we had stuck with the original numbers, we could have purchased almost 3 times as many as we have now for the same cost.
Same thing applies to the B-2, which $2 billion apiece because they cut down the total numbers being purchased.
westcoastfrog
06-13-10, 14:07
yes there was a certain level of input on the scar...some good, some bad and some just plain stupid. understand that many people where not in favor of this system from the get go and where pretty much told "oh well". i know many individuals who are not necessarily gun nuts who were just told one day to go t and e this new gun, provided input and then never asked to come see the improvements. i guess they figured they'd just keep asking different guys to come out and test it until they found a batch that liked them. damn near everyone i know was like why don't we just buy 416 uppers if we're really wanting something better...."that won't happen, shut up about the 416". i just figured some o-6/7 had a hard on for fn and wanted to make a name for themselves. btw i love the fn mk 46/48's!
How is it a significant improvement?
The AR/M4/M16 is a MUCH more modular system.
I don't think that the problems with the M4 folks are trying to address relate to a lack of modularity. Is the SCAR more reliable? Is it less ammo, mag, environment sensitive than the platform it was created to replace?
Belmont31R
06-13-10, 16:28
I don't think that the problems with the M4 folks are trying to address relate to a lack of modularity. Is the SCAR more reliable? Is it less ammo, mag, environment sensitive than the platform it was created to replace?
Maybe but its not a significant improvement. The SCAR is just a new iteration of technology thats already existed, and a step back in some ways (like modularity). If you're talking about the operating system piston guns have been around longer than the M16 has. The two general issue rifles before the M16 used piston systems. This falls back on "piston vs. DI", and a lot of people who have BTDT have full faith in DI weapons. Im not any high speed dude but they have not failed me when I needed them to run in everything from -20 German winters to 120+ deserts. People have been saying 'shit' about the M16 platform for 5 decades, and always compared it to the piston ran AK47 about how you can drop an AK in mud, bury it, etc, and they keep on running. Yet here we are in 2010, and its still going strong (and better than ever)....a lot of piston guns have come and gone in the last 50 years. I think the SCAR and ACR are going to end up being in that category, too...:cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.