View Full Version : Army announces carbine competition details
Just relased today were the Army announces carbine competition details. I first caught it on Military Times then checked in on FBO.
Army announces carbine competition details (http://militarytimes.com/news/2011/01/army-carbine-competition-details-released-021411w/)
Individual Carbine
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-11-R-F003 (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6c5d041f27e35c74731a827d42c51859&tab=core&_cview=0)
Going to be an interesting couple of years if this actualy takes off.
Interested Vendors, in FBO:
ISRAEL WEAPONS INDUSTRUIES (I.W.I) LTD.
LEITNER-WISE DEFENSE, INC.
GLOCK INC hum..........
ACCURATE TOOL & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.
AREND ENGINEERING COMPANY (http://arendengineering.com/) ???? Interesting, but looks like they will need a major company as a partner.
CRITICAL DIMENSIONS LLC
SHARPS RIFLE COMPANY (http://www.sharpsmilspec.com/sharps-2010/) ???
Other companies expected:
Berretta
Colt (obviously)
FN
H&K
Knight's Armament
Remington
Robinson (without a LARGE Partner they have little chance)
Styer (although the spec's make this a long shot)
variablebinary
01-31-11, 23:09
Would be a sight to see them roll out new camo and a weapon at the same time
DaBears_85
01-31-11, 23:16
Is this the same 'competition' that we had a thread or two about last year?
Is anyone shocked by the 30,000,000.00 price tag on this trial? I mean really? How on earth can anyone justify this price tag.
And I'll be willing to bet even at the end of it all, nothing changes. Un****ingbelievable.
Is anyone shocked by the 30,000,000.00 price tag on this trial? I mean really? How on earth can anyone justify this price tag.
And I'll be willing to bet even at the end of it all, nothing changes. Un****ingbelievable.
SSDD :rolleyes:
variablebinary
02-01-11, 01:27
remington MGP?
More gas piston AR15 silliness
http://www.popularairsoft.com/files/images/RGP_02.jpg
Magic_Salad0892
02-01-11, 03:04
This is stupid.
Update the M4. Stop screwing up logistics.
There will be peace in the middle east before the Army picks a new rifle.
variablebinary
02-01-11, 04:01
This is stupid.
Update the M4. Stop screwing up logistics.
The M4 has had a real knack for winning competitions in the past. The simplicity of the design lends to really good durability. Guns like the G36, SG55x, and FNC just werent up to the challenge for a variety of reasons
Though, these new guns that have been popping up were literally built from the ground up to replace the M4, because everyone wants a piece of the largest carbine contract in the world.
I'd be really surprised if the M4 can weather the storm of the SCAR/HK416/ARX160/ACR this time around. It's definitely got a tough fight ahead.
There are also political factors. The Army knows everyone sees their procurement process as a joke. That alone could motivate someone high up to want to get a new carbine just to save face. The fact that literally everyone thinks the Army will stick with the M4 might just make the Army not choose the M4.
A couple of things stood out. 1. Per the article they are going to allow the M-4 to compete/baseline the test. In earlier reports they were not. 2. Only large ISO 9001 companies need apply. They want a company that can turn out at least 6,000 per month.
Concurrently the RFP for a BCG product improvement is also out.
The M4 has had a real knack for winning competitions in the past. The simplicity of the design lends to really good durability. Guns like the G36, SG55x, and FNC just werent up to the challenge for a variety of reasons
Though, these new guns that have been popping up were literally built from the ground up to replace the M4, because everyone wants a piece of the largest carbine contract in the world.
I'd be really surprised if the M4 can weather the storm of the SCAR/HK416/ARX160/ACR this time around. It's definitely got a tough fight ahead.
There are also political factors. The Army knows everyone sees their procurement process as a joke. That alone could motivate someone high up to want to get a new carbine just to save face. The fact that literally everyone thinks the Army will stick with the M4 might just make the Army not choose the M4.
Good post.
As sure as I am that the SCAR and other such advanced capability rifles are great guns, they're all still 5.56 carbines. Is ANYTHING in 5.56 going to be so demonstrably better than the M4 that it justifies replacing all M4s?
I don't think so.
variablebinary
02-02-11, 03:29
Is ANYTHING in 5.56 going to be so demonstrably better than the M4 that it justifies replacing all M4s?
I don't think so.
I think that depends entirely on how the M4 performs in this new battery of tests.
If this test had been conducted 7 years ago, the M4 would easily trounce the G36/XM8, AUG, 55x and FNC. We know this because it has many times over in several solicitations, all while becoming the official tool of high speed types the world over.
The game has changed a bit since then though in terms of features and design elements, and you can bet FN, HK and Beretta have done everything possible to ensure their guns don't lose to the M4 in a direct head to head comparison.
In the past, guns were made seemingly in a vacuum, but these days carbines are made with the sole purpose of knocking the M4 off its perch.
If the M4 falls short even remotely, expect the largest more vocal protest from competitors we've ever seen. The lawsuits will be flowing like crazy, because it isn't only about winning. Imagine being Beretta and having to market the ARX160 after being dubbed a loser to the M4.
This selection process is going to make the XM9 trials seems civil in comparison.
In the event that a new weapon is chosen, I propose the following. A special NFA amnesty is set up whereby the M4 and M16's being replaced are transferred to the CMP and then allowed to be sold to individuals with military veterans receiving first opportunities.
All sales will go through a local class III dealer in your area and personnel must not be otherwise prohibited. Part of the money will go back to the military as well as the CMP.
In the past, guns were made seemingly in a vacuum, but these days carbines are made with the sole purpose of knocking the M4 off its perch.
I agree. However the end result is that they're all still 5.56 carbines. At what point does less maintenance or greater MTBF numbers warrant replacing a legacy system? 10%? 20%? It has to be at a point where the decreased operating costs overcome the capital cost of replacing every M4 in the Army.
Could a savvy manufacturer leverage increased lethality of a new cartridge along with decreased maintenance costs? I think it's a better pitch, even if it means an additional capital cost of new ammunition lines or factories to pump out the millions of rounds needed to equip everyone.
In the event that a new weapon is chosen, I propose the following. A special NFA amnesty is set up whereby the M4 and M16's being replaced are transferred to the CMP and then allowed to be sold to individuals with military veterans receiving first opportunities.
All sales will go through a local class III dealer in your area and personnel must not be otherwise prohibited. Part of the money will go back to the military as well as the CMP.
I like what you have to say and would like to subscribe to your news letter.
Having said that you and I both know that is nothing but fantasy land :mad:
Littlelebowski
02-02-11, 09:34
Is anyone shocked by the 30,000,000.00 price tag on this trial? I mean really? How on earth can anyone justify this price tag.
And I'll be willing to bet even at the end of it all, nothing changes. Un****ingbelievable.
Less than the cost of one fighter. Fine by me.
In the event that a new weapon is chosen, I propose the following. A special NFA amnesty is set up whereby the M4 and M16's being replaced are transferred to the CMP and then allowed to be sold to individuals with military veterans receiving first opportunities.
All sales will go through a local class III dealer in your area and personnel must not be otherwise prohibited. Part of the money will go back to the military as well as the CMP.
It's good to have a dream. :D
Would be nice...
Belmont31R
02-02-11, 09:46
Less than the cost of one fighter. Fine by me.
30 mil is a drop a bucket when the Navy and Air Force spend billions on a single peice of equipment such as the B2 and a modern carrier.
I think one B2 could pay for replacement guns for every Marine and Soldier out there.
$1500X1,000,000= 1.5 billion. A B2 was 2 billion back when they were made.
Thomas M-4
02-02-11, 10:14
What is the conservative estimate on cased telescoping ammunition?
I cant help but think what ever they choose will turn out to be the 2nd shortest lived combat arm suffering the same fate has the M-14.
dookie1481
02-02-11, 11:05
Less than the cost of one fighter. Fine by me.
But it's ultimately going to be wasted money. Either:
A. Nothing comes from the test, in which case $30M was pissed away, or
B. A new rifle gets selected, and hundreds of millions are spent on a rifle that MAY be marginally better than what we have now. Diminishing returns and all.
It shocks me to see a bunch of fiscal conservative being so ambivalent about wasteful spending. This is why they need to get rid of the waste in DOD. I know it's practically heresy on this board to want to cut military spending, but this is ****ing ridiculous.
variablebinary
02-02-11, 11:21
I agree. However the end result is that they're all still 5.56 carbines. At what point does less maintenance or greater MTBF numbers warrant replacing a legacy system? 10%? 20%? It has to be at a point where the decreased operating costs overcome the capital cost of replacing every M4 in the Army.
Could a savvy manufacturer leverage increased lethality of a new cartridge along with decreased maintenance costs? I think it's a better pitch, even if it means an additional capital cost of new ammunition lines or factories to pump out the millions of rounds needed to equip everyone.
A: no caliber is specified for these trials
B: either the M4 wins a fair head to head competition or it doesn't. If it can't prove itself in current testing protocols then it should be replaced, period. The caliber is irrelevant
The last thing the army needs to do is keep or adopt a product that is not the best in their own testing
We've been down this road with UCP and M9.
If the M4 is the best then rock on
Belmont31R
02-02-11, 11:38
But it's ultimately going to be wasted money. Either:
A. Nothing comes from the test, in which case $30M was pissed away, or
B. A new rifle gets selected, and hundreds of millions are spent on a rifle that MAY be marginally better than what we have now. Diminishing returns and all.
It shocks me to see a bunch of fiscal conservative being so ambivalent about wasteful spending. This is why they need to get rid of the waste in DOD. I know it's practically heresy on this board to want to cut military spending, but this is ****ing ridiculous.
Oh I think its a waste of money, and the DOD should be put on a diet along with some reforms (especially in the procurement side). Just saying making a big stink about 30 mil is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
That was my point. It is going to be a waste of money and the outcome will probably remain the status quo.
But it's ultimately going to be wasted money. Either:
A. Nothing comes from the test, in which case $30M was pissed away, or
B. A new rifle gets selected, and hundreds of millions are spent on a rifle that MAY be marginally better than what we have now. Diminishing returns and all.
It shocks me to see a bunch of fiscal conservative being so ambivalent about wasteful spending. This is why they need to get rid of the waste in DOD. I know it's practically heresy on this board to want to cut military spending, but this is ****ing ridiculous.
Littlelebowski
02-02-11, 13:38
Oh I think its a waste of money, and the DOD should be put on a diet along with some reforms (especially in the procurement side). Just saying making a big stink about 30 mil is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
You beat me to it.
Magic_Salad0892
02-03-11, 03:04
Who wants to bet that the winner will be either in order of most likely.
Colt
HK
KAC
DD
I seriously doubt that FNH, Beretta, or a non-AR design will win.
I honestly think that Colt has the best chance of winning with the CM901 Modular Carbine...
It will be/is the AR equivalent of the SCAR modular system or whatever they're calling it.
In the order of who I want to win... KAC, DD, Colt, HK.
BTW: M9 is what we SHOULD be replacing, with S&W, H&K, or Glock. Steel framed pistols are obsolete, IMO.
variablebinary
02-03-11, 03:27
WSJ Article on carbine competition
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_editorsPicks_2
Army Sets Sights on New Rifle
Competition Would Replace M16s and M4s, Workhorses With Reliability Issues
For the first time in almost 50 years, the U.S. Army wants to replace the standard rifle shouldered by hundreds of thousands of frontline troops around the world.
The service this week advertised its interest in a new weapon that would incorporate futuristic sights and other advances in rifle design and be able to handle improved ammunition.
The gun would potentially supplant the M4 carbine, a shorter-barrel version of the M16, the Army's main infantry weapon for decades.
I've not followed all the replacement trials like most of you have but I think it would make sense to upgrade caliber if a carbine upgrade is chosen (6.8?). I also realize that little big bro does makes sense anymore.
Have Colt develop a gas piston that meets updated, rugged requirements (like bolt improvements) and call it a day. I'd be okay picking up that tab just use Geissele SSA triggers and Battle Comp muzzle attachments and Troy sights. I'd take several of those uppers as would all of you.
Carry on.
dookie1481
02-03-11, 23:02
I've not followed all the replacement trials like most of you have but I think it would make sense to upgrade caliber if a carbine upgrade is chosen (6.8?). I also realize that little big bro does makes sense anymore.
Actually it wouldn't make one bit of sense. The idea of replacing all 5.56 in the logistics train with another caliber that may be marginally better at stopping people is mind-boggling.
And then there's that whole NATO thing.
Frankly, I would have no problem with them spending oodles of money on training, but this whole thing really pisses me off.
Actually it wouldn't make one bit of sense. The idea of replacing all 5.56 in the logistics train with another caliber that may be marginally better at stopping people is mind-boggling.
And then there's that whole NATO thing.
Frankly, I would have no problem with them spending oodles of money on training, but this whole thing really pisses me off.
I understand the trouble of changing over to a new weapon, my thought was that if a new weapon is chosen then why not upgrade caliber too. Sort of a two for one.
Personally I say screw NATO:cool:
And as some of my elders used to say, either piss or get off the pot. I'm also about fed up with the endless trials. Hell, with the money that has already been spent on trials, tests, and proposals we could have already equiped our combat units.
If anyone is interested I have some beach front property in Baghdad that I would like to sell.
I will be shocked in the Army or anyone else moves away from the M16 platform. The logisitics of such a choice would be staggering.
I think this whole deal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
i was all set to buy a BCM but if the military drops the M4 i can only assume private owners are going to sell them because its no longer "the" rifle. Might drive the price on used ones down. Thoughts?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
i was all set to buy a BCM but if the military drops the M4 i can only assume private owners are going to sell them because its no longer "the" rifle. Might drive the price on used ones down. Thoughts?
Did private owners collectively sell their rifles when there was excitement about the SCAR/ACR/416/etc.?
Buy your BCM. Shoot it, enjoy it.
My AR ain't going anywhere and I'll be building another.
The military dropped the M1911 long ago, but I just recently bought one and its my favorite pistol. Same for my M1 Garand.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
i was all set to buy a BCM but if the military drops the M4 i can only assume private owners are going to sell them because its no longer "the" rifle. Might drive the price on used ones down. Thoughts?
1)This is years out
2)Again, don't hold your breath, I can think of five different trials off the top of my head where the Army tried to replace the M16/later M4 and failed to do adopt a new type.
3)The M14 was replaced by the M16 40 years ago and Springfield charges $1500+ for $800 dollars of firearm with their M14 clones.
the army has done this about 10 times before... we still have th m16/m4.
***Two threads merged*** - SHIVAN
kaltesherz
02-04-11, 22:18
BTW: M9 is what we SHOULD be replacing, with S&W, H&K, or Glock. Steel framed pistols are obsolete, IMO.
Good thing the M9 has an aluminum frame then huh.
Between ACU/UCP, M855A1, and the IOTV we all know how this is going to turn out.
Sigh.
BTW: M9 is what we SHOULD be replacing, with S&W, H&K, or Glock. Steel framed pistols are obsolete, IMO.
The M9 doesn't have a steel frame, and it most certainly isn't "obsolete."
Why would anyone doubt FNH's potential to perform in this competition? They make every non specialized small arm in the US Army's inventory and won the SCAR competition
Yes, I realize Mk16 procurement was axed, it has nothing to do with weapon performance and everything to do with budget and a glut of M4s which is why the Mk17 is still being procured.
variablebinary
02-05-11, 02:11
I think the Army top dogs know that everyone expects this to be a charlie foxtrot.
If anything this works against the M4. The Army will be eager to show some news catching, congress impressing, recruit enticing, competing branch trumping results for their $30 million.
Sorry, but an M4 with a new barrel does not fit that description.
Magic_Salad0892
02-05-11, 03:59
Okay. Let me re-phrase.
Non-polymer framed pistols are all but obsolete. They are definitely outdated, and there are much better options.
An AK platform, a folding, or even a telescoping one, for storage. Mini red dot, 2.5 year battery. Half the cost of production? Works kind of good in poor conditions. Built in cleaning rod, that is kind of smart yes? Steel cased cartridges, cheap as well.
Will the Army keep the M4, maybe. That's why the dual path improvement strategy.
The new combat rifle, whenever, will more likely be a polymer lower, extruded upper, hammerforged nitrided barrel. It's cost effective when making 6,000 a month, and will stand up to the abuse properly designed.
Ammo? Well, 6.8 has a 40% increase in power, the LSAT double the ammo per pound, which gives it an edge with 50% higher hit probability per pound. The point early on was significant improvement, that is to me.
Other considerations exist, like a requirement for suppressors, too. Read the links, it's not going to rubberstamp the M4, but set up it's successor in the future. Plus, the Army gets the TDP, just like Belleville got the Danner mountain boot contract all said and done. Colt didn't invent the M16, either, just ran with it.
After the ACU camo scandal (who DID make that decision?) I see Big Army being very careful to keep the competition open and verifiable. The infamous Dust test proved that, conduct it properly (rotate the mags, not hand pick them,) or it gets done over. They want it done right the first time.
Massive logistics, no. $30 million won't buy a fighter plane, I honestly think the decision makers don't want to seem like they favor an old design or contractor, it's chump change compared to the daily DOD fuel budget.
A one-shooter one-gun perspective won't be in play when the E8's and CW3's tell the COLs what to advise the BGs to decide.
Yes, I did say that just exactly the way it works. :D
An AK platform, a folding, or even a telescoping one, for storage. Mini red dot, 2.5 year battery. Half the cost of production? Works kind of good in poor conditions. Built in cleaning rod, that is kind of smart yes? Steel cased cartridges, cheap as well.
So, other than the sight you want to field 1950's technology in 2011? Maybe we should issue S&W 19's as well.:rolleyes:
There is no reason to not utilize existing technology.
Tirod,
You know much more than I about this subject, no question, but one thing I can say.
The AUG magazines are the best! I saw them being made, in Austria, I also sold them for a couple of years to Police, in Canada, but now live in Florida. And you can see the rounds left, till seeing only one, means you have 15 left. They work perfect, and are very tough.
A question, why not a bullpup?
So, other than the sight you want to field 1950's technology in 2011? Maybe we should issue S&W 19's as well.:rolleyes:
There is no reason to not utilize existing technology.
The Colt .45 is still in use, 1911 designed. The AK Works, and Works, and Works. It would be modernized, for instance hammer forged barrels, and breathed on by modern day teckys, but that is just a comment, by me, who is not an expert. I have owned both platforms, now only AK 47, yes it has been tarted up.
Had S&W 19s, now just Glocks. When you are out in harms way, your gear has to go bang, all the time.
No eye rolling, going for burnt toast, and English (made in Holland Marmalade)
$CashMoney$
02-05-11, 09:40
BTW: M9 is what we SHOULD be replacing, with S&W, H&K, or Glock. Steel framed pistols are obsolete, IMO.
Maybe, and when ANY of those pistol beat the M9 in field testing then we probably will. Until then we'll stick with the obviously superior pistol.
Besides, what makes you think that any of those pistols are more "Joe-proof" than the M9? The real problem with the M9 is not the pistol itself. It's the lack of proper maintenance. I'll tell you first hand that no gun is going to hold up to the general lack of proper maintenance that we subject our pistols to, regardless of what it's made of.
The issue with M4 replacement (DISCLAIMER: :stop: STOP READING HERE UNLESS YOU'RE A LOGISTICS NERD!!!!!) is what's known as the DOTMLPF defense acquisition process. From DAU Glossary of Defense Acquisition Acronyms & Terms, DOTMLPF is "The first substep in the Functional Solution Analysis (FSA). It determines whether an integrated Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF) approach (that is, a nonmateriel approach) or a materiel approach is required to fill the capability gaps identified in the Functional Need Analysis (FNA). Capability proposals may involve a mix of both DOTMLPF and materiel changes."
So, basically, we decide to determine the need for a change. Then we fund the test to determine the need for a change (the $30 million in this case). Then we perform the test using a specific set of "qualified" options, this time using the current M4 as the baseline. Sometimes there is no baseline; the current option is just retested. The test only tells us if there's a need for a change, not really that we will change or if it's financially prudent. That gets determined in a separate proceeding in the huge acquisitions bureaucracy.
I'd venture to say that the upcoming test will prove the need for a change, but there will be numerous other tests to determine the final contract winner.
Personally, I like the M4, and I LOVE the M4A1. I think the real issue is on the non-material side (DOTMLPF). Specifically, I'd like to see changes in Training (let's actually teach soldiers to shoot out to the gun's max effective range according to recommended rates of fire), Materiel (A1 barrels on all M4s, free float rails, better slings, SOPMOD extractor and springs, and proper rounds-count based maintenance, not waiting for something to break), and Leadership and education (outcomes-based, problem-solving type of training which is institutionalized and properly spread throughout the Army).
I say fix this stuff before we try to break another material solution.
Sorry to make you read a HUGE post.
RogerinTPA
02-05-11, 09:55
The Army is missing the mark...AGAIN. It was never the weapon, it was the lack of training (weapon's care, manipulation and marksmanship) and leadership failure. The same training issues will pop up again, in what ever weapon is selected. No weapon selected will defeat institutionalized inertia/dogma/bullshit that will surely follow. No weapon will ever be GI Proof. What ever they choose, I hope it doesn't turn out like the selection of the ACU/UPC for uniforms, with absolutely no common sense applied. You needed a coat hanger for that abortion.:rolleyes:
Maybe, and when ANY of those pistol beat the M9 in field testing then we probably will. Until then we'll stick with the obviously superior pistol.
Besides, what makes you think that any of those pistols are more "Joe-proof" than the M9? The real problem with the M9 is not the pistol itself. It's the lack of proper maintenance. I'll tell you first hand that no gun is going to hold up to the general lack of proper maintenance that we subject our pistols to, regardless of what it's made of.
it's blindingly obvious that you have zero experience with glock.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
i was all set to buy a BCM but if the military drops the M4 i can only assume private owners are going to sell them because its no longer "the" rifle. Might drive the price on used ones down. Thoughts?
The M16 family isn't going anywhere. Were there to be a change, it is many years down the road.
The Army is missing the mark...AGAIN. It was never the weapon, it was the lack of training (weapon's care, manipulation and marksmanship) and leadership failure. The same training issues will pop up again, in what ever weapon is selected. No weapon selected will defeat institutionalized inertia/dogma/bullshit that will surely follow. No weapon will ever be GI Proof. What ever they choose, I hope it doesn't turn out like the selection of the ACU/UPC for uniforms, with absolutely no common sense applied. You needed a coat hanger for that abortion.:rolleyes:
Amen. As long as Joe is taught white-glove and under-lubing nonsense, as long as DOD is improving golf courses and not firing ranges, and as long as DOD wants to talk about sensitivity and feelings rather than face-shooting, the weapons system isn't going to matter much.
Heavy Metal
02-05-11, 12:45
it's blindingly obvious that you have zero experience with glock.
You can say that again.
THIS IS NOT A GLOCK THREAD, A THREAD ABOUT UFO's OR A THREAD ABOUT TROJAN CONDOMS. PLEASE KEEP THIS ONE ON TRACK.
$CashMoney$
02-05-11, 13:27
it's blindingly obvious that you have zero experience with glock.
I'm not really sure where you're going with that, but I've owned 3 and put between 8k and 10k rounds through each of them over the last 10+ years. Maybe that's "zero experience" compared to you, maybe not.
My point is that when we don't properly maintain our guns and replace parts as prescribed by the manufacturer and qualified armorers and gunsmiths, they aren't going to be reliable, regardless of who builds them.
Sure, if we're talking about the average person on this forum, who arguably maintains their guns much better than the average soldier, use what you want and I'll use what I want.
If we're talking about the average (insert any issued gun here) in a normal arms room in the Army, it's probably not properly maintained and normal wear parts exchanged on a regular basis. Any gun will break under these conditions. We can't compare Army guns that are poorly maintained and are exposed to MUCH harsher conditions to civilian (or law enforcement) guns that are maintained better and exposed to much less.
For what it's worth, I'm in an Army unit that used to issue G17s and G19s, then went to M11s, and now is going back to M9s. It is what it is.
Now, back to the original subject? I like that one better.
In the event that a new weapon is chosen, I propose the following. A special NFA amnesty is set up whereby the M4 and M16's being replaced are transferred to the CMP and then allowed to be sold to individuals with military veterans receiving first opportunities.
All sales will go through a local class III dealer in your area and personnel must not be otherwise prohibited. Part of the money will go back to the military as well as the CMP.
I thought Clinton passed a law preventing military weapons from being sold to civilians?
One could dream however.
In the event that a new weapon is chosen, I propose the following. A special NFA amnesty is set up whereby the M4 and M16's being replaced are transferred to the CMP and then allowed to be sold to individuals with military veterans receiving first opportunities.
All sales will go through a local class III dealer in your area and personnel must not be otherwise prohibited. Part of the money will go back to the military as well as the CMP.
You have my support! :)
Just relased today were the Army announces carbine competition details. I first caught it on Military Times then checked in on FBO.
Army announces carbine competition details (http://militarytimes.com/news/2011/01/army-carbine-competition-details-released-021411w/)
Individual Carbine
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-11-R-F003 (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=6c5d041f27e35c74731a827d42c51859&tab=core&_cview=0)
Going to be an interesting couple of years if this actualy takes off.
BOHICA
......I say fix this stuff before we try to break another material solution.
Sorry to make you read a HUGE post.
I agree.
Good read, thanks! :)
However - if Iraqgunz' proposed idea of selling M16/M4 surplus weapons to American civilians were to become a reality (I know, I know - fantasy at best...) I would have to respectfully disagree with your assertion. If the DOD is going to waste my tax dollars I'd like to get a M4 out of the deal. :D
wild_wild_wes
02-06-11, 18:58
But it's ultimately going to be wasted money. Either:
A. Nothing comes from the test, in which case $30M was pissed away, or
B. A new rifle gets selected, and hundreds of millions are spent on a rifle that MAY be marginally better than what we have now.
I think it will be both A and B.
For one thing, there are no weapons out there right now that are anything but only "marginally better" than the M4A1.
Magic_Salad0892
02-07-11, 08:09
Who wants to bet they pick another M4 clone?
I'm not MIL, so i *might* be totally wrong here, but dont most of the complaints stem from the caliber not the weapon platform its self?
Why test for another platform if you could just test for a different caliber?
The Colt .45 is still in use, 1911 designed. The AK Works, and Works, and Works. It would be modernized, for instance hammer forged barrels, and breathed on by modern day teckys, but that is just a comment, by me, who is not an expert. I have owned both platforms, now only AK 47, yes it has been tarted up.
Had S&W 19s, now just Glocks. When you are out in harms way, your gear has to go bang, all the time.
No eye rolling, going for burnt toast, and English (made in Holland Marmalade)
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=67172
AKs certainly do work, but they are not that much more reliable than a properly built M16. Certainly not enough to justify reverting to 1940s technology, even with a few modern part replacements. And as the thread above shows, the cost of AKs is distorted by the over-production of them during the cold war. An AKM made with mil-spec parts here in the US would rival the cost of a new M16/M4.
I'm not MIL, so i *might* be totally wrong here, but dont most of the complaints stem from the caliber not the weapon platform its self?
Why test for another platform if you could just test for a different caliber?
Testing has been done.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Documents/Roberts_2008NDIA.pdf
That should also answer dookie's question about the 6.8 being only marginally better.
Some soldiers and Marines do complain about both the weapon and the caliber. IMO they aren't being properly trained to use either. But as the first few slides of that presentation will tell you, the wants/needs of our soldiers and Marines are a long way down the list of priorities for the powers-that-be.
I'm not MIL, so i *might* be totally wrong here, but dont most of the complaints stem from the caliber not the weapon platform its self?
Why test for another platform if you could just test for a different caliber?
Most of the complaints stem from troops that read to much Guns and ammo, watch to many movies, and believe all the BS myths out there.
Hence, they don't lube their weapons. they can't estimate range properly to effectively engage the adversary, and believe people should fly backwards when hit.
A very good friend of mine, that due to his current, and previous jobs, has got a very good read on a lot of this, always makes the comment..." I never met a real warrior, who complains about the M4 or 5.56"
As far as the rest of this goes, it would seem the US Army is in sorta of damned if you do damned if you don't situation. 1/2 the troops and Internet think the weapon sux, the other 1/2 says its fine. So what does the Army do, conduct a test, no one is satisfied, they conduct another, with even better results, still no one is happy, so, now they open a full out competition, to see what? what we already know? In the hopes of satiating some congressman? or some other dissatisfied troop?
This has been going on for a long time. I remember back in the 80's reading Soldier magazine. The Army solicited major defense contractors for proposals on the next rifle. They didn't even care if the technology was mature, they just wanted to see what to pursue. 4 submitted proposals, including Colt and Steyr, IIRC. The conclusion, nothing out there was a significant enough improvement to warrant a change.
Maybe if the Army got what it wanted, with the M16a1PIP, instead of having the A2 rammed down its throat, we wouldn't be here.
Some other points I find interesting....
- The 1911 serves over 70 years, and its a testament to its greatness.
- The M16fow serves over 40 years, the longest serving rifle in history, and its a testament to how F'ed up the Army is:rolleyes::confused:
-While the SCAR was developed specifically for special ops, and is by all accounts a decent gun, socom obviously doesn't think its good enough to warrant the cost, why should it be different for the Big Army?
-The USMC still dicking around with 1911's is a much bigger waste of time and money. The IAR, and replacing the M9 are not to far behind.
- The AK? Really? We're gonna go there? There are already modern AK's, like the SIG, no ones all the interested. Yet, SpecOps around the world, choose M4 types, even when their parent organizations issue something different.
-Word I got, is M855a1 is a stone cold killer, never really thought ACU's were all that bad
-Comparing rifles to fighters is a bit unfair. The military is constantly accused of fighting the last war. Current ROE's that may limit the use of serious casualty producing weapons, does not preclude their use in the future. Sooner or later, we are going to go toe to toe with a real army, we will want every fighter and bomber we can get.
- All this anti tech stuff is killing me. If we did not spend money to pursue different technology, we wouldn't have things like night vision, nuclear weapons, or repeaters for that matter. We need to constantly analyze technology, and stay in front of the power curve. We saw what happened when we didn't during WW2
-The Army has always taught proper maintenance, marksmanship and tactics. Leadership that choose to ignore it, because the "Army is F'ed up" & doesn't know any better are the problem. Add to that other "training" forced on the service for political reasons, and we have the situation we see now.
-I see it, as Big Army trying to be responsive to what the troops are asking for, even if they don't need it. Unfortunately, Joe, is not always right. As the above named friend would also say, "I got troops that want gold plated Desert Eagles", don't make it right.
Perhaps if this competition can show, that an M4 or PIP M4, properly maintained, is the equal or better of anything out there, it wont be such a waste. But, as we can see, all the conspiracy theorist are already hard at work..
Bob
By laying out the Dual Path Strategy the Army has done the dirt work to select an improved M4 for the near term and invest in a perhaps more exotic and divergent platform in the future. I think we won't see a completely new platform until the Telescoping Ammo becomes a reality.
dookie1481
02-07-11, 13:09
Testing has been done.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Misc_Documents/Roberts_2008NDIA.pdf
That should also answer dookie's question about the 6.8 being only marginally better.
Some soldiers and Marines do complain about both the weapon and the caliber. IMO they aren't being properly trained to use either. But as the first few slides of that presentation will tell you, the wants/needs of our soldiers and Marines are a long way down the list of priorities for the powers-that-be.
How many people have been killed by 6.8 in combat?
I'm familiar with the ballistics, I did a bit of research as I was planning on building a 6.8 SBR at one point. Again, it may be marginally better, but you have to look at the whole picture. The cost and logistic nightmare of replacing 5.56 with 6.8 would be absolutely insane.
dookie1481
02-07-11, 13:11
I think it will be both A and B.
For one thing, there are no weapons out there right now that are anything but only "marginally better" than the M4A1.
And it's highly unlikely that you could even design a new weapon using existing technology that would outperform the M4 to a significant degree.
I would rather they take that money and train the **** out of every 03, 11X, 19X, etc.
I think some people are also forgetting the probability of hitting your target in this whole equation. 5.56 has very little recoil, so little that say your average Joe who really isn't much of a small arms expert can put a lot of lead downrange with decent shot to shot consistency. It also has a nice flat trajectory. Less recoil and flatter trajectory than its most commonly proposed replacement the 6.8mm SPC. Only hits count. And how much better at reducing threats is 6.8mm SPC really?
dookie1481
02-07-11, 13:14
- All this anti tech stuff is killing me. If we did not spend money to pursue different technology, we wouldn't have things like night vision, nuclear weapons, or repeaters for that matter. We need to constantly analyze technology, and stay in front of the power curve. We saw what happened when we didn't during WW2
Bob
Agree, but it's not exactly like our enemies are fielding the Me262 or Stg 44 while we are stuck in the past. This is a bit different.
Tirod,
A question, why not a bullpup?
The problem with bullpups is always the trigger pull.
I think some people are also forgetting the probability of hitting your target in this whole equation. 5.56 has very little recoil, so little that say your average Joe who really isn't much of a small arms expert can put a lot of lead downrange with decent shot to shot consistency. It also has a nice flat trajectory. Less recoil and flatter trajectory than its most commonly proposed replacement the 6.8mm SPC. Only hits count. And how much better at reducing threats is 6.8mm SPC really?
How do they compare at penetrating barriers?
How do they compare at penetrating barriers?
I'm pretty sure the latest iteration of 62gr ammunition has superior barrier penetration to 7.62x51mm ball so I'd say currently its 5.56.
How many people have been killed by 6.8 in combat?
I'm familiar with the ballistics, I did a bit of research as I was planning on building a 6.8 SBR at one point. Again, it may be marginally better, but you have to look at the whole picture. The cost and logistic nightmare of replacing 5.56 with 6.8 would be absolutely insane.
If you're familiar with the ballistics, then you know it's safe to say that the difference in performance between the 6.8 and the 5.56 is somehwat more than "marginal."
As for how many have been killed by the 6.8, we know the answer. Only one army in the world uses that cartridge. If the Army is sufficiently impressed during the trial, it could become two.
I know it wouldn't be easy to change calibers; that's tantamount to replacing all the rifles in our inventory. Which is precisely what the Army is considering. Frankly, I think this phobia of a "logistical nightmare" is just putting off the inevitable. In that link I posted, it said that the Army was prevented from adopting the .276 Pederson because replacing the .30-06 would have been a "logistical nightmare." Sure, we won WWII with the .30-06 but that doesn't mean it was ideal.
If the Army selects a 5.56mm weapon (which I think they will) then we will go on winning wars just like we've done for the last 50 years. But we're going to have to change calibers eventually. Why not now. If we can't afford it, then I daresay no one can.
Just my opinion, which is worth what you paid for it.
Because the Army does not want a repeat of the past. The M14 was adopted, when newer, better technology either existed, or was on the horizon. Same as the Trapdoor, Krag, and '03. hell the M1 was obsolete by the end of WW2
Like it or not, and most of us don't, cause we are Grunts, or at least gun guys, the US Military, understands logistics wins wars. Along with things like air-power.
Small arms play a small role. The current operations, place a heavy emphasis on small arms because of ROE, and other political considerations.
The .30cal was not the optimum choice during WW2, yet we one the war.
It is said the Germans regarded American Infantry as amateurs. However, American Artillery, was respected and feared, the ability of any Joe with a radio to call in fire, was also a benefit to American Infantry.
Patton may have said the M1 was the greatest battle implement ever, but he also said that the VT fuse would be the end of war.
Perhaps small arms technology, has reached its limit, or very near to it.
Bob
dookie1481
02-07-11, 16:40
If you're familiar with the ballistics, then you know it's safe to say that the difference in performance between the 6.8 and the 5.56 is somehwat more than "marginal."
As for how many have been killed by the 6.8, we know the answer. Only one army in the world uses that cartridge. If the Army is sufficiently impressed during the trial, it could become two.
I know it wouldn't be easy to change calibers; that's tantamount to replacing all the rifles in our inventory. Which is precisely what the Army is considering. Frankly, I think this phobia of a "logistical nightmare" is just putting off the inevitable. In that link I posted, it said that the Army was prevented from adopting the .276 Pederson because replacing the .30-06 would have been a "logistical nightmare." Sure, we won WWII with the .30-06 but that doesn't mean it was ideal.
If the Army selects a 5.56mm weapon (which I think they will) then we will go on winning wars just like we've done for the last 50 years. But we're going to have to change calibers eventually. Why not now. If we can't afford it, then I daresay no one can.
Just my opinion, which is worth what you paid for it.
I guess I just see it as an issue that could be solved by training instead of the next big caliber.
While this competition has no caliber restriction, I do not see the .mil changing calibers. This is a logistic nightmare. Caliber change will not be made by one service while another service is using a different caliber.
Arguing over whether the next replacement for the M4 (if they actually choose one) will come with a different caliber is a a dream. The 5.56 will remain the primary fighting force caliber for quite a while longer.
Now the question of whether or not a rifle will actually be selected to replace the M4A1, is yet to be seen. But based on previous "competitions," while the M4 typically comes in last place or close to it, The Army still has not found justification in replacing the platform.
History is the greatest lesson and the best reference. Also, a study by the Center for Naval Analysis that surveyed soldiers on their weapons’ performance in combat. Soldiers gave the M4 an 89% approval rating in the study. In the same study, fewer than 4% indicated they had experienced a stoppage that had a significant impact during an engagement and only 1% of soldiers recommended that the M4 be replaced.
IIRC, in 2007 the Army tested 3 other carbines that out performed the M4 in nearly every test performed. I believe the M4 logged more stoppages then all other carbines combined.
This whole "competition" is politically motivated, primarily out of Sen. Coburn's office learning of an Army Times report on special forces soldiers choosing other carbines in favor over the M4. You cannot argue that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. What special forces' requirements are, may not necessarily equate to what the primary fighting force's requirements are. It could be argued that if there is a problem with the performance of the M4A1, then it is more an issue with leadership and training, PMS, etc.
I am curious though. Is there any report as to the .mil losing a battle or engagement due to M4 performance/stoppages that are specifically accounted to the rifle itself? If not, how is fixing something that is not broken, a good solution?
Much of the noise related to this comes from unrealistic expectations such as the “one shot, one kill” nonsense that used to permeate military training, as well as poor discipline and tactics. Expending six magazines at the cyclic rate of the M4 when the enemy is 400 meters away and then complaining that your carbine is overheated and that you melted your barrel under 120º + weather may make headlines and this is why the Army even has to consider this. It always comes down to politics.
Col. Mattes stated the following ..."All we want is a competition; that is all we are asking for.” So with the political pressure for such a competition, the Army is doing just that. Conducting a competition. If you are expecting the Army to choose something other than the current issue. Well... you know what I am trying to say.
I don't really understand all this reference to a logistical nightmare" regarding switching calibers. We changed over from .30 to 5.56 at one time.
I don't think it will matter much unless training is improved, which I hear is happening with the Army introducing better courses of fire. Has that taken effect yet?
RE R. Morans' comments about staying up with modern capabilities, by the time you issue a new rifle with optics to the whole military, do you think they will still be cutting edge?
I think when you understand that changing calibers is not as simple as just supplying a new round. You have to consider magazines, parts, managing multiple calibers on a massive scale during the transition during war time. The wasted expense of the ammunition stockpiled already. As I understand it, it is against the law for DoD to sell it back to the public. IT has to be either destroyed or used up. Then on top of that you have the NATO agreement about standardizing the caliber. Albeit that could easily be overcome.
But the cost is not as simple as just buy a new caliber from a manufacturer. Also, consider this. Would you want to be the person who authorized the change and some units in theater had a mix of ammunition and one half ran out of ammo and the other half could not share their ammo? You just cut the effectiveness of that unit in half and it could easily result in losses.
So switching calibers at this time is NOT going to happen.
Just the cost of said logistics would include, to name a few areas, Depots, supply chain lines, the new firearms or parts to accommodate said caliber, training, parts such as magazines, spare bolts, carriers, and God help you if it is a piston gun with the new caliber. Now you introduced additional parts that can break or wear out, etc that would require spare parts, etc. Plus, like I said, the transition and the cost of maintaining two separate supply chains end-to-end on top of all that I previously mentioned. You could be looking at just for the caliber change over alone, would likely cost $4BB to $5BB easily given the way the government spends money.
As a tax payer in the 28% tax bracket (married/jointly), I would prefer it to be done only if utterly necessary. 5.56 is a devastating round. if the FMJ are not cutting it, switch over to the hollow point. Screw the Geneva convention. Everyone else does. In fact we are the only ones holding that piece of crap.
Start using the Barnes X bullet in the .mil arsenal. That will stop 'em in their tracks even if they are doped up on amphetamines, speed, khat, etc. Cheaper than changing calibers.
IIRC, in 2007 the Army tested 3 other carbines that out performed the M4 in nearly every test performed. I believe the M4 logged more stoppages then all other carbines combined.
The test was flawed, after it was re-done to properly control for all factors the M4 had the fewest stoppages.
dookie, you are absolutely right that it is a training issue first and foremost.
R Moran, you're right about wars not being won or lost solely on the strength of our small arms. They don't call artillery the King of Battle for nothing.
I don't know if I have anything more to contribute to this thread right now.
R Moran, you're right about wars not being won or lost solely on the strength of our small arms. They don't call artillery the King of Battle for nothing.
Small arms, small unit tactics and their correct employment are disproportionately important in the asymmetric war however.
Evil Bert,
I don't wish to be mis-understood so let me say, I would not advocate switching caliber's in the middle of this fight either. Just mentioning that the US has accomplished this in the past so I don't see it as a reason to bypass real improvements if any become available.
wild_wild_wes
02-07-11, 21:07
I think the saddest thing about this new trial is that it seems to have ressurected the hopes and dreams of the 6.8mm SPC die-hards.
Face it, the 6.8 is such a marginal improvement that it stands no chance of replacing the 5.56. No chance whatsoever. The implications for our allies precludes it.
Something along the LSAT technology, which represents a genuine quantum advancement, is a real possibility though.
I think the saddest thing about this new trial is that it seems to have ressurected the hopes and dreams of the 6.8mm SPC die-hards.
Face it, the 6.8 is such a marginal improvement that it stands no chance of replacing the 5.56. No chance whatsoever. The implications for our allies precludes it.
Something along the LSAT technology, which represents a genuine quantum advancement, is a real possibility though.
Didn't Remington for all intents and purposes discontinue the 6.8 SPC?
variablebinary
02-08-11, 03:50
Improved rail
Improved bolt
Increased functionality
The "improved" M4 sounds like an amalgamation of LMT products.
What would be incredibly funny is if the XM-8 wins :D
The part of the whole kit and caboodle, that matters most, is the bullet.
No idea how much ammo is stock piled, 100 million rounds, say?
Change that component first.
Remember the outcry from the FBI, in 1986? against the WW Silvertip, that performed as designed, the major problem, Suits in a gun fight, with one gun fighter, with a twelve gage pump (over simplified of course) fighting against, yes the .223 in Ruger Mini 14!
First the training (my field) duplicate field conditions, here in the US, second the projectile, find the best, Re-accuracy and lethality, issue same to forward/deployed units, you now have lots of TRAINING AMMO!
Oh, and by the way, weapons loaded, all the time in training, and very strict maintenance regime! What troops with LOADED WEAPONS?
Too right, eating/washing/bathroom (field potties!) constant checks on ready condition, live and breath field conditions.
A 6.8? The Brits had almost that right in 1946/1949 (.280).
Change in field, two calibre supply confusion?
Green ammo boxes, green plastic magazines, green furniture on Weapons. Magazines made by Steyr of Austria.
I added in the interested vendors at the begining of the tread. Of note Glock has registed as an interested vendor........................
I recall one of our local companies working with Glock on making cleaning kits for their "carbine" a few years ago during a factory tour, but the carbine was no were to be seen.
Evil Bert,
I don't wish to be mis-understood so let me say, I would not advocate switching caliber's in the middle of this fight either. Just mentioning that the US has accomplished this in the past so I don't see it as a reason to bypass real improvements if any become available.
No no. You are not misunderstood. I was just making the point. I mean after all, the competition is supposed to help the war fighter fight the war, right? So while they can logistically introduce a new rifle, calibers are an entirely different beast.
dookie1481
02-08-11, 12:45
I recall one of our local companies working with Glock on making cleaning kits for their "carbine" a few years ago during a factory tour, but the carbine was no were to be seen.
The vaporware of vaporware.
The vaporware of vaporware.
The cleaning kit was real, handled it myself, can't say the same for the carbine.
No no. You are not misunderstood. I was just making the point. I mean after all, the competition is supposed to help the war fighter fight the war, right? So while they can logistically introduce a new rifle, calibers are an entirely different beast.
...or they might get the results and save it for a "future" program....
Small arms, small unit tactics and their correct employment are disproportionately important in the asymmetric war however.
I thought I alluded to that. I understand, but, we must plan for all eventualities, not just the current one.
I guess my point was/is, many poopoo the AR and the 5.56, based on Afghanistan. The system was not developed in a vacuum, it was meant to be part of a combined arms effort. This was born out in WW2 and Korea, the rifle is for up to 300 mtrs, beyond that, we have indirect and cas.
Unfortunately the politicians, now have the "king of battle" doing patrols and searches, instead of pounding the shit out of adversaries, like they should.
Its funny how some people talk about the .45acp in mythical ways, but the 5.56 is weak??
Its been noted time and time again, calibre is secondary, not that its unimportant, but there are enough dead guys with 5.56 holes in them, to confirm its ability. And, we still have all its other attributes.
Would a 6.xxx be better? Perhaps, but by how much?
Better, and better choice are tow different animals. Better, tends to be a moving target.
Training is the key, as usual, combine that with a PIP M4, and it will go a long way. But, it takes along time to turn a ship around.
Bob
dookie1481
02-08-11, 16:21
The cleaning kit was real, handled it myself, can't say the same for the carbine.
Oh, I was referring to the Glock carbine :D
I guess my point was/is, many poopoo the AR and the 5.56, based on Afghanistan. The system was not developed in a vacuum, it was meant to be part of a combined arms effort. This was born out in WW2 and Korea, the rifle is for up to 300 mtrs, beyond that, we have indirect and cas.
I don't want to talk doctrine and tactics all day, but this isn't accurate. Every infantry platoon is capable of engaging the enemy at ranges up to and exceeding 1000m with weapons organic to that element.
This competition is little more than appeasing the politicians who likely supported by the various mfrs.
I don't want to talk doctrine and tactics all day, but this isn't accurate. Every infantry platoon is capable of engaging the enemy at ranges up to and exceeding 1000m with weapons organic to that element.
Understood, I left out the crew served. My point stands, the M16 was not meant for that range.
Which also counters all the so called reports of our troops being out ranged by the enemy....not with AK's. We have organic weapons to counter those threats.
Again, combined arms, the rifle does not live in a vacume.
Bob
Matt Edwards
02-08-11, 18:53
All I can really add to what R. Moran has written is when the Army conducts this down select, I only hope that what they choose is at least as good as the M-4 is now.
Which also counters all the so called reports of our troops being out ranged by the enemy....not with AK's. We have organic weapons to counter those threats.
Bob
More over, I'd have to say having used both 5.56 is easier to shoot than 7.62x39mm past 200 and ballistics charts reflect this.
RogerinTPA
02-08-11, 21:07
Understood, I left out the crew served. My point stands, the M16 was not meant for that range.
Which also counters all the so called reports of our troops being out ranged by the enemy....not with AK's. We have organic weapons to counter those threats.
Again, combined arms, the rifle does not live in a vacume.
Bob
Agreed, but sadly, not all units have the same type of long range weapons to engage effectively, which amounts to a small amount of any particular unit, doing the actual engaging. Regardless of what the actual MTOE reads, there is still no or very little standardization, training, enough of weapons, or spare parts available, to any given unit down range.
I saw on fbo.gov they just posted the solicitation for an improved bolt/bcg as part of the M4 PIP.
I would say as we start to draw down overseas in the future, they are going to use this as a chance to upgrade/overhaul the m4's that need it while they slowly phase in a new carbine.
Just a guess, I obviously have no insider or industry info. It would make sense, then again it's the Government :laugh:
Controversial subject!
After owning a RR AR 15 for quite some time, I sold it, to upgrade my AK47, and other gun purchases.
Let me say my views (you can batter me later) a combat weapon, that has you rack it past your ear! To work the action... DUMB, one whole bunch of movement.
Magazines if you walk on one in your boots, can be dented, and not work or other rough handling. A gas system that squirts dirty gasses into the action, hullo!
There are many Bull Pups, some better than others, the H&K mods of the Brit one, cured it. The Steyr AUG is made in the USA, their Magazines are the best in the world, one round in sight, 15 left, they are so easy to load. Run over them? Still work. Cleaning kit, and oil bottle in the butt.
Comes apart (barrel off) with 30 round magazine in place, two pieces, goes in a back back... Snap, jack the bolt, left hand, shoulder, fire. Takes less time than it takes to read.
Well I am taking cover just now!
This sounds like the ramblings of a mad man.
I saw on fbo.gov they just posted the solicitation for an improved bolt/bcg as part of the M4 PIP.
I would say as we start to draw down overseas in the future, they are going to use this as a chance to upgrade/overhaul the m4's that need it while they slowly phase in a new carbine.
Just a guess, I obviously have no insider or industry info. It would make sense, then again it's the Government :laugh:
Can you say KAC E3??!! :D
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
This sounds like the ramblings of a mad man.
At 75 I survived a lot of conflict, mad or not! The WW2 bombing of Liverpool UK the first one.
A bull pup in that same configuration/Barrel length, as your posted picture, is 10" shorter, feel the difference jammed into transport.
You can have your opinion, keep it well mannered.
Especially because I am now an American Citizen, a very proud one.
Hate to say it Scouse but it's hard to follow your point... and I'm an old guy too. :p
Suwannee Tim
05-02-11, 14:34
At 75 I survived a lot of conflict, mad or not!....I am now an American Citizen, a very proud one.
Mad or not, I'm damn glad you are one of us now!
Cylinder Head
05-02-11, 15:10
Hate to say it Scouse but it's hard to follow your point... and I'm an old guy too. :p
I think he's saying our military should go for a bullpup??
I get where you're going scouse, but there have been a littany of improvements to the M4 system outside of the confines of the military, they're just looking to adopt them now.
Don't like the way you charge the action? Get a BCM Gunfighter with a larger latch so you can do it one-handed.
Magazine issues? Try PMAGS, they're near indestructible.
AR's are way, way simple. The trigger mechnisms of most bullpups make my head spin. Have you seen the bolt for an FS2000? Steven Hawking couldn't dream that thing up.
kaltesherz
05-02-11, 15:39
Controversial subject!
After owning a RR AR 15 for quite some time, I sold it, to upgrade my AK47, and other gun purchases.
Let me say my views (you can batter me later) a combat weapon, that has you rack it past your ear! To work the action... DUMB, one whole bunch of movement.
Magazines if you walk on one in your boots, can be dented, and not work or other rough handling. A gas system that squirts dirty gasses into the action, hullo!
There are many Bull Pups, some better than others, the H&K mods of the Brit one, cured it. The Steyr AUG is made in the USA, their Magazines are the best in the world, one round in sight, 15 left, they are so easy to load. Run over them? Still work. Cleaning kit, and oil bottle in the butt.
Comes apart (barrel off) with 30 round magazine in place, two pieces, goes in a back back... Snap, jack the bolt, left hand, shoulder, fire. Takes less time than it takes to read.
Well I am taking cover just now!
Ever wonder why SAS/SBS and every other western elite unit chooses a M4 or M4 derived weapon over their indigenous model?
Well maybe you should.
Ever wonder why SAS/SBS and every other western elite unit chooses a M4 or M4 derived weapon over their indigenous model?
Well maybe you should.
Well... Uncle Sam supplies them? Could be a reason, any how, came back from Tampa last night, morning really! And what did I find?
My bran new US Passport was awaiting me in my mail box!!
Not sure I can get shut of this Scouse accent though?
Littlelebowski
05-03-11, 06:20
Well... Uncle Sam supplies them? Could be a reason, any how, came back from Tampa last night, morning really! And what did I find?
My bran new US Passport was awaiting me in my mail box!!
Not sure I can get shut of this Scouse accent though?
No, the UK forces mentioned choose them.
No, the UK forces mentioned choose them.
OK, Will take your word for it.
vicious_cb
05-03-11, 06:38
Funny how the elite SF chose to ditch their indigenous bullpups for the M4 FOW. SAS chose the C8 over the SA80, the SASR the C8 over the AUG. AFAIK the Israeli commandos take the M4 over the Tavor.
wetidlerjr
05-03-11, 06:39
In the event that a new weapon is chosen, I propose the following. A special NFA amnesty is set up whereby the M4 and M16's being replaced are transferred to the CMP and then allowed to be sold to individuals with military veterans receiving first opportunities. All sales will go through a local class III dealer in your area and personnel must not be otherwise prohibited. Part of the money will go back to the military as well as the CMP.
Nice thought and every Christmas I wish for "Peace on Earth", too. :D
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
i was all set to buy a BCM but if the military drops the M4 i can only assume private owners are going to sell them because its no longer "the" rifle. Might drive the price on used ones down. Thoughts?
That article is so full of BS that even I knew it immediately. :laugh:
Littlelebowski
05-03-11, 06:53
OK, Will take your word for it.
Read this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_McNab).
Read this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_McNab).
It's also been in Janes Infantry Weapons since the '90s at least.
kaltesherz
05-03-11, 09:43
OK, Will take your word for it.
British, Aussies, Kiwis, Irish, and the French all have bullpups as standard infantry weapons yet their SOF all use M4s, C8s, or 416s. And we didn't pay for any of them.
That'd be what they call "a hint".
Littlelebowski
05-03-11, 17:16
came back from Tampa last night, morning really! And what did I find?
My bran new US Passport was awaiting me in my mail box!!
Not sure I can get shut of this Scouse accent though?
Welcome.
Answers/comments in green
Controversial subject!
After owning a RR AR 15 for quite some time, I sold it, to upgrade my AK47, and other gun purchases.
Let me say my views (you can batter me later) a combat weapon, that has you rack it past your ear! To work the action... DUMB, one whole bunch of movement.
Guess it depends on how you hold the weapon, mine doesn't go past my ear. You know whats alot of movement, taking an AK off safe.
Magazines if you walk on one in your boots, can be dented, and not work or other rough handling. A gas system that squirts dirty gasses into the action, hullo!
Hello! There are durable polymer mags on the market and being issued for the AR. "the dirty gasses into the action" thing has been proven, over and over again, to not be an issue.
There are many Bull Pups, some better than others, the H&K mods of the Brit one, cured it. The Steyr AUG is made in the USA, their Magazines are the best in the world, one round in sight, 15 left, they are so easy to load. Run over them? Still work. Cleaning kit, and oil bottle in the butt.
I think everyone is well aware that bullpups exist, for a long while now, yet no one seems to adopt or like them. SOF of other countries, go with an M4, as noted a clue, or as you said...."Hullo!"
Comes apart (barrel off) with 30 round magazine in place, two pieces, goes in a back back... Snap, jack the bolt, left hand, shoulder, fire. Takes less time than it takes to read.
I can switch shoulders with an M4 even faster. I can also separate the lower and upper receiver of an M4, with the loaded mag in place, big deal.
Well I am taking cover just now!
Bob
i was all set to buy a BCM but if the military drops the M4 i can only assume private owners are going to sell them because its no longer "the" rifle. Might drive the price on used ones down. Thoughts?
Kinda like what happened with 1911s. I mean since the Army dropped that gun almost no one uses them, right?
There are more companies that make AR15 FOW guns these days in the US than any other model of longarm because of all of the ARs positive qualities, pricepoint, and because of the huge market for them. I don't see this changing.
Heavy Metal
05-03-11, 18:39
A gas system that squirts dirty gasses into the action, hullo!
Like these?
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as12/hk_g3a3.jpg
http://www.weekendhobby.com/gun/webboard/picture%5C142255114094.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/smg/smg14/hk_mp5n.jpg
Cylinder Head
05-03-11, 19:36
Like these?
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as12/hk_g3a3.jpg
http://www.weekendhobby.com/gun/webboard/picture%5C142255114094.jpg
http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/smg/smg14/hk_mp5n.jpg
Those are shit guns that nobody ever really adopted or took seriously. And they're not bullpups so you know they're crap. :rolleyes:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.