Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 53

Thread: US Army's M4 options

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    164
    Feedback Score
    0
    I feel adopting a new weapon based off of current ammunition would be a waste. If the new rifle can not be lighter, more reliable , and have increased lethality/hit probability at shorter and or longer range replacing the M4 would not be justified. You will not find info on what many companies proposed "out on the web".
    Last edited by III; 11-26-08 at 17:43.
    C Reed Knight III
    Knight's Armament Co.
    http://www.knightarmco.com/

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Melbourne, Florida
    Posts
    332
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by III View Post
    I feel adopting a new weapon based off of current ammunition would be a waste. If the new rifle can not be lighter, more reliable , and have increased lethality/hit probability at shorter and or longer range replacing the M4 would not be justified. You will not find info on what many companies proposed "out on the web".

    Thanks for your input!!!!!!!!! Your unique knowledge is extremely valuable in this particular thread and I for one am glad you made it on to give some in site. I too agree that a better cartridge/weapon system should be adapted, if not, at least a better choice for cartridge. I won't get into the who's is better contest as I won't have a say anyway, but, if the decision is to keep the M4 lower and just replace the uppers, there are several good choices out there.

    "You will not find info on what many companies proposed "out on the web"." is a particularly good morsel of information. Are you free to 'help' us poor internet users as to what some manufacturers are showing up with???

    Thanks again for your input.

    Kelly

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    1,132
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I'll say what I always say when I see the comments by politicians about weapons and gear for the military...

    Where were they 10 or 15 years ago, when I couldn't get 7 magazines and cleaning kits for my men. Now, they are all high and mighty about getting "our boys" the best, please.

    Having said that, at least its happening. Even though I don't necessarily think the M16fow is the pos some people would have you believe, and know many recent combat vets, who are more then happy with both the M4 and the 5.56.

    I'll agree with III, though, if we are going to switch, lets do it right. Identify our needs, research the best solution, and implement it. If its just another 5.56 carbine, it may not be worth the effort. We should address specific shortcomings in the round and platform, all of them. That would most likely call for an entirely new platform and cartridge.

    Bob

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,306
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'll agree with III, though, if we are going to switch, lets do it right. Identify our needs, research the best solution, and implement it. If its just another 5.56 carbine, it may not be worth the effort. We should address specific shortcomings in the round and platform, all of them. That would most likely call for an entirely new platform and cartridge.
    A new platform sure, but a new round?


    As a side note, I'm really surprised the XCR isn't entering the competition. I feel it would be exactly what the Army wants.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    992
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kal View Post
    As a side note, I'm really surprised the XCR isn't entering the competition. I feel it would be exactly what the Army wants.
    The XCR is there: http://www.militarytimes.com/multime...lacing_the_m4/

    Why do you think it's exactly what the Army wants? The Army doesn't even know what it wants...
    --Nick
    Owner, Reptilia & Side Project, LLC

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,727
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by NickB View Post
    The XCR is there: http://www.militarytimes.com/multime...lacing_the_m4/

    Why do you think it's exactly what the Army wants? The Army doesn't even know what it wants...
    lol. Great minds..... yadayadayada.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,306
    Feedback Score
    0
    The XCR is there: http://www.militarytimes.com/multime...lacing_the_m4/

    Why do you think it's exactly what the Army wants? The Army doesn't even know what it wants...
    ahh, how could I have missed it.


    I'll give it a go and say the Army wants a new design that fixes every problem the M16 platform has ever had and then some.

    When I look at the XCR, I see a rifle whose manual of arms hardly change from the M16, maybe even considered better. The operating system is more than you could ever want. It has more rails than New York subway lines. It's also very modular like the AR. What's there to lose?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    2,906
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by kal View Post
    What's there to lose?
    Accuracy and reliability
    Kevin S. Boland
    Manager, Federal Sales
    FN America, LLC
    Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 407-451-4544 | Fax: 703.288.4505
    www.fnhusa.com

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,306
    Feedback Score
    0
    Accuracy and reliability
    What was the accepted MOA from a US infantry rifle? Like 4 moa maximum accepted? We know the XCR isn't anywhere near 4moa. This is an assault rifle they are considering replacing anyway, not a precision marksman rifle.

    Reliability? You're saying the AK system in which Robinson Armament has carried over to their rifle has reliability issues? You have to go further and tell me what's going on.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    UT
    Posts
    4,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kal View Post
    What was the accepted MOA from a US infantry rifle? Like 4 moa maximum accepted? We know the XCR isn't anywhere near 4moa. This is an assault rifle they are considering replacing anyway, not a precision marksman rifle.

    Reliability? You're saying the AK system in which Robinson Armament has carried over to their rifle has reliability issues? You have to go further and tell me what's going on.

    The XCR has plenty of accuracy. General consensus among experienced XCR shooters, myself included is 1.5 MOA at 100 yards.

    Reliability has been solid. The Gen 1 models, circa 2006 had hiccups, but the Gen 2 models, which were introduced in early 2007 had some great enhancements to the gas system, firing pin design and new QC methods to ensure reliable operation. Durability is a given. If you've ever seen the internals of an XCR, you know you'll need a sledgehammer to literally break something. All XCR's shipped now are Gen 2 models.

    XCR experience on this forum is very slim, with only of handful of people, myself included, who actually know the platform well enough to have a lucid opinion. I would recommend visiting XCRforum.com for additional input. It's not a fanboy hangout either. You'll actually find objectivity there.

    I am on my 2nd XCR. I wrote a great deal about it in this thread http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?...light=Robinson
    Last edited by variablebinary; 11-27-08 at 01:31.
    Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
    What Happened to the American dream? It came true. You're looking at it.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •