Sweden and Finland to jointly adopt new service rifle

[dwhitehorne]

A family friend's son is a 0311 in 2/6. I talk to him over over the holidays as I was in 2/6 Weapons Co. 32 years ago. The technology they have now is amazing. He said his Battalion was issued the HK's over a year ago. David

[1168]

On a technical note, in conditions of extreme cold does the 416 do better than the M4?

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

I’d bet the Norwegians have some neat info. Svalbard looks dumb-cold.

It’d be hilarious if they picked something with a long, heavy 6.5mm bullet in an elderly cartridge and then use it for like a hundred years, at which point a few near-copycats emerge and become popular. Like 6.5x47 Lapua.

[prepare]

For the USMC to replace the M4 with the M27 I'm curious what it does better to justify the cost of direct replacement?

[SteyrAUG]

For the USMC to replace the M4 with the M27 I'm curious what it does better to justify the cost of direct replacement?

I think the USMC only recently switched from the M16A4 to the M4 so the switch to a 416 platform is probably for better long range accuracy. 416s also seem to be a bit more reliable in terms of stoppages compared to the M4.

[prepare]

I think the USMC only recently switched from the M16A4 to the M4 so the switch to a 416 platform is probably for better long range accuracy. 416s also seem to be a bit more reliable in terms of stoppages compared to the M4.

I get that part, but to do a complete replacement seems over the top.

[SteyrAUG]

I get that part, but to do a complete replacement seems over the top.

So USMC has a tradition of all marines are rifleman and I think that is what is driving this and that is why they went to the M16A4 rather than directly to the M4. Unlike the US Army, the M4 was not universally adopted so in a real sense they are going from the M16A4 to a 416 platform which they are going to use in a multi role application. It actually makes sense.

Now with the US Army (and here we'd be talking about a lot more rifle and a much more diverse group of users) it wouldn't be terribly practical, or economical, to replace the M4 with anything else, despite the fact that they've explored it at least a couple times already.

[BoringGuy45]

So USMC has a tradition of all marines are rifleman and I think that is what is driving this and that is why they went to the M16A4 rather than directly to the M4. Unlike the US Army, the M4 was not universally adopted so in a real sense they are going from the M16A4 to a 416 platform which they are going to use in a multi role application. It actually makes sense.

Now with the US Army (and here we'd be talking about a lot more rifle and a much more diverse group of users) it wouldn't be terribly practical, or economical, to replace the M4 with anything else, despite the fact that they've explored it at least a couple times already.

I could the M4 being replaced by the 416 in the same way that the M4 itself replaced the M16A2. Remember that for awhile, only Delta and SF were carrying M4s, and even the Rangers were still using the M16 for awhile. Then the Rangers got the M4, then the airborne units, and then it replaced the M16 pretty much altogether.

I'd imagine sooner or later, the SF Groups and Rangers will get 416s, then everybody else will want them eventually. Whether that's a needed or good change or not is obviously up for debate; but that's probably how the Army would get the 416 if that indeed happens.

[SteyrAUG]

I could the M4 being replaced by the 416 in the same way that the M4 itself replaced the M16A2. Remember that for awhile, only Delta and SF were carrying M4s, and even the Rangers were still using the M16 for awhile. Then the Rangers got the M4, then the airborne units, and then it replaced the M16 pretty much altogether.

I'd imagine sooner or later, the SF Groups and Rangers will get 416s, then everybody else will want them eventually. Whether that's a needed or good change or not is obviously up for debate; but that's probably how the Army would get the 416 if that indeed happens.

Have to consider how long the M-16 (A1 to A2) was in inventory with the US Army. If they don't feel like they gotten their money's worth, they are going to hang on to them and keep retrofitting.

Marines are kind of a different animal. They don't always so what everyone else is doing. Also it's a smaller group with less diverse occupations within the USMC as compared to the US Army.

[BoringGuy45]

Have to consider how long the M-16 (A1 to A2) was in inventory with the US Army. If they don't feel like they gotten their money's worth, they are going to hang on to them and keep retrofitting.

We're at the point, service time wise, where the M16 was when the M4 came about. The M16 had been the Army standard for almost 30 years when the M4 was adopted, and we're coming up on 30 years and counting with the M4 as the standard.

When it comes to new service weapons, the Army seems to have the same MO every friggin' time: They adopt a new weapon. Then, in five years, they're already looking to replace it with some pie in the sky technology that, to the surprise of nobody, is only a viable option in video games and sci-fi movies. They have these billion, dollar programs for the next gen weapons, only to find out that they can't get them to work as advertised. They cancel the program, and then about five years later, they're at it again with some new futuristic pipe dream weapon that has no chance. After doing this off and on for a few decades, they finally settle on a slight upgrade of a weapon. That's what happened with the M16 before they went to the A2, and then with the A2 before they went to the M4, and it's been a constant thing with M4 until now.

Marines are kind of a different animal. They don't always so what everyone else is doing. Also it's a smaller group with less diverse occupations within the USMC as compared to the US Army.

True, but the Marines are usually doing things different because they're getting shafted by the DOD (before that, the DOW) who sent all the funding to the Army and the Navy. Many units of the Corps were still rocking the M1903s well into WWII, as the Garands were mostly going to the Army and only trickling into the Corps. Same deal the M14s when the Army was getting M16s. Hell, the Corps were still wearing steel helmets in the early 80s because the PASGT helmets were going to the Army first.

I think things changed in the early 2000s for them though. The Corps realized they were being made obsolete by SOCOM and other Army units, so they started evolving and intentionally doing their own thing. First, they went with the M16A4 over the M4, then changed to MARPAT while everyone else was still doing M81 and DCP camo. Then 10 years later they went out and cleverly circumvented the DOD contracting bullshit to get a version of the 416. Now, they're in the process of condensing and changing their mission set so that they're more "elite" and like the Royal Marines.

I'd imagine that the Raiders, who are using the M4 still due to it being smaller and lighter than the M27, will sooner or later request a shorter barrel version of the M27 which will, for all intents and purposes, probably be a 416A5 upper. Then the rest of SOCOM will say "Hey, MARSOC isn't JSOC! How come they get the cool new rifles and we don't??" Then SF and the non-DEVGRU SEALs will get 416s, and then the Rangers will want them too, PJs and CCs...and so on.

[1168]

I'd imagine sooner or later, the SF Groups and Rangers will get 416s, then everybody else will want them eventually.

Unlikely. Not everything in Delta or Devgru trickles down. They do have an overt and unclass mission that you could probably google that would explain that. Devgru’s fullname contains everything you need to understand that.

When it comes to new service weapons, the Army seems to have the same MO every friggin' time: They adopt a new weapon. Then, in five years, they're already looking to replace it with some pie in the sky technology that, to the surprise of nobody, is only a viable option in video games and sci-fi movies.

The Army’s endless parade of small-arms and “warfighter” programs do seem stupid and wasteful. Its all rather tiresome.

The Corps realized they were being made obsolete by SOCOM and other Army units,

I think you already know this, but that sentence would make more sense if you replace “SOCOM” with “USASOC” and/or delete the word “Army”. And they should have realized that 70 years ago. Don’t take that as a dig on Marines, but rather on the brass and the culture and doctrine. Make no mistake; Marines put in a lot of work in the past 20 years.

Then the rest of SOCOM will say "Hey, MARSOC isn't JSOC! How come they get the cool new rifles and we don't??" Then SF and the non-DEVGRU SEALs will get 416s, and then the Rangers will want them too, PJs and CCs...and so on.

J=joint, and is not mutually exclusive with M. Neither is SOCOM. There’s not many jealous dudes hating on SOF Marines from within SOCOM or JSOC. In fact, the number one player hater of them all is big USMC. If SOF Marines have the tools they need, we're all happy for them, despite whatever jokes might be floating around.

M4C and Arfcom cares more about what MARSOC types carry than the entire cumulative total of gun-toting professional military doorkickers on this planet, living and dead, excepting the ones whose jobs are directly involving small-arms procurement.

Same with what PJ’s carry. I’m more interested in how a PJ puts a crash axe on his gear safely than what rifle he carries. In fact, I worked fairly closely with members of “that” particular STS for years, and can’t recall if they switched to 416s or not, but I remember exactly how they go about carrying casualties on one of their unique-ish vehicles. And I’ll not forget a certain hiring board question response from one of their support dudes. Or the way some of them used a certain shoothouse. And certain dude’s ironic aversion to tear gas grenades.

Its just a rifle, guys.




Someone mentioned the 416 being more accurate; it isn’t. Its barrel might be, but the same could be achieved in the M4.