Army Sets Sights on New Rifle

[somone]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118550237336920.html

Army Sets Sights on New Rifle
Competition Would Replace M16s and M4s, Workhorses With Reliability Issues
By NATHAN HODGE

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.

Operations in Afghanistan — where troops often engage the enemy over long distances — have rekindled debate over the quality of the Army's standard-issue rifles and their reliability in dusty, primitive conditions. An Army report on a 2008 battle in Wanat, Afghanistan, cited soldier complaints about jamming and overheating M4s, in particular. Nine servicemen died in that fight. Critics have also raised concerns about the range and lethality of the 5.56 mm cartridge of the M16/M4. Col. Doug Tamilio, the service's project manager for soldier weapons, said in a statement the Army sought to find "the most effective, accurate, and reliable" weapon for its soldiers. "We're challenging industry to develop the next-generation carbine and we're looking forward to the results."

An "industry day" for small-arms manufacturers is planned for March 30. The Army said it would pick a winner after two years of rigorous evaluation. Gerald Dinkel, the president and CEO of Colt Defense LLC, said the Army has "held out the M4 as a high standard, and somebody is going have to come out and really beat it." The M16, made by both Colt and FN Manufacturing LLC, a unit of FN Herstal SA of Belgium, along with the M4, have long enjoyed the loyalty of Army leaders who say the weapons are "combat proven." The M4 has slightly less range than the M16, but is easier to handle, particularly in urban combat.

But Army commanders have also long faced questions about the rifles' design: Both are built around a gas-operated system that cuts down on moving parts, but requires consistent cleaning. Experts have often noted that the M16/M4 also fares poorly in terms of ruggedness and reliability compared with Soviet-designed Kalashnikov assault rifles, which are a favorite weapon of insurgents around the world...

[derby378]

1. Here's a possible replacement

The Barrett REC7 rifle. Basically a flat-top M4 that uses 6.8 SPC instead of 5.56 NATO, so soldiers don't have to learn a completely new platform. Gas piston instead of direct impingement, offering AK reliability with M4 accuracy. And 6.8 works better with a short-barrel configuration than 5.56 does.

http://www.barrett.net/firearms/rec7

If I had the money, I'd grab one of these babies for myself.

[TheMightyFavog]

3. ANOTHER bloody caliber change?

Will this mean setting another NATO standard ammo?

[derby378]

4. IIRC, this caliber was designed by soldiers themselves, not military brass

It's a "bottom-up" approach to a military cartridge instead of a "top-down" approach. Actual feedback from experienced operators in the field.

Call me crazy, but I think this idea has been a long time coming.

[TheMightyFavog]

6. Wasn't the thought behind 5.56 to wound rether than kill?

And the thought was that in a shooting conventional war with the USSR, it would be more advantageous to wound enemy soldiers rather than kill them due to the fact that wounding them would use more resources than killing them? Sounds bloody stupid if you ask me.

[Statistical]

8. Well that is the thinking behind ALL the assault rifles M4/M16 included.

Rifles like the M1 Garand have a monster round (.30-06 Winchester) far more powerful than needed to take down a man sized target. The huge recoil and heavy round limits the speed and number of rounds a soldier can use.

All assault rifles in the world (including AK-47) went to smaller, lighter cartridges. Maybe we went "too far" with 5.56mm but even the 6.8mm named in the OP is a baby compared to the .30-06.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. Not entirely true

30 caliber ammo, even 7.62*39 is heavier and bulkier than .223 rounds. That means less can be carried whether it is per solider or in the hold of a ship

[jmowreader]

31. The thought was to reduce the weight of a combat load

5.56 is plenty lethal because it's unstable: when it hits the person you're shooting, the back of the bullet swings around and enlarges the wound channel.

However! The round weighs less than 7.62mm, and the rifle that fires it is lighter. The grunt of today goes downrange with a lot more equipment than the grunt of Vietnam--he's got night vision, more armor, a backpack canteen...--so anything the Army can do to reduce his burden is welcome.

My feeling is, the other countries in NATO are probably not going to be real happy about ANOTHER change of service caliber because they will also have to replace their rifles to ensure interoperability with the US.

My choice if we had to replace the M-4? The HK416, which was designed by Delta Force and Heckler & Koch. What they did was simple: take the best parts of the M-4 carbine, the H&K G-3 and the AK-47 and put them into one weapon. It has the gas system out of the AK-47, the barrel out of the G-3 (but in 5.56mm caliber) and the lower receiver from the M-4.

[derby378]

38. 5.56 is a lethal round, but a bit overhyped

It can quickly turn unstable when it hits a target (same with the 5.45 round, aka the "poison bullet"), but the tumbling effect depends on a variety of factors including barrel twist rate, velocity at time of impact, and how many grains of propellant are used in that cartridge.

[SteveG]

32. That was something we learned from the Japanese

During WWII, the Japanese used small caliber rifles, .25 cal. (IRC), with the intent to wound causing us to use more resources on the wounded. The NATO standard is a little over twice the size of that round. One thing that was found out is that heavier high velocity rounds tend to go right through the victim, and that the Shock let's the soldier who has been shot to keep functioning for a short time. A lighter high velocity round will put that same soldier out of action more quickly. Of course a low velocity .45 will just knock the person down, but has lousy range.

[Statistical]

7. The problem is we have convinced our allies to spend billions to standardize to

5.56x45mm NATO and 7.62x51 NATO

Many were very relunctant but we finally convinced everyone to drop proprietary and non-standard rounds.

For the US to introduce a new round now is likely going to make our allies pissed the fuck off AND will likely require some heft bribe er grants to help poorer NATO countries restandardize (again).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. What are the longer range balistics of the 6.8 SPC compared to .223 and .308?

Its a nice round, but does it address the issue of longer range shooting?

[derby378]

16. I think 6.8 ballistics are very similar to .308 up to 400 meters

Maximum effective range of a 6.8 round is 1000-1100 meters, I think. Maximum absolute range - I draw a blank.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. I found this ballistic table via Google

http://shootersforum.com/attachment.htm?s=10a4a64221253a9f5f862fb262536a7d&attachmentid=446&d=1076081272

Not sure I see a significant advantage over 5.56 NATO.

[MilesColtrane]

11. $2,400.00?

Maybe if I win the lottery.

It does look damned nice though.

[RagAss]

25. FN FAL

[old mark]

2. K&R- Good. The current M4 is a good rifle for close combat, but the ranges of fire needed

in the Afghan war or in any place where shots are taken over 200 yards require something more powerful. Some units like the old M-14, which uses the old 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge rather than the 5.56mm round used by the M4-the larger caliber bullet has much ore power, especially at longer range, but is heavier.
The M4 has a shorter barrel than the old M16, and thus lower velocity and less power with the same ammunition.

mark

[dionysus]

5. bring back the garand!!

[NickB79]

13. There are heavyweight 5.56mm rounds that are getting good reviews

IIRC, a 77-gr round has been issued to some soldiers with glowing reports with regard to long-range accuracy and lethality.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. The article makes it sound like they need a mosin nagant n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. M-N is one of my favorite teaching rifles

It shows just how bad the good old days could be.

Here is an AK-47 vs M-4 vs Mosin Nagant humorous comparison (with a lot of truth)
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm

[derby378]

39. ROFL!

That chart makes me want to buy a Mosin-Nagant just for the sheer novelty of it all. :rofl:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. It is pretty funny

I have one and it is both old and accurate. In the original stock it hurts you to shoot.

[Erose999]

27. Mosin Nagants are still being fielded by the uhh... opposition. .303 Enfields too.

Granted, these guys will use just about anything that shoots. But for the ranges and ballistics needed in that sort of warfare, those old gun designs aren't showing their age just yet.

[TheMightyFavog]

37. Aren't most of those Enfields Khyber Pass Copies though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

[NickB79]

14. "The phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range". nt

[AsahinaKimi]

30. waiting for this..

[Cid_B]

42. As long as we're going for dream weapons...

[Kingofalldems]

15. I liked the M14

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. As did I, but it is a heavy hump over time

That said, you could reach out a long way and most people shot with it stayed down.

[tabasco]

17. The M4 has not been the "main infantry weapon for decades."

and anybody who wrote that has no credibility.

M16A1 and M16A2 have been the main infantry weapons for decades.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. With the state of journalism being what it is, would you accept

the M-16 family has been the main infantry....

[Rex]

18. FUck that! Time to move on to laserz!!!!

Pew pew pew pew!!!

[pokerfan]

19. Meanwhile the Kalashnikov just keeps going and going

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130493013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9BoLowOE9g

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. You are aware that the Soviet Union went to the AK-74 which uses a 5.45mm round?

It is an evolution of the AK-47 but is no more accurate at long range, one of the drivers in the search for a newer rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

[pokerfan]

28. which means?

The AK-47 shows no signs of giving up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. There are a lot of 1903 Springfields out there too

Not sure the -47 is still in new manufacture anywhere. The -74 is taking over slowly. The Russians are now fielding a variant that used 5.56 NATO.

None of the AK design are particularly good mid to long range rifles.

[pokerfan]

35. but probably not 100 million of them

I guess my point was only that AK-47 at sixty-something years of age is still going strong and many countries continue to this day to produce their own and/or variants. It's just too damn easy and inexpensive to produce and the designs have long since entered the public domain so licensing isn't even necessarily an issue. The AK is going to be with us for many more years.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. For a carbine, the design is about as robust as it gets, regardless of caliber

[sad sally]

20. And all the old ones can be sold to Mexico's drug cartels.

[jmowreader]

33. Considering the way the average soldier shoots...

the proper thing to do would be to forget about "rifles" and just issue everyone an M-79.

[Capitalocracy]

34. Out of curiosity, what exactly are "primitive conditions"? nt

[jmowreader]

40. Another problem with the story

The Army is ALWAYS talking about replacing the service rifle.

The current rifle, the M-16/M-4/M-231, was designed to be used in Vietnam and nowhere else. It has a LOT of faults.

During the Reagan Eighties, the government had several "shoot-offs" to try to choose a new rifle; they always ended in failure because the price of replacing ALL the current system including the magazines, retraining the troops, doing SOMETHING with all the old guns, etc, was prohibitive.

Right now, with the currently installed base of M-16, M-4 and M-231 (a heavily modified M-16 used in the firing ports on a Bradley fighting vehicle) being what it is, the only logical replacement is the Delta Force-designed HK416. The nice thing about that system is, by pulling the pivot pin and the takedown pin you can remove all the problems the M-16 has in one whack.