Army - Replace the M4 ?

[Boats]

As much as I like the AUG (well, the only bullpup is the AUG), I don't see the U.S adopting any bullpup.

I could see the adoption of a more versatile bull pup design like the Tavor, but built under license. The AUG is pretty long in the tooth as far as "modern" bull pup design goes.

The M4 is now at a crossroads due to a lack of zip on the 5.56 at range, and the 6.8 SPC or .300 BLK won't save the platform because they bring rainbow trajectories at those desired distances.

The HK416 doesn't solve the range problem either. It too would need a longer barrel. Since the HK416 doesn't fold, it's stuck with the same relative ballistics as the M4 brings.

Either adopt a current NATO spec piston rifle that has a long barrel and a folding stock, or;

Adopt a bull pup, or;

To keep all of the bullet development done on 5.56 pills, get more powder behind them by increasing case volume at the expense of less mag capacity, more weight, and more recoil, or;

Go back to 20" or greater barreled ARs and deal with the mount/dismount issues concerning rifle OAL some other way.

 

[Boboclown]

I could see the adoption of a more versatile bull pup design like the Tavor, but built under license. The AUG is pretty long in the tooth as far as "modern" bull pup design goes.

Aside from rails in the handguard, the tavor doesn't have much more in the "versatility" department as a design that's meant to cover different roles (standard issue assault rifle to LMG support [the AUG has a 24" HBAR with bipod for LMG purposes]). But even with that said, I don't see the U.S adopting a bullpup.

 

[Boats]

Aside from rails in the handguard, the tavor doesn't have much more in the "versatility" department as a design that's meant to cover different roles (standard issue assault rifle to LMG support). But even with that said, I don't see the U.S adopting a bullpup.

Good, I hate bull pup rifles anyway.

If the Army won't consider a bull pup then it only has three choices available:

1) Adopt a new type of 5.56 piston rifle with a longer barrel and a folding stock to say goodbye once and for all to Stoner's baked in design quirks.

2) Go back to longer 5.56 AR rifles and deal with their vehicular unfriendliness issues, perhaps by modifying the vehicles.

3) Adopt a new AR round in the 6mm class that can still kill at a distance, with the desired trajectory/accuracy, but at the expense of current mag capacity, or weight, or increased training difficulty for the slightly built.

Or, just adopt a whole new rifle/ammo combo.

 

[Misteramax]

I don't get the military. The 6.5 Grendel and 25-45 sharps make sense.

 

[clearconscience]

They need an army of robots with mini guns and M203s.

 

[Boboclown]

Good, I hate bull pup rifles anyway.

If the Army won't consider a bull pup then it only has three choices available:

1) Adopt a new type of 5.56 piston rifle with a longer barrel and a folding stock to say goodbye once and for all to Stoner's baked in design quirks.

2) Go back to longer 5.56 AR rifles and deal with their vehicular unfriendliness issues, perhaps by modifying the vehicles.

3) Adopt a new AR round in the 6mm class that can still kill at a distance, with the desired trajectory/accuracy, but at the expense of current mag capacity, or weight, or increased training difficulty for the slightly built.

In general, I don't care much for bullpups beyond the AUG.

1) I don't hate the AR, but I support this idea. Good luck getting it through the political machine though. That's the biggest problem.
2) Unlikely this would happen.
3) I'm interested in 6.8 SPC to be honest. It isn't as good as the 6.5 Grendel, but IICR it doesn't matter much within 600 yards.

 

[DirectDrive]

3) I'm interested in 6.8 SPC to be honest. It isn't as good as the 6.5 Grendel, but IICR it doesn't matter much within 600 yards.

6.5x6.8 or 6.5x40 looks very interesting ...
The 6.5×40 Cartridge: Longer Reach for the M4 & M16

The 6.5X6.8 will out run the 6.5 Grendel all day long since it can take higher pressures and will have less bolt breakage.
GLShooter

 

[Ura-Ki]

From my extended time over seas, we saw a LOT of Sig Sauer 550 series rifles come into play, and the countries what were using the G-3 and the FAL turned them in and made the switch. Wights and lack of volume ammo ware the main factors. The AUG never caught on ( and I see the same problems with the Tavor) in that the fixed polly grip area makes prone shooting funky and hard to pull of well. Piston Guns are nether a bad thing, or good, the M-4 should be left alone as is, and the FN SCAR isn't all that great. The Robinson XCR was better, but still needed tweaking, and a weight loss to be viable but was better in a lot of ways to every thing offered. The German G-36 has some really outstanding features, and with some improvements, would be MY choice! Probably never see that happen with FN running every thing!!

 

[Boboclown]

The AUG never caught on ( and I see the same problems with the Tavor) in that the fixed polly grip area makes prone shooting funky and hard to pull of well.

The grip area isn't what makes prone difficult. Its the location of the magazines that make it difficult. Other than that I don't mind shooting the AUG in prone.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The whole "vehicle " thing really baffles me. Its the whole reason for the M4 and XM177 carbines to have been developed... and I dont see much of an issue over in the Com Bloc countries using the AKs in their extremely cramped vehicles.. granted thats with underfolders but sizewise its not THAT much different from the M4 carbine... to say nothing of the SKS or FAL series
If we have to bring back 7.62x51 NATO as general issue.. why wouldnt it be feasible to have a carbine version of the SR25 line of rifles.... the military is already utilizing the SR25 pattern to replace the M1A/M14 NM designated marksman rifles.. sure it means maybe less ammo to carry per person but in all honesty in urban operations and the like.. how is that a difficult thing? The Brits carried 6 FAL 20rd magazines.. the Germans carried 4 to 8 G3 magazines, depending on pouch layout.. and TT has pouches for their MAV that carried 2 SR25/M14 mags each... to say nothing of the various "7.62" dedicated chest rigs and pouches in low profile setups that carries 4-6 20 rd magazines on the chest... really I dont see why we cant issue 16-18" SR25 type rifles as a general purpose rifle.....similar size to old 20"A2 rifles and better ballistics... in addition to the 24" marksmen rifles.

 

[Boboclown]

The whole "vehicle " thing really baffles me. Its the whole reason for the M4 and XM177 carbines to have been developed... and I dont see much of an issue over in the Com Bloc countries using the AKs in their extremely cramped vehicles.. granted thats with underfolders but sizewise its not THAT much different from the M4 carbine... to say nothing of the SKS or FAL series
If we have to bring back 7.62x51 NATO as general issue.. why wouldnt it be feasible to have a carbine version of the SR25 line of rifles.... the military is already utilizing the SR25 pattern to replace the M1A/M14 NM designated marksman rifles.. sure it means maybe less ammo to carry per person but in all honesty in urban operations and the like.. how is that a difficult thing? The Brits carried 6 FAL 20rd magazines.. the Germans carried 4 to 8 G3 magazines, depending on pouch layout.. and TT has pouches for their MAV that carried 2 SR25/M14 mags each... to say nothing of the various "7.62" dedicated chest rigs and pouches in low profile setups that carries 4-6 20 rd magazines on the chest... really I dont see why we cant issue 16-18" SR25 type rifles as a general purpose rifle.....similar size to old 20"A2 rifles and better ballistics... in addition to the 24" marksmen rifles.

We'd be better off letting the theater determine the props than trying to just having one or the other as general issue. Downside is more training, until we find a replacement that can do both decently.

That aside, an AR-10 (tbh, the SR-25 is the original AR-10 pattern in regards to magazines) design would be nice if they get one that is good. That would greatly help with standardizing the .308 ARs tbh.

 

[ma96782]

".......the Army's wish to standardize on lead-free ammunition."

Ha, ha, ha.....the use of DU and the possible use of a nuke.....and the concern is about lead?

Anyway......we also need quieter weapons.

So......just wait for a laser weapon. That will surely solve all of the army's problems. Rrrrright. The great Military Industrial Complex in the USA always needs new platforms and contracts.

Mind you that.....I'm not saying that some things couldn't use improvement.

Aloha, Mark

 

[bbbass]

M14

8mm Magnum

 

[CamoDeafie]

M14

8mm Magnum

The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) ⋆ LooseRounds.com
Theres a few good reasons the U.S. military moved towards the KAC SR25 and M110 series and possibly the HK G28 for their designated marksmen/snipers in Afghanistan.

 

[Boboclown]

The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) ⋆ LooseRounds.com
Theres a few good reasons the U.S. military moved towards the KAC SR25 and M110 series and possibly the HK G28 for their designated marksmen/snipers in Afghanistan.

The M110 was replaced because they had accuracy issues from what I can remember, plus the army wanted something shorter. HK won the contract so they'll be getting them as time goes on.

 

[DuneHopper]

If it aint broke don't fix it.
You know why the AK-47 75 years later is not only still made world wide but even in civilian markets?
Cause it works and gets the job done.
The M4, is reasonable to make and parts readily available, switching to the same Caliber to try and improve perfection is a poor choice. In real world use staying with what works in my opinion is why they have been around so long.

They still make pencils, and pens, we all use staplers, a Hammer, why nothing new?
Because they work, the technology is good and improvement why tried has never replaced
even these simple office items.

My opinion, just a way to spend more money. It wont solve anything practical.
Maybe for Spec-Ops that make sense, but to replace a JP's rifle, that is about as good as it gets is dumb.

 

[irongoat66]

ya know, they been runnin different mixes over the past 16 years depending on mission orientation/objective and i dont know about inf mixes. However, breakdown of a mp team is team leader m4 w/203, heavy gunner (saw, m2 or mk19 or whatever) and ag with m4, wanna change something ? give the ag the m4 with 203 and team leader the ar10 (they generally need more exercise anyway) just my sry .02$

 

[RicInOR]

The Corps is testing cans. Supressors will be issued to one company. Real soon now, for war fighter feedback.




One issue, back from "my war" ( ... Which I never had to leave Oregon, nor did I get any difficult tasks ... )
Persian Gulf War, 1990-1991. The AR platform rounds of that time would go thru and thru on the conscripts who had nothing but a shirt on. (yes I know they have/are developing newer rounds for the 5.56 based weapons.)

Developing a round to defeat body armor ... which also has to be effective to hurt (take them out of the fight) those with no body armor, and meet our treaties to not use ... what is the proper term - what we all call self defense ammo.

By the time we spend all that money ( how much was spent just to select the cammo pattern (not all the new uniforms) just the pattern which few like )

Remote, Robots and hypersonic weapons would be a better investment.

And, development dollars for energy weapons. (coming to major platforms like ships sooner ... to the Army ... later)



Why Hypersonic = going so fast that when it strikes the object destroys itself. The trick is to not go thru and thru - when you have to contend with concrete, and armor plate both. Much like the bullet argument. Also, you can stand off much further - fire the inexpensive warhead from something like a rail gun (in place of say a M777)
How about a 30mm gun sized rail gun - like what might go on a Stryker, maybe about the size of a 3" cannon from WW1 / 2
Or recoilless rifle ... Something that could be on a HMMMVVV replacement.


Why did sub guns (pistol caliber full auto) go out of fashion? Too many weapons systems and everything has to to everything?



And our Sabot rounds are in Hypersonic territory today
M829 - Wikipedia
" muzzle velocity of 1,670 metres per second (5,500 ft/s) "

 

[irongoat66]

thatd be alot of fun, but dont think id like to pack it to much

 

[jordanvraptor]

First things first, there are no stocks of thousands of M14's sitting in a warehouse somewhere. Most were torch cut during the Clinton administration from what I remember. This is why I got stares of envy from the 82nd Airborne guys when I had to lug around my M14 and M4 in Kandahar. The M14 I had was a parade/funeral rifle from my National Guard unit's armory. They slapped on a Springfield Armory mount (which was too high) and a Leupold Mk IV scope. It did ok as a DMR with the M118LR ammo we were given. It was, however, less reliable than my M4. It needs grease, not CLP, to run reliably and that is in optimal conditions. Its action is way too exposed for blowing sand let alone mud. Mounting a scope on it is not easy and you need one of those chassis mounts to add any other Army toy like laser designator, night vision, grenade launcher, etc. You know, all that good Army stuff that turns a 7lb carbine into a crew served weapon... As for the reasoning about going to a heavier caliber for longer range and barrier penetration. It may have some merit. If you asked a grunt, he would tell you to get rid of the ROE's and let us use our bubbleguming mortars, missiles and grenade launchers without getting a signed order from some JAG lawyer who is not taking accurate machine gun or sniper fire. Anyways, that would be an interesting concept, to ask the actual warfighter what he wants... Hooah.