The Next US Assault Rifle

[11bee]

Just curious on what the ARC "experts" thoughts are on what will be the replacement for the M16/M4 series of rifles. This issue has been brewing pretty much since Vietnam and seems to be continuing based on experience in Iraq and Vietnam. The special ops folks have the ability to use other weapons but the grunts are still taking into battle a weapon that is over 50 years old at this point.

After reading the ongoing thread about how difficult it seems for the Army to figure out what is the optimum camouflage uniform, I can't imagine how ugly it will be when they finally decide to select a replacement assault rifle. I have a feeling that it will be the ultimate example of procurement and politics gone amuck.

My curiosity is also peaked after reading the after action review of the Battle of Wanat that occurred in 2008. A reinforced platoon sized element of US Army paratroopers was engaged by a much superior force of Taliban and came close to being overrun. The AAR has multiple reference to jammed weapons, both the M4 and others (SAW, Mk 19 grenade launcher, etc). To quote one section of the report:

Without any machine guns of their own, the mortarmen had to use M4 assault rifles firing at the maximum rate of fire simply to suppress the enemy in order to survive. In this way, Phillips burned out a series of three M4s.

A single soldier p*ssing through three weapons during a 3 hour battle does not sound particularly encouraging.

Out of 49 paratroopers involved that night, 9 were killed and many more wounded. The AAR is a must read for anyone interested in one of the most intense small unit actions since Vietnam.

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/Wanat.pdf

Never having been in combat, I don't have the right to make comments either way on the performance of the M4/M16 during actual wartime conditions but I can state that even during peacetime exercises back in my day, I encountered more than a few jams with my M-16A1 / A2 during exercises (and yes, I kept my weapon clean). All of them were cleared quickly but it definitely made me wonder how reliable this weapon would be in a sustain engagement, especially after reading about how the AK-47 / 74 series was basically unstoppable under even the worst conditions.

Since Wanat, it appear that the Army has tried to upgrade the M4 with new magazines, heavier barrels, etc but much of the feedback that I see online seems to indicate that there are still serious reliability issues with this weapon.

Any thoughts on what would a satisfactory replacement for the M4 (or does the M4 even need to be replaced)?

Edited October 6, 2012 by 11bee

[Dave Williams]

Many have tried, like the SCAR-L, HK416, etc., but as long as the US Military keeps looking for a weapon firing the same 5.56mm round from the same USGI pattern mag, they probably aren't going to find anything that's enough of an improvement over the M4 to justify all of the cost involved in procuring a new weapons system, including a new manual of arms, spare parts, etc.

Also, M4s aren't machine guns. They were never designed to be. While capable of full auto fire, they are made to be fired in bursts with a cooling off period in between. To be honest, that's true of most weapons of the type. Running an endless series of mag dumps through similar weapons will cause they to fail too. It may take a little longer, but eventually it will happen.

[11bee]

Also, M4s aren't machine guns. They were never designed to be. While capable of full auto fire, they are made to be fired in bursts with a cooling off period in between. To be honest, that's true of most weapons of the type. Running an endless series of mag dumps through similar weapons will cause they to fail too. It may take a little longer, but eventually it will happen.

Never got to play with an M4 but I thought the standard issue weapon was limited to three-round burst like the M16A2. I might be wrong on this...

[toadwbg]

I know we always hear of the Russian based AK-rifle as "never jamming" and "being foolproof", but I gotta question how true that is. You probably don't hear from all the dead guys it jammed on...

[toadwbg]

One interesting piece of future technology I've heard about is case-less ammo. I've seen some prototypes (on TV or the web, not in person).

Than again, my muzzeloader has case-less ammo... it's just not automatic maybe 1 round per minute...

[Wayfarer 30]

I would not call myself an expert, but from my experience, the AR-15 M-16 series improved with a gas piston design similar to the Kalashnikov design seems to be the winning idea as far as cost and performance. The platform is very similar the current rifle in regards to operation and maintenance. Conversions for this rifle already exsist. Also HK produces the 416, and my favorite, the 417. These rifles are very similar in configuration and perform amazingly well.

Mike..

Edited October 6, 2012 by Wayfarer 30

[fulcrum1]

We're stuck like Chuck for awhile with the M4. It's a fine weapon when maintained.....it's just the wrong caliber. The HK416 is a good alternative, but since it makes too much sense...big army will never go for it.

[11bee]

I know we always hear of the Russian based AK-rifle as "never jamming" and "being foolproof", but I gotta question how true that is. You probably don't hear from all the dead guys it jammed on...

I'm not saying that the US should rush out and purchase AK-47's but from all the reports I have read, it is much superior with regards to reliability and not needing meticulous maintenance in order to perform. Accuracy is a different story but since the standard issue US rifle is the cut-down M4, long range accuracy doesn't seem to be a priority any more.

My guess is that if the US Army finally comes up with a replacement for it's current rifle, it will have every gadget under the sun, including wi-fi, will weigh close to 50 lbs and will probably cost around $30K each. I just can't believe that after more than half a century, there is nothing better than the M4 out there.

Of course it could be worse, we could be stuck with a pig like the Brit's SA-80. Gotta look on the bright side I guess.

Edited October 6, 2012 by 11bee

[crazydon]

Never got to play with an M4 but I thought the standard issue weapon was limited to three-round burst like the M16A2. I might be wrong on this...

M4A1 can do full auto. M4 3rd bursts

[Dave Williams]

We're stuck like Chuck for awhile with the M4. It's a fine weapon when maintained.....it's just the wrong caliber. The HK416 is a good alternative, but since it makes too much sense...big army will never go for it.

The HK416 is basically just a (very good) piston M4. If the M4 is the wrong caliber, so is the HK416. Some Special OPS guys like the SEALs use HK416s, but from a price standpoint, it's probably deemed too expensive to replace all M4s in general service with HK416s. Although it looks similar, not a lot interchanges with an M4 or M16, so a lot of new parts would need to be procured. Also, there would be the whining about the 416 not taking Magpul Pmags, which some people (not me) believe is the holy grail of AR mags.

[crazydon]

As Dave mentioned, no full auto rifle/carbine can withstand repeated full auto mag dumps close together.

The M-4 system has had problems with range in Afghanastan due to the shorter barrel. Trick is we started using it because of the urban combat we encountered in Iraq where full sized M-16A2's proved combursome in house to house fighting

[Exhausted]

I know we always hear of the Russian based AK-rifle as "never jamming" and "being foolproof", but I gotta question how true that is. You probably don't hear from all the dead guys it jammed on...

My WASR/10, Romanian AK-47, has jammed 3 times, after about 1,000 rounds. The conditions for the jam were mostly heavy usage - putting about 60 rounds through it in a short amount of time. It didn't help that the kosmoline that came on it attracted a lot of dirt. The type of stoppages I had would be called 'type 2' for the M-16A, or brass stuck while ejecting. The remedial action is a little different: remove magazine, cant, pull charging handle, replace mag, charge, and fire. When I didn't remove the mags I would get feeding issues. Or at least that's what I remember doing a year and a half ago when I still used to shoot.

[Horrido]

Trying to piece together forgotten lore from my sleep-deprived mind and rusty memory, so please be patient. I like the HK416 idea, but rechambered for 6.5 mm or whatever the most accurate knock'em-down cartridge would be. That way, the bean counters are happy because you can use the same necked-up brass as 5.56 and carry the same numbers of rounds as 5.56, but you have the heavier bullet with supposedly better knock-down power. Otherwise, if you want to go to .308, I see nothing wrong with the M-14/21 series, other than gross size and weight.

The SKS/Kalashnikov-series have got to be some of the most horribly unergonomic rifles I have fired. Actually, that goes for pretty much ALL of the Russian/Soviet-designed firearms I have fired.

The US Army almost seemed to make it with the OICW, then were about to jump to some stripper version, and then finally gave up after a whole lot of time and expense. A few functional OICWs in a group would be worthwhile, but you still need something cheap, simple, reliable, and durable for the four-year grunt to run around with and do his job.

As to what it will be, I think 11bee summed it up in his first two paragraphs and post #8: an unmitigated fuster-cluck. They should probably hire the UK MOD as advisers to make sure there isn't any question of the outcome. But, we must consider after all, the US Army doesn't seem to really like guns in the first place, anyway.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Horrido

[Helidriver]

I used the German G3 during my stint in the armed forces (4 years Norwegian Army)

Love that rifle, a bit heavy but the round has some serious stopping power. Tried the M16A2, SA80, various AKs...and I wouldn't take any of them over the G3.

That being said, it wouldn't take many mags on full auto before the barrel turned blue, and a trip to the depot to explain why the rifle is f'd always followed. Not fun.

All air cooled weapons with any rate of fire will encounter this problem. The .50 M2 (12-7 as we called it) and my darling the MG3 (Natoized MG42) all suffered from this.

The MG3 with its 1200RPM had to be watched closely, and barrel changes were frequent...

So I wouldn't go around demanding a new rifle because a desperate guy fighting for his life burned out a couple of rifles...

Just my 2 cents.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Helidriver

[TonyT]

Yep I used the 7.62 SLR during my service career, similar to the G3, fantastic weapon if a bit heavy, tried the SA80 too which though a cracking weapon is also 5.56mm.. Problem with it is with the AK, Terry Taliban can engage them out of range I believe.

[Dave Williams]

The caliber thing is another thing that comes up when replacing the M4. If not 5.56, then what? Not many people want to go back to carrying around large and heavy .30 cal class rounds like 7.62x51 or 8mm, so they look for basically a bigger bullet in more or less the same case. For a while, the 6.8 SPC was touted as a replacement for 5.56, but the cases are larger diameter, meaning that only about 25 rounds would fit in a 30 round M16 mag, plus they sort of needed their own mag as they didn't seem to always feed reliably from an unmodified 5.56 mag. The latest wonder-round seems to be the .300 ACC Blackout, which really is a bigger bullet in a 5.56mm case, so it can use standard mags. Again it gets down to, is it really enough of an improvement to justify the cost of going to a brand new caliber? How about standardization with NATO or other allies if the US decides to go with another caliber?

It always comes down to the same thing: once you start looking at the total costs of changing your primary infantry gun and/or ammunition, is it really a cost effective improvement? There are probably always going to be situations encountered in combat in the field where whatever you have will come up short.

[Dave Williams]

Yep I used the 7.62 SLR during my service career, similar to the G3, fantastic weapon if a bit heavy, tried the SA80 too which though a cracking weapon is also 5.56mm.. Problem with it is with the AK, Terry Taliban can engage them out of range I believe.

I'm not sure the AK has a greater practical range than the M4. First, many AKs these days are 5.45mm, which is similar to 5.56mm in being a small diameter, high velocity round. Second, if you are talking about the original 7.62x39 AK round, it does have a heavier bullet, but a relatively small case, so the muzzle velocity is lower and it will drop and slow down more as the range increases. Plus, AK accuracy isn't that great, so at longer range you'll probably have a greater chance of missing the target. The original AK round may be a little better at closer range, but I don't see it as a better long range engagement tool than the 5.56mm.

Also, most AKs, at least the ones used by the bad guys being fought in Afghanistan are only fitted with iron sights, which on the AK are relatively short radius, and not the best for long range shooting.

[fulcrum1]

The M-4 system has had problems with range in Afghanastan due to the shorter barrel. Trick is we started using it because of the urban combat we encountered in Iraq where full sized M-16A2's proved combursome in house to house fighting

The decision to go with the M4 was made in the mid 90's. 3/75 got them first and we had them at Bragg around '98. After the war kicked off so did the funds which is why everyone and their mother now has a M4 with some type of optics.

Never had an issue with range with either the M4 or M4A1 in Afghanistan, even used a M16A4 in '09 and although I was golden with just an acog...never was in a situation where it was needed. Marines use the M16A4 because that is what their brass decided based on their doctrine of fighting from eons ago.

[fulcrum1]

The caliber thing is another thing that comes up when replacing the M4. If not 5.56, then what? Not many people want to go back to carrying around large and heavy .30 cal class rounds like 7.62x51 or 8mm, so they look for basically a bigger bullet in more or less the same case. For a while, the 6.8 SPC was touted as a replacement for 5.56, but the cases are larger diameter, meaning that only about 25 rounds would fit in a 30 round M16 mag, plus they sort of needed their own mag as they didn't seem to always feed reliably from an unmodified 5.56 mag. The latest wonder-round seems to be the .300 ACC Blackout, which really is a bigger bullet in a 5.56mm case, so it can use standard mags. Again it gets down to, is it really enough of an improvement to justify the cost of going to a brand new caliber? How about standardization with NATO or other allies if the US decides to go with another caliber?

It always comes down to the same thing: once you start looking at the total costs of changing your primary infantry gun and/or ammunition, is it really a cost effective improvement? There are probably always going to be situations encountered in combat in the field where whatever you have will come up short.

7.62 is and was the only other caliber ever seriously discussed. Sadly, big Army is stuck with what they have for the foreseeable future. DOD just cut Remington a huge check to produce more of the same.

[11bee]

The decision to go with the M4 was made in the mid 90's. 3/75 got them first and we had them at Bragg around '98. After the war kicked off so did the funds which is why everyone and their mother now has a M4 with some type of optics.

Interesting, I also thought that the decision to widely distribute the M4 was based on Iraq feedback. I know that Rangers, special ops and airborne had them in the late 90's, I figured that was solely because they were easier to jump with.

What was the reason for going with the carbine throughout the entire force? Only advantage I can see (aside from the cool factor) is it would take up less room when used by mech troops in Bradleys or Strykers. That and a slight reduction in weight. Those points would be offset by a reduction in range compared to the full size M16.

[fulcrum1]

The joke is the General who made that call now works for Colt. I don't know why the call was made for every Joe to have one, but the Army took ownership of the M4 design a few years back and now Remington will be making them too. If you follow the money you'll usually find the answer despite the BS answer we're all given

[TaiidanTomcat]

As soon as the army switched to the M-4 papers started coming about "retaking the infantry half kilometer" Anything outside of 300M can only be hit with MGs, and GLs. and not everyone has one of those.

The Army did a study where 5.56 was found to be inferior. The solution? Shoot the target multiple times.

ITs not like they have 5 billion dollars to waste or anything.

This is long:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

But I promise it is worth the read. it explains why the USMC went the way they did, the limitations of both, the procurement battle that started after the Army tried to buy more M-4s and it set off political alarm bells as a "No bid contract" (can't buy without a competition!) the HK, different calibers, and more. plus gems like this:

We buy new laptop computers every few years across the gamut, so couldn’t we do the same with our single most important piece of military equipment? .... Waiting for a leap-ahead technology based on a kinetic energy weapon platform is a waste of time and money, so we need to look at what is out there now…. What the Army needs is a weapon that is now ready for prime-time and not a developmental system…. The requirement comes from the field, not from an office in some garrison activity, not from some consultant and definitely not from a vendor.

Let’s do this quickly without all the bureaucracy typically associated with change. Find someone in our ranks who can make a decision – who hasn’t floated a retirement resume with a gun company – and make the decision now. Just look how fast we were all issued the ‘highly coveted’ black beret or the digital uniform. Find that recipe card, change out the word ‘Velcro’ with ‘battle rifle’ and that may be a start to finding a solution [DID: which, he acknowledges, could be Colt’s M4 if that’s what the competition shows]. Our men and women deserve much better than we are giving them, and shame on us.”

The Military seemed to have decided that vast expense (45 billion was spent on the MRAPS, not included the cost to emergency transport them) like the cost it would take to switch calibers and magazines and replace rifles isn't worth it. For whatever reason rifles are supposed to be super cheap at all times. My solution? Develop a next generation LO rifle that can be used by every US branch and our allies. the Joint Service Rifle. It won't be built by colt. It will be Lockheed or Boeing, then no one will blink when we spend 9 billion.

Edited October 6, 2012 by TaiidanTomcat

[Dave Williams]

Interesting, I also thought that the decision to widely distribute the M4 was based on Iraq feedback. I know that Rangers, special ops and airborne had them in the late 90's, I figured that was solely because they were easier to jump with.

What was the reason for going with the carbine throughout the entire force? Only advantage I can see (aside from the cool factor) is it would take up less room when used by mech troops in Bradleys or Strykers. That and a slight reduction in weight. Those points would be offset by a reduction in range compared to the full size M16.

Whatever weight reduction they got by going to the shorter barrel got undone by adding quad rails, vertical fore grips, optics, lasers, etc. Or maybe, that is part of the reason? If you are going to be putting all that stuff on there anyway, it's better to start from a light base. Or maybe they figured in the future type of fighting that the US was likely to be doing there would be more urban and short range stuff than long range duels and the shorter barrel would be better for the former.

Also remember that the AK normally has a 16" barrel, so the 14.5" M4 barrel isn't at much of a disadvantage.

[crazydon]

7.62 is and was the only other caliber ever seriously discussed. Sadly, big Army is stuck with what they have for the foreseeable future. DOD just cut Remington a huge check to produce more of the same.

I'm hoping the hell these Remington produced AR's are up to spec. Remington bought Bushmaster 5 years ago and proceded to run quality into the dirt from what I gather on the shooting sites I use.

[dbsmith88]

I've been in LE for over 15 yrs now and have been an armorer for the last 6 or so and I can tell you, don't believe all the hype about the 5.56 being an inferior round. Any time a 22 caliber projectile traveling somewhere around 3200 fps hits human flesh, it does really nasty things to said person. Granted it does a LOT better when it hits bone as opposed to soft tissue. Also, keep in mind that a lot of our enemies, i.e.- terrorists/insurgents, are often high on narcotics, such as khat in Somalia, when they engage our troops. Those drugs have a tendency to turn them in to superhumans in that they don't feel the pain from a hit and just keep right on coming. This is the reason I was always trained to fire 3 rounds into a target, 2 to the chest and 1 to the head, if I ever had to shoot in the line of duty. We carried 9mm which had/has the same reputation as the 5.56, "It's too small/light weight to do the job." Don't believe that crap either. Some of the high end 147 grain 9mm rounds on the market now are almost at 45 ACP performance levels.

I'm gonna throw the BS flag on the 5.56 being a less than stellar performer. I've seen way too many wounds from that round to think other wise. Also, a lot of long range rifle competitors are going to a heavy 90-105 grain 5.56 loads for 1000yd shoots because of the better ballistic performance at those ranges than the 7.62. It's an outstanding round IF it's employed in the proper way.

BTW, as far as platform goes, the HK416 and HK417 have both been tested in the sandbox, found to be outstanding platforms and subsequently pulled out of the field by DoD. Why, I don't know. I've got a friend in the 20th SF who told me that the operators downrange have been begging for them back. HK is reworking both the 416's and 417's used by our guys in the field to civilian standards (semi-auto) and are planning to sale them on the civilian market.

IMHO, you'll see the AR platform well into the future. It may go piston driven as opposed to gas operated but I don't see it going away. It's way too proven a rifle. Granted, it has matured about as much as it can with the 5.56 round.

Regards

B