Jump to content

The Next US Assault Rifle


Recommended Posts

Pfffftttt. Complaining about the weight of a M-60!!!!

Try being a medic!!!!!

In Canada (back in my day, you young wipper snipper) I was a medic attached to a light infantry regiment. EVERY where on foot. We were NEVER under armor, on occasion got a ride in the back of a MLVW, had to walk up hill to pee in the snow, BOTH WAYS!!!

The medic carries a FNC1 (7.62, none of this wussy US 5.56 crap) rifle or 9 mm SMG, on rare occasion when the officers had not nabbed them all, a M-1911 Browning, also carried my regular gear, field kit, O2, strecher then YOU, YOUR rifle , YOUR kit and part of the companies ammo. Also, being a Canadian WE had to be qualified on EVERYTHING the regiment uses, (which I still think is a reason Canada has the best TRAINED army on earth) May be small but everyone knew how to fire everything.

Oh yes,back to the topic, our GPMG was not a light weight M-60, it was a old school M-1919. Our guys used to DREAM about the nice light weight M-60, on the rare occasion we were allowed to sleep, which we weren't. Once I got permission to wake up half an hour before I went to rack. Then I had to lick the parade square clean with my tongue.

After I melted the 14 feet of snow on it by sheer will. Ahhhhh, but you tell the recruits of today that, they don't believe you.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread until it went off the rails... <_<

I was an air winger so the only time I got to handle a rifle was the annual qualifications an an occasional change of command. The M-16A1 I had in boot camp said "GM - Hydra-Matic Division" on the side. I used to chant, "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie and M-16s".

It seemed to have worked pretty well, I think I qualled with a 235, tie for second in the whole company. Unfortunatly, first for the whole company was also in my platoon so I was only second in the platoon, too.

All you guys beatifying old Mikhail, have you read the book "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers? It casts a bit of doubt on how singular Kalashnikov was in the design of the AK. It also really heavily slams the US's handling of the M-16s development and their denial of problems with the early models.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread until it went off the rails... <_<

All you guys beatifying old Mikhail, have you read the book "The Gun" by C.J. Chivers? It casts a bit of doubt on how singular Kalashnikov was in the design of the AK. It also really heavily slams the US's handling of the M-16s development and their denial of problems with the early models.

I mentioned this book in an early post. Well worth reading, it's truly fascinating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Interesting article on the failings of the M4. Some of the stuff is old history at this point but I figured it might be worth checking out

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/19/troop-left-to-fend-for-themselves-after-army-was-w/

On a related note, charges that the Army altered the After Action Review of the Battle of Wanat to remove critical comments about the M4 (multiple weapons jammed that day during a very intense engagement).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/20/cover-up-army-historian-says-report-on-deadly-afgh/?page=1

The Army inserted language stating (to the effect) that the Battle of Wanat was an abnormal engagement and as such, the M4 design should not found to be lacking.

A rebbutal from the article above:

“Fielding a battle rifle whose barrel blows up in sustained fire after only 490 rounds is criminal negligence,” he said. “[The] weapons failed because they were designed around some arbitrary, ‘average’ combat situation by somebody oblivious to the present and future high consumptive, mobile, asymmetric wars and insurgencies we face.”

Even worse, it seems like some were blaming the soldiers themselves (the unit lost 9 KIA during the battle) for not keeping their weapons clean.

Mr. Cubbison said there was talk inside and outside the Army that the soldiers were to blame for not maintaining their M4s.

“I can tell you, I guarantee you, weapons were cleaned in that platoon,” he said. “I’ve talked to just about every guy who was there. They knew it was a bad location. They expected to get hit and get hit hard. Nobody was going to neglect weapons maintenance when they’re expecting to be in the soup at any moment. Weapons cleaning wasn’t an issue.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, the original M16, from which the M4 was derived, was designed in the early 60's. Assumptions about combat and how rifles would be used were different back then, so faulting the design for not taking into account how it would used be 50 years in the future is a bit unfair. Also, very few standard infantry rifles are designed for sustained automatic fire. At best, they are meant to be fired in bursts with cooling periods in between. Doing continuous magazine dumps in full auto will severely damage the barrels of most rifles of the type. That's why real machine guns have replaceable barrels or heavier barrels to absorb the heat or fins or other cooling features to dissipate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This makes me smile, it is basically a hopped up M1 Carbine. Guess they had a pretty good idea there back in 1941.

.300 ACC Blackout (7.62x35mm) 125gr bullet @ 2215 fps, 1360 ft/lbs

.30 Carbine (7.62x33mm) 110 gr bullet @ 1990 fps, 967 ft/lbs

Edited by Aaronw
Link to post
Share on other sites

The .300 AAC Blackout is primarily designed for performance from a short-barreled suppressed rifle. It's great for special ops in a CQB situation, but it would be a mistake to make it the standard infantry rifle round. The 6.8 SPC is arguably a better round ballisticly, but there can be feeding issues from standard AR pattern mags.

Remember, wannabe "operators" and other guys going gaga over the latest new thing on the gun forums doesn't mean it's the right thing for everyone in the military.

Edited by Dave Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Marines still have to qualify at 500 yards with the M4. A decent group at that range is a few inches wider, but it works. No I haven't been in combat, but I have no doubts that the round still hurts like F$%^ if you take one at that range.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

Marines still have to qualify at 500 yards with the M4. A decent group at that range is a few inches wider, but it works. No I haven't been in combat, but I have no doubts that the round still hurts like F$%^ if you take one at that range.

Marines qualify up to 500 yards on the M16A4 and that's their standard rifle, M4's Army. After 300m the M4 gets a bit squirrely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a co-worker who was in the 506th/101st in RVN. He tells me that every man in his platoon carried 200 rounds of M60 ammo in a box over his pack, and they each (other then the pig gunner and the radio man) carried 36 mags of M16 ammo, along with multiple canteens, plus all their other gear. The term "government mule" comes to mind.

As far as early M16s, the M16A1 I got issued in South Korea circa 1979 had the lower stamped "XM16" - I guess it was upgraded at some point. There were also examples of US Army-issued M16s in South Korea that had been manufactured at least in part in the Philippines. I've read that all U.S. Army M16s were U.S.-built but I can attest that's not true. I have a feeling that there were some weapons-related shenanigans between the ROK and U.S. supply systems and that there was some "cross-mixing".

John Hairell (tpn18@yahoo.com)

When I was in Boot we had a bunch of recruits comparing weapons, because they most certainly were not all made in the same place. Maybe all still in the US, but different markings, icons etc.

My Boot Camp rifle was a XM-16E1, which earned me the nickname Space Cadet for a time.

Marines still have to qualify at 500 yards with the M4. A decent group at that range is a few inches wider, but it works. No I haven't been in combat, but I have no doubts that the round still hurts like F$%^ if you take one at that range.

Marines qualify up to 500 yards on the M16A4 and that's their standard rifle, M4's Army. After 300m the M4 gets a bit squirrely.

...meters?

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marines qualify up to 500 yards on the M16A4 and that's their standard rifle, M4's Army. After 300m the M4 gets a bit squirrely.

Some Marines receive M4s to qual with and they shoot out to 500 yards. The groups aren't much worse than the M16. M16s and M4s shoot together during the quals. The M4 performs fine at 500 yds though.

yards for marine qual although I recall the zero being meters.

My zero target is yards... 36 of them to be exact. I still have it in my Jimbo Bond bag.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

first of all the twist rate is what stabilizes the bullet, and the barrel length means little in the equation. The 5.56 bore and also the parent case volume (.223) needs no more than a 21" barrel at the max. But does work best between 16" and 22". Hitting a target at 300 yards is no big deal for a 16" barrel, let alone a 22" barrel using good sights. The difference in velocity between the two barrel lengths is roughly 100 to 125fps due to the case volume alone. Just a note, a max loaded 26" barrel length case with a 60 grain bullet is roughly 200fps faster than the same max loads shot out of a 14" barrel. But speed does not stabilize the bullet, it the rate of twist per foot. In other words, anything much more than a 20" barrel is a waste of metal. Neither barrel is worth a dime shooting at 500 yards in combat. The shorter barrel has about 275 ft. lb. of energy with a 62 grain bullet at 500 yards. The other is 330 ft.lb. Both are rather lack luster unless your shooting gophers. At 300 yards they show 478 ft.lb. and 566 ft.lb. of energy (figuring an optimum .30B/C and 2900fps and 2700fps.) On the otherhand the 55 grain bullet with about 3100fps (fairly hot, but not close to max) will loose about 15 ft. lb. of energy at 500 yards, and gain about 25 ft.lb. at 300 yards. This shows us that the 55 grain bullet is about perfect for the .223 sized case. This pretty much goes with my experiments between the 26" barrel and the 20" barrel. I saw a loss of 74fps. between the two. So how does the longer barrel shoot better than the other at 500 yards? Perhaps the sights, but I even doubt that. The better round would be the 6mmx45 with a 90 grain bullet. Will shoot flatter, and have about 20% to 25% more power at longer ranges. Yet still fit inside the current issue magazines with zero alterations. That computes to 847 ft.lb. of energy at 300 yards, and almost 580 ft.lb. at 500 yards.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Marines receive M4s to qual with and they shoot out to 500 yards. The groups aren't much worse than the M16. M16s and M4s shoot together during the quals. The M4 performs fine at 500 yds though.

Many of the Marines I've worked with have had M4s and they qual'd just fine. What I was trying to say was the M16A4 is their standard rifle, not the M4.

Grouping for zero or grouping on the 500yard?

Performing at 500yrds? The M4 with 855 ball? You're joking right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The M4 performs fine at 500 yds though.

I was never issued with the M4 when I was in but from everything I've read and heard from those who have (many being combat vets), this is not the case. The M16 would get you out to 500 meters but it did require some skill (and maybe just a tad of luck). Note that this is against a fixed target. I think the ability to hit a moving target at 500 meters with an M16 would be problematic.

Question - what was the reason for the US Army going with the M4 as the standard issue assault weapon for all infantry? I first heard years ago that it was because the M4 was a better fit for troops riding into combat in humvees, tracks or Strykers. I later read that it was because Iraq featured a lot of urban combat and the M4 was easier to use during close quarter combat.

So what was the real reason for the switch from the M16?

It seems like the M4 is at a disadvantage in Afghanistan due to the longer engagement ranges which often occur.

Fulcrum, since you seem to be in the community, I was wondering if you had any comment on that first article where a Special Forces individual commented that they often replace selected components on their M4 with upgraded civilian parts prior to deploying. I though Special Forces were mostly using HK weapons on deployments but maybe I'm mistaken.

Not sure if you are able to comment on this subject, no worries either way.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of the Marines I've worked with have had M4s and they qual'd just fine. What I was trying to say was the M16A4 is their standard rifle, not the M4.

Grouping for zero or grouping on the 500yard?

Performing at 500yrds? The M4 with 855 ball? You're joking right?

When did I say I was joking? Maybe it's the difference in training. 500 yds (or meters I forgot) is not rapid fire, so maybe groups is the wrong term to use, but they hit all black for max points. It's not impossible and it's pretty common, even for POGs like me.

I wonder which experience you are speaking from. I am not speaking from combat experience. I would much prefer the M16A2 with iron sights if my life depended on it, hehe.

And 11Bee, these weren't combat conditions, just qualification. I am not sure anyone who's had to trust their life to the M16 and it's 5.56/.223 round has much good to say about it at ANY range.

Regarding measurements of yards vs meters, I thought it was yards but it's been over 2 years since I got out.

I'm curious of why a standard isn't the Lapua .338 that gun seems way more likely to be a more versatile weapon because of the upper receiver can be changed to a different caliber so quickly and effectively. I'm no pro but think that gun would be used quiet prominently.

Cost probably? An M16 costs the USG about $300. That's the cost of labor, any union fees, etc.... Not very expensive. I think Colt makes most of their money from AR sales ($800-$2000 apiece.)

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious of why a standard isn't the Lapua .338 that gun seems way more likely to be a more versatile weapon because of the upper receiver can be changed to a different caliber so quickly and effectively. I'm no pro but think that gun would be used quiet prominently.

ever shoot a .338 Lapua? You'll remember the recoil quite well if you have. I shot one in a 15lb. rifle that had a serious muzzle brake. Blast was really bad, and the recoil wasn't that far behind a .300 Win mag. In an eight pound rifle that recoil would simply eat you alive shooting 200 and 225 grain bullets, and the better ones start at 250 grains and go up to 300 grains. Not only that, but you can forget that alloy receiver, as it wouldn't last that long.

The .338 Lapua has gained a following with folks that shoot very long distances, and has also fallen in disfavor with the same folks. A typical weapon ready to shoot comes in close to 17lb., and that's not a lot of fun to carry. The current .300 mags are close to 13lb. ready to shoot. The Marines are doing a study on something much lighter and still deadly accurate. Looks like the new thought is a super high B/C bullet built off the .284 case or even the old 7x57 Mauser case in a nine pound rifle (or less) with 65% of the recoil.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I say I was joking? Maybe it's the difference in training. 500 yds (or meters I forgot) is not rapid fire, so maybe groups is the wrong term to use, but they hit all black for max points. It's not impossible and it's pretty common, even for POGs like me.

I wonder which experience you are speaking from. I am not speaking from combat experience. I would much prefer the M16A2 with iron sights if my life depended on it, hehe.

And 11Bee, these weren't combat conditions, just qualification. I am not sure anyone who's had to trust their life to the M16 and it's 5.56/.223 round has much good to say about it at ANY range.

Regarding measurements of yards vs meters, I thought it was yards but it's been over 2 years since I got out.

Cost probably? An M16 costs the USG about $300. That's the cost of labor, any union fees, etc.... Not very expensive. I think Colt makes most of their money from AR sales ($800-$2000 apiece.)

if you go back towards the start of the thread you'll find I did.

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

ever shoot a .338 Lapua? You'll remember the recoil quite well if you have. I shot one in a 15lb. rifle that had a serious muzzle brake. Blast was really bad, and the recoil wasn't that far behind a .300 Win mag. In an eight pound rifle that recoil would simply eat you alive shooting 200 and 225 grain bullets, and the better ones start at 250 grains and go up to 300 grains. Not only that, but you can forget that alloy receiver, as it wouldn't last that long.

The .338 Lapua has gained a following with folks that shoot very long distances, and has also fallen in disfavor with the same folks. A typical weapon ready to shoot comes in close to 17lb., and that's not a lot of fun to carry. The current .300 mags are close to 13lb. ready to shoot. The Marines are doing a study on something much lighter and still deadly accurate. Looks like the new thought is a super high B/C bullet built off the .284 case or even the old 7x57 Mauser case in a nine pound rifle (or less) with 65% of the recoil.

gary

I actually have not fired that rifle yet but from.people I have talked to it's as accurate as the Barrett .50 and much less on weight. I was really only trying to say it has almost instant change calibers in it can go from a 338 to a 308 relatively quick and easy.

I would think in the field to be able to have a CQB rifle to having a sniper rifle in a matter of seconds would be a good thing.

I downed my first elk with a 300 win mag and actually thought my pre 64 model 70 Winchester 30-06 was a more powerful kick. But thats just me. I am curious though if anyone has anymore input on this Lapua though. I have heard they are really great guns and am thinking about buying one if I can find such a thing.

I know the Barrett .50 is like a 10,000 dollar gun and have to have a licence for it but havn't done much research on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...