Jump to content

The Next US Assault Rifle


Recommended Posts

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.

Pardon my intrusion

I do have read somewhere a story or it was a document about an operator who fixed his M4 in the same manner as you described.

I cannot remember if it was on Funker Tactical group/website or it was on youtube,or in another place,I was just lurking around the web checking for a type of iron sights,or checking something related with airsoft,anyway what he did was to change the recoil spring and the one of the trigger group/extractor whatever is called,fix/polish or refine some other parts and changed the gas tube with the one used in 416 system and it was good to go with no jams and stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

to do a caliber interchange from the .338L. will usually require a completely new bolt, unless your lucky enough to have the Savage 110BAS sniper's rifle. Then you can simply replace the bolt head. Still you can shoot everything from a 22BR thru 35 Whelen with that same bolt head, but your also limited by the action length. The typical Remington based off their short action is not going to handle much of anything longer than the 7x57 based case, and even the old Mauser case is too long when loaded with the desired high B/C bullets for that action length. The standard length is a better move, or the short Savage (about .156" longer). But these are all bolt guns, and the military desires a selective fire weapons platform. Yes you can stretch the AR platform, but then we get into another issue. It's a known fact that the 57mm case length is about max that can be shot in full auto reliably (I know there are others but this is a well known study that others go back to over and over). A good possible solution would be to widen the AR platform about five or six millimeters and stretch it about eight millimeters. Then adapt the .250 Savage round with 100 grain bullets at about 2800fps. Now you've got your ligit 500 yard round that is a true stopper. That's 700ft.lb. of energy at 500 yards with just about the same ballistics as the 63 grain 5.56. Cases are about 47mm, so they will eject with out an issue. Or you could go with the .300 Savage case and use a 150 grain bullet for about 900+ft.lb. of energy at 500 yards.

gary

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.

.338 Lapua is a round, not a gun. It's a large caliber round used mostly for long range sniping and much more powerful than .308/7.62x51 mm used in guns like the M14 and sniper rifles like the Remington 700, and requires a heavy gun. Also the round is much bigger than 5.56mm, so you would have a magwell far too big to accept M16 mags. While the M$/AR series is versatile in that you can swap uppers, the caliber choices are somewhat limited by the dimensions of the magwell. Colt has released the LE901, which comes in .308/7.62, and can take a standard mil-spec 5.56mm upper (it uses a magwell insert for the smaller AR magazine). However, it's a heavy gun, and the reality is that few people in the field are going to be lugging around a gun, plus another upper, plus two sets of loaded mags in different calibers.

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.)

Civilian sales, probably. Colt doesn't make the M4 for the military any more. In fact, the military owns the M4 design, not Colt. I think FN has the current M4 contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

"mission needs" means you'll see a lot of variation of mods on the M4A1 and M4 from Giselle triggers to the 416 upper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't lapua make an AR platform that can switch barrels maybe I'M thinking of a different gun. But I know there is an AR style gun that I'M. almost positive was a lapua design that can switch barrels.

I think you are confusing the Lapua with another round. The .338 Lapua is designed for long range shooting somewhere more than a 7.62mm NATO or .300 Winmag and less punch (but similar range) to a .50 cal. The .338 Lapua is based on a large African game round, .416 Remington if I recall correctly.

There were a couple of gun makers marketing .338, .458 and .50 rounds that could interchange uppers on an AR for suppressed use or a harder hitting round than 5.56mm. Far less powerful than the .338 Lapua though.

At one time the US Coast Guard was supposedly looking at one of the larger caliber guns for use an anti-boat gun (shoot out the engine on fast drug boats).

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.

Yes, grouping is the wrong word, you don't group at 500yrds with either the M16 or the M4. You can hit the targets at that range and qual, but with an M4 you need to know what you're doing and the conditions ideal.

I wonder which experience you are speaking from. I am not speaking from combat experience.

1102430_488634964560002_1437599780_o_zpsed367575.jpg

Edited by fulcrum1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, the military owns the M4 design, not Colt. I think FN has the current M4 contract.

Yes, FN undercut Remington, and is saving the taxpayers about $600 per rifle with nice upgrades compared to the older Colt. They have an awesome program in-theater right now if a M4 goes down its being replaced with a brand new M4A1, sayonara three shot burst!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet, but I actually meant direct experience about Marine quals. I am not diminishing your military career in any way, but I wasn't sure where you coming from with the info regarding Marines rifle qualing almost solely on the M16 and not some M4s integrated in there too.

I had a nagging feeling about using the term group for 500, but I didn't originally devote enough time to clarifying.

Edited by Exhausted
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet, but I actually meant direct experience about Marine quals. I am not diminishing your military career in any way, but I wasn't sure where you coming from with the info regarding Marines rifle qualing almost solely on the M16 and not some M4s integrated in there too.

I had a nagging feeling about using the term group for 500, but I didn't originally devote enough time to clarifying.

I spent the better part of 2011 with the Marines at the school house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Army holds test to determine what is the best assault rifle.

One of the competitors outscores the incumbent (M4A1).

Army cancels test.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/

Why do I think that 50 years from now, my grand kids will still be issued M4's when they enlist? I know the Army is not exactly a huge fan of change, what I do find surprising is that the Marines seem to be following the Army's lead.

And so it goes.....

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Army holds test to determine what is the best assault rifle.

One of the competitors outscores the incumbent (M4A1).

Army cancels test.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/19/armys-quits-tests-after-competing-rifle-outperform/

I would wait to hear the whole story before jumping to any conclusions on that. I wouldn't print that with the lack of info available but I have concern for my reputation.

Why do I think that 50 years from now, my grand kids will still be issued M4's when they enlist? I know the Army is not exactly a huge fan of change, what I do find surprising is that the Marines seem to be following the Army's lead.

And so it goes.....

???

Link to post
Share on other sites

???

Point was that in many quarters within the Army, there seems to be dissatisfaction with the M4, yet the Army appears to going out of it's way to keep what is basically a close to a 50 year old design in frontline service for the foreseeable future.

The Marines profess to be the most rifle-centric branch of the military and yet you don't hear much/any complaints from the Corp about the M4. Not sure if that means they are following lockstep with the Army and denying that the M4 has issues or they simply don't have the problems that have been reported by the Army and are quite content with using this weapon for another few decades.

If the Army feels that the M4 is such a great weapon, why are we seeing so many of their special forces personnel using either M4's with aftermarket parts or different weapons entirely. I get that special operators have different missions from line grunts but at the end of the day, they are engaging similar targets, under similar environmental conditions, at similar ranges. If the M4 is so flawless, why are they not using stock M4's as well?

An obvious disclaimer - I don't have combat experience and only had very limited time when I was in to fire the M4. Most of my time was with the M-16A2 and even during peacetime conditions, we still had jamming issues with this rifle. I'm only commenting on what I've read in the press, who have quoted various military sources. Like everything, this info should be taken with a bit of salt.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did the XM-8 fail? Also since the HK 416?? is in service with some Spec Ops forces why not adopt it service wide?

Just curious,,,

I don't know anything about the XM-8, but I did think the HK416 was a great, at first. It has its own issues and some of the reliability problems cannot be fixed without a major overhaul. Just my opinion, but the way big Army is going with the M4A1 solves alot of issues. What works for small Army doesn't always work for big Army.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point was that in many quarters within the Army, there seems to be dissatisfaction with the M4, yet the Army appears to going out of it's way to keep what is basically a close to a 50 year old design in frontline service for the foreseeable future.

There has always been controversy, I think around 2005-07 there was a bunch of dislike for the size of the round too.

The Marines profess to be the most rifle-centric branch of the military and yet you don't hear much/any complaints from the Corp about the M4. Not sure if that means they are following lockstep with the Army and denying that the M4 has issues or they simply don't have the problems that have been reported by the Army and are quite content with using this weapon for another few decades.

Marines are Riflecentric, which is why they still generally issue Rifles M-16A4 which is the official service weapon, and not Carbines, which the M-4 is. M-4 is still in service with certain MOS's but Rifles are the norm. The USMC did not adopt M-4 for widespread use, which at the time was seen as controversial, safe, and overly traditional and not following the army.

If the Army feels that the M4 is such a great weapon, why are we seeing so many of their special forces personnel using either M4's with aftermarket parts or different weapons entirely. I get that special operators have different missions from line grunts but at the end of the day, they are engaging similar targets, under similar environmental conditions, at similar ranges. If the M4 is so flawless, why are they not using stock M4's as well?

I guess you would have to ask the army.

I hope you are sitting down for this, but the infantry sometimes (LOL) get the short end of the stick. and for as much as people talk and blather about "nothing being too good for troops" the term "good enough" sure does come up a lot...

I brought it up in the A-10 thread, but i feel it bares repeating as people tried to sell the A-10 as the most critical piece of grunt friendly gear in existence, that maybe there are more important things to the grunts than airplanes, in fact if you asked a grunt he would list about 10 things he would like more than an A-10.

An obvious disclaimer - I don't have combat experience and only had very limited time when I was in to fire the M4. Most of my time was with the M-16A2 and even during peacetime conditions, we still had jamming issues with this rifle. I'm only commenting on what I've read in the press, who have quoted various military sources. Like everything, this info should be taken with a bit of salt.

I'm taking the whole ariticle with a grain of salt and I'm going to explain why. They took one facet and then went full on with it. Rounds between jams is obviously important, but its not the only factor and we don't know nearly enough about other factors, the tests, and other context.

If I told you that Peyton Manning was a better QB than Tom Brady based on a single particular stat (while ignoring everything else), and when the Pats heard that they immediately withdrew and canceled the QB comparison contest, wouldn't they have a good reason to do so? wouldn't you support the decision? because a QB isn't just about one stat right?

And then the headline read:

New England quits tests after competing QB outperforms Tom Brady.

This is the problem with people, we want to jump to conclusions, and headlines are way to happy to oblige us. We then wonder why the world doesn't get better as knee jerk reaction from one complex issue to the next, rather than looking at the big picture, and making logical trade offs that are inherent in any complex decision. So until I learn more about what the tests were, and other very important factors I'm ignoring the troll article for what it is. I remember Time putting out a wonderful hit piece on the Osprey in 2007 before it deployed to Iraq with some very cherry picked data, and I am still waiting for the retraction/apology. Not holding my breath though. Do you think Time is excited to tell us now all about how the Osprey is performing well beyond its highest expectations, and all the doom and gloom failed to materialize, and in the meantime its changing the way things are done and has saved countless lives the last 7 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What works for small Army doesn't always work for big Army.

Well I agree with this whole heartedly especially when you consider the sheer size and scope of big army.

Issuing everyone a super high speed customized 416 seems like a great idea, until you remember lots of people are tankers, arty, helicopters, logistics, etc. Then sudden;y its "wasteful overkill"

"why are you issuing a reserve Patriot unit with tricked out $2,000 specops rifles they don't even know how to use?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point was that in many quarters within the Army, there seems to be dissatisfaction with the M4, yet the Army appears to going out of it's way to keep what is basically a close to a 50 year old design in frontline service for the foreseeable future.

How old is the basic design on the M2 and M14? Both are still used. My gripe with the platform has been in the caliber, we should have always stayed with the 7.62 in my opinion.

The Marines profess to be the most rifle-centric branch of the military and yet you don't hear much/any complaints from the Corp about the M4. Not sure if that means they are following lockstep with the Army and denying that the M4 has issues or they simply don't have the problems that have been reported by the Army and are quite content with using this weapon for another few decades.

Until recently most Marines were using the M16A4. Another reason why you heard more from the Army side of the house was because of where the Army was in OEF and the sheer number of boots on ground. Just as in the Army, most Marines deployed never saw combat.

If the Army feels that the M4 is such a great weapon, why are we seeing so many of their special forces personnel using either M4's with aftermarket parts or different weapons entirely. I get that special operators have different missions from line grunts but at the end of the day, they are engaging similar targets, under similar environmental conditions, at similar ranges. If the M4 is so flawless, why are they not using stock M4's as well?

That assumption is wrong with SOTFs. Different targets, different conditions, and for the most part...much shorter range. Big Army needs things to be uniformed across the force as it saves time, money, and training. Right now your 11b in a light BDE is rocking some of the best gear I've ever seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, there is no "I' in him - it's heeeem.

"Quarterbacks, their just like basketball. Gotta take some shots to get a rhythm with the defense."

Are we sure Simms isn't working for the DoD in-between games?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Maybe not a complete fit for this thread but I came upon an interesting article about a new rifle scope being developed for the Special Ops guys by Sandia National Lab. Push button focusing using adaptive optics instead of mechanical zoom.

21st century technology, coming soon to a nearly 60-year old rifle design. Kidding aside, I'm not sure if this is something headed for production or still just an R&D program.

http://gizmodo.com/us-special-forces-new-sniper-scope-works-like-a-human-e-1649906438

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not a complete fit for this thread but I came upon an interesting article about a new rifle scope being developed for the Special Ops guys by Sandia National Lab. Push button focusing using adaptive optics instead of mechanical zoom.

21st century technology, coming soon to a nearly 60-year old rifle design. Kidding aside, I'm not sure if this is something headed for production or still just an R&D program.

http://gizmodo.com/us-special-forces-new-sniper-scope-works-like-a-human-e-1649906438

I know a lot of Marines who work for Sandia :thumbsup:

Now John, you know the second the US starts developing a new assault rifle, especially if it runs into any kind of problem or delay, the internet will come out of the wood work singing the M-16 and 5.56 praises and wondering why the M-16 is being replaced "if it aint broke don't fix it yada yada" while conveniently forgetting it was often broken and needed fixing...

this is how the internet works. It thrives on bold claims, short memories, and dodgy numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is how the internet works. It thrives on bold claims, short memories, and dodgy numbers.

I think you should include 'People who like to stir things up' in your list. After all, they are the driving force behind the bold claims, short memories and dodgy numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should include 'People who like to stir things up' in your list. After all, they are the driving force behind the bold claims, short memories and dodgy numbers.

Agreed....Have I told you about the V-22s coffin corner? You should be outraged

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...