PDA

View Full Version : M4 Carbine Replacement: if it were up to YOU!


Asset
05-26-2011, 2:00 PM
These are all truly great rifles. Which one do you consider the best?

NorCalAthlete
05-26-2011, 2:35 PM
Other. HK416 is awesome but I like the INTEGRATED (read - not addon stuff like BAD levers) ambidextrous controls on the POF lowers. Having a mag release on the left side and bolt catch/release on the right side really appeals to me.

themailman
05-26-2011, 2:41 PM
HK 416, LMT Sopmod Stock. Barrel must be Gov Profile.

cmace22
05-26-2011, 2:59 PM
Something in 6.8mm

I have no experience with any of the platforms you have listed, but these would be good IMO:

HK 416
SCAR
Rem ACR
KAC
LWRC

If it were up to me Id love to see a bunch of LMT's in 6.8 being issued.

MrPlink
05-26-2011, 3:07 PM
most of these seem viable replacements. LWRC, SCAR, HK, REC7 I would put at the top.

sonnyt650
05-26-2011, 3:08 PM
Kel-Tec RFB -- bullpup but doesn't burn the lefty/righty holding it. If they were more readily available one would be mine right now. I guess I'd swap out the magazine with a DPMS-308 but that's about it.

MasterYong
05-26-2011, 3:21 PM
No Noveske?

Sad Panda.

acaligunner
05-26-2011, 3:33 PM
I would probably pick the SCAR/HK416, with plans to change the caliber to 6.5/6.8. Not that the 5.56 choice is a bad one, but it's a little light for 400 yrd and longer shots.

If we where going old school I would pick the IMI Galil. The rifle is combat proven, and comes in both 5.56/308.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/IPSC_GUY/GalilARM.jpg

acaligunner

cali_armz
05-26-2011, 3:36 PM
i have no experience with any of the rifles listed, although i have heard alot of very positive things about the SCAR.

personally, if i could have only one rifle id go with my AK47 in 7.62x39

kozumasbullitt
05-26-2011, 3:47 PM
Other. HK416 is awesome but I like the INTEGRATED (read - not addon stuff like BAD levers) ambidextrous controls on the POF lowers. Having a mag release on the left side and bolt catch/release on the right side really appeals to me.

The acr has an integrated ambi release, I really think you should research POF before you buy.

Mr_Monkeywrench
05-26-2011, 3:49 PM
How about the Tavor? Bullpup design and you can run a 20" barrel. That way you're getting the full ballistics capability out of a 5.56 while not giving up manuverability and size. It is currently being used by some militaries around the world with success.

HKDoc
05-26-2011, 3:50 PM
Hk g36.

MrPlink
05-26-2011, 3:53 PM
How about the Tavor? Bullpup design and you can run a 20" barrel. That way you're getting the full ballistics capability out of a 5.56 while not giving up manuverability and size. It is currently being used by some militaries around the world with success.

Americans in general arent fond of the bulpup design, mostly do to increases in mag change time

hammerhands32
05-26-2011, 4:24 PM
Americans in general arent fond of the bulpup design, mostly do to increases in mag change time

Not with those 100 round surefire mags lol

tacticalcity
05-26-2011, 4:29 PM
It is a loaded question thus not a valid poll. It forces you to accept a set premise and then go from there. There are a lot of nice rifles on your list. And people who don't actually want the M4 replaced might select them simply because the option of DO NOT REPLACE THE M4 CARBINE is missing from your poll. It's absence invalidates the poll altogether.

You basically have given us the answer you want...and will walk away from it thinking everyone who voted wants to see the M4 replaced. I would bet at least half the respondents don't.

timmyb21
05-26-2011, 4:42 PM
LMT308MWS. Just because I want one sooooo bad but don't have the coin.

shooterdude
05-26-2011, 4:43 PM
These are all solutions looking for a problem. What exactly is the problem?

brando
05-26-2011, 4:53 PM
On the Tavor and bullpup assault rifles, the manual of arms is different, but it can be trained to be effective and quick. The biggest headache for any military force considering such a rifle is "how does it handle lefties?"

Lead Waster
05-26-2011, 5:00 PM
Well, define "Best" and keep in mind that the US Gov't has been testing/using/modifying M16s/M4s for FORTY years. And it's been good enough for most bad guys.

Also, what do you believe in? A big fat round that can reach out far and hit hard, or something you can carry 1500 rounds of and fill the air with (ala .223?), but still be pretty accurate?

I'm not saying the M16/M4 is the final answer, I'm just saying we have to define what we are looking for in terms of "best".

762.DEFENSE
05-26-2011, 5:19 PM
LWRC M6A2/A4

Noobert
05-26-2011, 6:06 PM
AKM

Army GI
05-26-2011, 6:12 PM
M14 7.62mm NATO

drifter001
05-26-2011, 6:13 PM
i go with the scar!

i<3HK
05-26-2011, 6:13 PM
ohhh tough one, I would choose the Scar and the HK 416, but I'm slightly leaning towards the 416 more :D

dieselpower
05-26-2011, 6:19 PM
P90, cuz thats what the Star Gate teams use.

Sniper3142
05-26-2011, 6:24 PM
I voted other...

What I'd like to see is a modified LMT MRP.

Modifications:
- Full Ambi controls on lower.
- Ejection Port opened up to accept rounds like the 458 Socom & .50 Beowulf.
- Magazine Well opened up to accept a wider range of cartridges (while still handling the current .223/5.56mm magazines).


This rifle system would have outstanding flexibility, reliability, and effectiveness.
A Gas Piston would give it great reliability. The quick barrel swap would enable the user to configure it to the mission (barrel lengths, caliber, etc). calibers like the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 458 Socom would be simple barrel/bolt/magazine swaps away.

It could be configured to do anything and everything the other rifles on the above list could do; all on ONE basic platform.

CQB - SPR - Recce - DMR...

:)

Uriah02
05-26-2011, 6:26 PM
I don't have any trigger time on any of those but from what I have read I'd vote LWRC.

FeuerFrei
05-26-2011, 6:35 PM
FN SCAR 16 5.56
FN SCAR 17 7.62

acaligunner
05-26-2011, 6:48 PM
It is a loaded question thus not a valid poll. It forces you to accept a set premise and then go from there. There are a lot of nice rifles on your list. And people who don't actually want the M4 replaced might select them simply because the option of DO NOT REPLACE THE M4 CARBINE is missing from your poll. It's absence invalidates the poll altogether.

You basically have given us the answer you want...and will walk away from it thinking everyone who voted wants to see the M4 replaced. I would bet at least half the respondents don't.


The M16/M4 is a very good system, but we should look at some of the newer made rifles/ammo.

I don't know how accurate the 'dust test' was/is, but the fact that other weapons systems performed slightly better, and also the fact that the 6.5/6.8 rounds may also perform better ( than 5.56 ), should give us a way to Improve the combat arms that the Military/civilian use.

Here's a sample:

In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, XCR, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon fired 60,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shoot-off was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[6][7] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages.[1]


Again, there's more choice's out there, the 6.5/6.8 and maybe the 308 offer the soldier a heavier round, and more energy at extended ranges, than the 5.56. Wouldn't that be a upgrade, over what we are using now.

Another advantage, the 6.5/6.8 system offers 25/26 rounds in a equally sized weapon, compared to the M4's 30 capacity. Not so bad.

So lets say we have a SCAR/416 in 6.5 that weights the same (as the M4), Shoots a heavier round, and gives you more range, wouldn't that be a better system over the M4 shooting 5.56?

The M16/M4 isn't going anywhere yet, but it's not wise to ignore the new types of situations that the soldier/civilian faces in todays world.

acaligunner

Legasat
05-26-2011, 7:27 PM
Assuming you have to change the M4, I gotta go with the SCAR. Comes in both calibers needed.

elSquid
05-26-2011, 7:29 PM
MdErfyYeJeU

H&K G11.

I'm not saying that it's the best choice, or even a good one, but the way I see it is if it becomes the US issue rifle then it's likely that H&K will make a civie version, and I've always wanted one for the collection. :D

-- Michael

cmace22
05-26-2011, 7:56 PM
The M16/M4 is a very good system, but we should look at some of the newer made rifles/ammo.

I don't know how accurate the 'dust test' was/is, but the fact that other weapons systems performed slightly better, and also the fact that the 6.5/6.8 rounds may also perform better ( than 5.56 ), should give us a way to Improve the combat arms that the Military/civilian use.

Here's a sample:

In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, XCR, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon fired 60,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shoot-off was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[6][7] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages.[1]


Again, there's more choice's out there, the 6.5/6.8 and maybe the 308 offer the soldier a heavier round, and more energy at extended ranges, than the 5.56. Wouldn't that be a upgrade, over what we are using now.

Another advantage, the 6.5/6.8 system offers 25/26 rounds in a equally sized weapon, compared to the M4's 30 capacity. Not so bad.

So lets say we have a SCAR/416 in 6.5 that weights the same (as the M4), Shoots a heavier round, and gives you more range, wouldn't that be a better system over the M4 shooting 5.56?

The M16/M4 isn't going anywhere yet, but it's not wise to ignore the new types of situations that the soldier/civilian faces in todays world.

acaligunner

Well said.

I think the major issue with the M4 isnt so much with failures as it is with the 556 round.

With 556 relying heavily on fragmentation the loss in velocity puts the effective range of the M4 at about 150 yards or so. Going with a better performing round as in the 6.5/6.8 you not only get better terminal performance at greater distances but gain added barrier penetration and deflection performance to boot.

Going 308 would be great but your talking about undoing one of the major reasons the AR/M16 was adopted. That was increased ammo for the soldier due to the smaller size and lower weight. Although I dont feel that it would be much of an issue and I think most people wouldnt mind it with all that 308 offers.

I feel that a lot of the M4's short comings can be improved with a caliber upgrade.

If a new platform is sought out a piston design should be chosen due to its performance as noted above. But, I dont think that changing to a piston and keeping 556 offers enough of a performance upgrade to justify replacing the existing stock of M4.

Now if that piston not only offered a reliability improvement but a significant performance upgrade as well, that would be worth it.

There is a lot of talk about current AR pistons designs (LWRC, HK416, LMT and all the various conversions) not addressing the issues that come from retrofitting the AR to work with a piston. What Im taking about of course is carrier tilt as well as nothing being standardized.

If an AR platform were to be used Id like to see it have a well thought out piston system and not something that was an after though or one that tries to use every off the shelf part with add ons. Say a system that uses steel guide rails for the BCG, does away with the buffer and spring and Id prefer to see a long stroke system over a short stroke to keep the parts count down.

Anyway sorry for the ramble.

docsmileyface
05-26-2011, 8:17 PM
SCAR 17 with the 5.56 conversion kits or the CM901 with the conversion kits. Modularity should be the biggest factor. One gun to truly do it all depending on METT-TC.

Vandal.
05-26-2011, 8:21 PM
other... NTW20


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXLRYf9EV2Y)

vXLRYf9EV2Y

cmace22
05-26-2011, 8:25 PM
SCAR 17 with the 5.56 conversion kits or the CM901 with the conversion kits. Modularity should be the biggest factor. One gun to truly do it all depending on METT-TC.

The return of 308 to the standard infantry rifle would make a world of difference logistically.

SCAR-H it is.

Colt-45
05-26-2011, 8:26 PM
I vote LWRC but I doubt our Army could afford them.

AKM

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2::rofl2: :laugh::laugh:

c'mon man let's be serious here.......

Hump0311
05-26-2011, 8:28 PM
I selected other. I'm all about replacing the M4 with the "IAR"

NorCalK9.com
05-26-2011, 8:34 PM
AK74 light round good damage anf its coming out of a highly proven wePon system.
xM8
Scar

TNP'R
05-26-2011, 8:44 PM
Ruger 10/22

Hump0311
05-26-2011, 8:53 PM
Ruger 10/22

Now thats hardcore. :D

TNP'R
05-26-2011, 9:01 PM
Now thats hardcore. :D

Nothing beats the 10/22 lol

Stone
05-26-2011, 9:08 PM
G36K with Picatinny sight rail.

santacruzstefan
05-26-2011, 9:37 PM
I voted other...

What I'd like to see is a modified LMT MRP.

Modifications:
- Full Ambi controls on lower.
- Ejection Port opened up to accept rounds like the 458 Socom & .50 Beowulf.
- Magazine Well opened up to accept a wider range of cartridges (while still handling the current .223/5.56mm magazines).


This rifle system would have outstanding flexibility, reliability, and effectiveness.
A Gas Piston would give it great reliability. The quick barrel swap would enable the user to configure it to the mission (barrel lengths, caliber, etc). calibers like the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 458 Socom would be simple barrel/bolt/magazine swaps away.

It could be configured to do anything and everything the other rifles on the above list could do; all on ONE basic platform.

CQB - SPR - Recce - DMR...

:)

Ooh, ooh, I voted LWRC but I want to change my vote to this, mainly because I have an MRP and they are fantastic rifles; their modularity is a huge bonus. Plus, since LMT already has government contracts, it might be easier.

Colt-45
05-26-2011, 10:31 PM
AK74 light round good damage anf its coming out of a highly proven wePon system.
xM8
Scar

The same philosophy is behind the 5.45x39 and the 5.56x45.

All you guys that are suggesting Russian weapons, seriously?

bohoki
05-26-2011, 10:40 PM
saiga 12s -jPI5j3jjqowith 30 round drums full of http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa199/Erics2400/FRAG-12Projectile_1.jpg

redrex
05-27-2011, 12:21 AM
Ok, I'm sure I will get voted off the island but I think it's time to face the truth. The us does not make the best rifle out there.

I vote for the AN-94.

The argument that I have always heard is that the AK's were indestructible, reliable and couldnt hit the broad side of Texas, while ARs were very accurate but were delicate, codependent and needy little girls.

As I understand it, several of the weapons we already use are based on the ak platform/system but not our main carbine.

Imagine we use a modified AN but built to American spec and in the cal of your choosing.

I will admit to not being a black plastic rifle expert but I'm pretty good at KISS. And everything on that list looked like anything but simple

THT
05-27-2011, 12:24 AM
Other: AR15 in .223AI with a mag that can accommodate a 75gr AMAX :D While we're at it, let's issue longslide 10mm Glocks as sidearms.

PyroFox79
05-27-2011, 12:37 AM
Just go back to the M14. Problem Solved

MrPlink
05-27-2011, 1:09 AM
Ok, I'm sure I will get voted off the island but I think it's time to face the truth. The us does not make the best rifle out there.

I vote for the AN-94.

The argument that I have always heard is that the AK's were indestructible, reliable and couldnt hit the broad side of Texas, while ARs were very accurate but were delicate, codependent and needy little girls.

As I understand it, several of the weapons we already use are based on the ak platform/system but not our main carbine.

Imagine we use a modified AN but built to American spec and in the cal of your choosing.

I will admit to not being a black plastic rifle expert but I'm pretty good at KISS. And everything on that list looked like anything but simple


Terrible option.
The Abakan is NOT an AK. It barely even looks like one. As I understand it, its been completely discontinued. Very complex action, rather unreliable, and expensive to build. Hell, its almost the opposite of an AK.

redrex
05-27-2011, 5:32 AM
Terrible option.
The Abakan is NOT an AK. It barely even looks like one. As I understand it, its been completely discontinued. Very complex action, rather unreliable, and expensive to build. Hell, its almost the opposite of an AK.

Ok, as I said, I am not an expert in this field :) But just because the AN doesn't fit the bill doesn't mean that my point is invalid.

I am a history buff as well as a having a background as an engineer. How do these relate? Well I'm very familiar with the military history of firearms and how different countries over time would "adopt", or as we would say today... "steal" the tech of whatever system worked the best at that time.

We still do this today. We dropped the 1911 for the Beretta and the SAW is of Belgian design. And not only that but I'm fairly sure that the firing system is stolen straight from the AK!

But when it came time for a rifle we went American because why? Was the colt honestly the best choice at the time. Looking back I see loads of protectionist rhetoric that was being bandied about.

I have talked to dozens of vets who got back from the Stan and most of the say the same thing. The would have preferred the AK given the choice.

It's time we honestly considered the idea that maybe the AR is a dead end and that we should give the AK weapons system a try. Go back to the drawing board and see what we can do with this system with our tech and manufacturing capabilities.

And yes, I just bought my first black plastic rifle, It's a Saiga in .223

What can I say, I'm a fan of Jeet Kune Do. Take what you can use and leave the rest.

Don29palms
05-27-2011, 5:37 AM
How about just upgrading the guns they already have?

Bizcuits
05-27-2011, 6:50 AM
I wouldn't :)

Vandal.
05-27-2011, 7:18 AM
no one likes the 6.8SPC???
=)

RONIN.
05-27-2011, 8:53 AM
A piston ar of some sort.. with ambi-selector, ambi bolt release, ambi mag release.. in other words, a kac lower with a 416 upper..

The War Wagon
05-27-2011, 9:05 AM
IF there were anything wrong with the M4 (other than using carbine-length gas, INSTEAD of mid-length gas! :rolleyes:), I'd replace it with... the Robinson XCR.

PEBKAC
05-27-2011, 9:57 AM
As much as I love my XCR, I think it ideally would need to shed a bit of weight and fix a couple of issues before I'd call it ready to be a replacement for the M4. Heck, even if they just came up with a better way to secure the barrel hex bolt than "friction and loctite" it would probably be good enough for government work and improve on basically everything M4 does except for weight.

However given those issues with the XCR and putting aside cost, the LWRC in 6.8 seems the best option as you don't need to change training that much, there are noted advantages to a piston system in shorter barreled rifles, and 6.8 has undeniably superior ballistics especially in shorter barreled rifles compared to 5.56.

tacticalcity
05-27-2011, 11:37 AM
The M16/M4 is a very good system, but we should look at some of the newer made rifles/ammo.

I don't know how accurate the 'dust test' was/is, but the fact that other weapons systems performed slightly better, and also the fact that the 6.5/6.8 rounds may also perform better ( than 5.56 ), should give us a way to Improve the combat arms that the Military/civilian use.

Here's a sample:

In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, XCR, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon fired 60,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shoot-off was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[6][7] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages.[1]


Again, there's more choice's out there, the 6.5/6.8 and maybe the 308 offer the soldier a heavier round, and more energy at extended ranges, than the 5.56. Wouldn't that be a upgrade, over what we are using now.

Another advantage, the 6.5/6.8 system offers 25/26 rounds in a equally sized weapon, compared to the M4's 30 capacity. Not so bad.

So lets say we have a SCAR/416 in 6.5 that weights the same (as the M4), Shoots a heavier round, and gives you more range, wouldn't that be a better system over the M4 shooting 5.56?

The M16/M4 isn't going anywhere yet, but it's not wise to ignore the new types of situations that the soldier/civilian faces in todays world.

acaligunner

Those "newer" weapon systems were designed specifically for the military to test and evaluate. ACR, XCR, SCAR, all of them. So were the newer rounds like the 6.8 SPC. The military tested them, and then passed.

They have being doing so ever since they adopted the first M16. Yet the M16 and its variants are still here.

Why? Because we have yet to find anything better. All of the rifles on the list have some great qualities and are excellent rifles. But they also have some flaws that make them unsuitable for service wide adoption.

For example...

Piston driven rifles for example have violent actions that create excess wear and tear on the rifle and add excess recoil. That means they will be a hair slower in CQB, more difficult for smaller frame users to shoot, and will wear out and break much faster. Basically harder to use and cost more to maintain. Someday they may come up with a piston design that doesn't have this issue. After all, today's piston designs are significantly better than those from a few years back. Time will tell.

The 6.8 SPC round gets greater accuracy and a flatter trajectory and only requires that we replace the barrels on our rifles. However, it has considerably more recoil and has over pressure safety issues. So it is not as good for CQB and smaller frame users and will cause more safety issues. Plus is is more expensive to manufacturer. So while it is a great round for specific uses, it is not a good replacement for the 5.56mm. Not service wide.

In much the same way law enforcement agencies are discovering that the .40S&W handgun round that looks so great on paper due to its mathmatically superior balistics is causing a great deal of issues. It has a snappy felt recoil that while mathmatically lower than the 45ACP is felt much more by the shooter. They are also running into overpressure issues and much higher rate of Kabooms. On paper it was the perfect solution. In real life, not so much.

What I am basicaly telling you is that just because something is new, and sounds great on paper does not make it truly superior or suitable for service wide use. You have to look at the complete picture and not just focus on the one or two little things about it that you like.

The M16 variants aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Yes the military will continue to test and evaluate new designs. That is how progress is made. Someday, when somebody comes up with something truly better, perhaps. But that day is not today.

cmace22
05-27-2011, 12:41 PM
The 6.8 SPC round gets greater accuracy and a flatter trajectory and only requires that we replace the barrels on our rifles. However, it has considerably more recoil and has over pressure safety issues. So it is not as good for CQB and smaller frame users and will cause more safety issues. Plus is is more expensive to manufacturer. So while it is a great round for specific uses, it is not a good replacement for the 5.56mm. Not service wide.


Wasnt the over pressure issue solved by going to the SPC II chamber? IIRC early SAAMI spec chambers with slow twist rates ( 1/9-1/10) were causing the issue with higher pressure "combat loads"

When a switch is made to the SPC II and a faster twist (1/11 or more) doesnt this issue go away?

Felt recoil is more but hardly an issue going from 556 to 6.8 and I cant see how it would be a safety issue if a competent user is behind the trigger unless the user is a child or the stature of one.

As far as cost. Its a little unfair to compare after all the 556 has has a 50+ year head start with competing companies driving the price down. Cost of materials and manufacturing I would imagine would be fairly close to 556 especially if more than a handful were fighting for a market share.

IMO the positives of the 6.8 far out weigh any negatives to its use.

acaligunner
05-27-2011, 12:50 PM
tacticalcity;

Those "newer" weapon systems were designed specifically for the military to test and evaluate. ACR, XCR, SCAR, all of them. So were the newer rounds like the 6.8 SPC. The military tested them, and then passed.

Yes the military passed but was the decision made at the cost of ignoring those on the ground ( calling for improvements ), or someone sitting in a seat at a military base.


They have being doing so ever since they adopted the first M16. Yet the M16 and its variants are still here.

Yes it's still here, but there are also soldiers that dislike and blame the M16/M4 for being the cause of soldiers being killed/maimed in combat.


Why? Because we have yet to find anything better. All of the rifles on the list have some great qualities and are excellent rifles. But they also have some flaws that make them unsuitable for service wide adoption.

For example...

Piston driven rifles for example have violent actions that create excess wear and tear on the rifle and add excess recoil. That means they will be a hair slower in CQB, more difficult for smaller frame users to shoot, and will wear out and break much faster. Basically harder to use and cost more to maintain. Someday they may come up with a piston design that doesn't have this issue. After all, today's piston designs are significantly better than those from a few years back. Time will tell.


Yes but weapons like the SCAR/416 have been built from the ground up, to function with the piston design, and as the test show, Malfunctioned less than the M16/M4 system.

Also wasn't the M16 rate of fire reduced? because it was to shooting to 'fast', that's also the reason behind the 3 burst system of the M16, A slower rate of fire is not a bad thing. My brother told me of NVA soldiers shooting controlled burst out of their AK-47's/SKS.

Once a soldier has been in firefight, they do not spray & pray, but shoot with controlled burst.


The 6.8 SPC round gets greater accuracy and a flatter trajectory and only requires that we replace the barrels on our rifles. However, it has considerably more recoil and has over pressure safety issues. So it is not as good for CQB and smaller frame users and will cause more safety issues. Plus is is more expensive to manufacturer. So while it is a great round for specific uses, it is not a good replacement for the 5.56mm. Not service wide.

Yes there are some changes that need to be made to the 6.8 (spec 2 or whatever), I do not follow the round, and I don't have that much info on it, but a more durable rifle (like the SCAR) should handle that pressure.

In much the same way law enforcement agencies are discovering that the .40S&W handgun round that looks so great on paper due to its mathmatically superior balistics is causing a great deal of issues. It has a snappy felt recoil that while mathmatically lower than the 45ACP is felt much more by the shooter. They are also running into overpressure issues and much higher rate of Kabooms. On paper it was the perfect solution. In real life, not so much.

I understand your point, but can't this be overcome with more training? We taught soldiers to fire 30-06/308 rifles, didn't we.

If you look at the more robust systems, I'm sure they can handle the problems found. Did these kabooms only happen in the M16/M4 rifles, or did other rifles show a problem?


What I am basicaly telling you is that just because something is new, and sounds great on paper does not make it truly superior or suitable for service wide use. You have to look at the complete picture and not just focus on the one or two little things about it that you like.

All I said is that there are other new designs that have been proven more durable, and reliable than the M16/M4. There would not have been the development of the 6.5/6.8/Scar/416, If the M4 was at it's best.

The SF fielded and tested those rifles in combat, along with the M4 and said they where more durable. It was the military as a whole that made the choice to keep the M16/M4. Does that mean that the men/teams that are the first to go agree. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The M16 variants aren't going anywhere anytime soon. Yes the military will continue to test and evaluate new designs. That is how progress is made. Someday, when somebody comes up with something truly better, perhaps. But that day is not today.

I believe that those that go into battle should be armed with the best they can get, is that happening today?

acaligunner

Army GI
05-27-2011, 4:30 PM
other... NTW20


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXLRYf9EV2Y)

vXLRYf9EV2Y

Going to need to put a 14.5" barrel on that thing to make it more tactical and whatnot.

Hoop
05-27-2011, 5:03 PM
The everything gun from 5th Element.

That or just general issue the M14 again so all the M1A fantards can see how truly fail their beloved platform is :)

MrPlink
05-27-2011, 5:57 PM
That or just general issue the M14 again so all the M1A fantards can see how truly fail their beloved platform is :)

dems fightin words round these here parts