Defense Tech: Army (might) Abandon "Leap" for M4 Replacement

Status
Not open for further replies.
so he knows what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of issues with that letter,
I will just start a new thread at a latter date when I have time to state them all.

Now back to the thread, I cant say how this will go usually some senator goes on a tangent, lots of press, and 3 months later the point is moot.
 
Hey, Gunner,

Not that I have to justify my letter to anybody, because I write a blog primarily for my own amusement and to pimp my books, but do me a favor and find somebody who was actually a tester of the XM-8 and get back to me.

Not an HK fanboi on the internet, not an HK employee, not a soldier who fired five rounds through one once... An actual tester. No, shooting one on Call Of Duty 4 doesn't count either.

I've talked to several. I know about half a dozen 45B (battalion level SF armorers) who have played with the gun at Crane and Bragg who all said the same thing. I also got the same feedback from my contacts in Federal LE procurement, as well as some Ranger staff that were testers. It is basically a blah gun.

If you would like to make a post here and pick apart my year old HK letter, feel free. I think that it would be fun.
 
In my opinion, no new weapon is needed at all for the majority. If anything, maybe new piston uppers, but even that isn't necessary. Nothing is worth spending money on if it will not considerably increase soldier survivability and ease the logistical constraints.
 
It is basically a blah gun.
Click to expand...

I've never gotten to play with an XM8, but that's pretty much what my take on the G36 was after getting to put it through its paces. Seems like it does the job, but doesn't seem to do anything an M4 can't do just as well.
 
I am not a proponent of the M4... there are so many better platforms out there.

*BUT*

It does serve its intended purpose and in the hands of a professional Soldier a venerable weapon. It did take me years (and even a couple tours of combat) to appreciate the M4.

There is nothing wrong with it. The 5.56 does take 2 shots to effectively stop a combatant. But as long as you know that its not an issue.

Wasting money on a new gun serves no purpose for the line units.
 
Interesting contributions, thanks everybody.

I would propose that what the M4 would benefit most from are:

A slightly longer barrel - maybe 16-18"

A 77 (or so) grain round, such as Mk262 Mod 0/1

If stopping power is the problem with the M4, this would go a long way towards alleviating that issue without requiring any rework of logistics / supply lines / etc.

Barrels have to be replaced sooner or later anyways, right? And if it was still a 5.56mm round, the only difference would be feeding the factories different bullets to load into ammunition, right?

If we're ok with screwing NATO... but they might benefit from an improved 5.56 round too, right?

Incidentally I agree with the argument that, until a new weapon can substantially increase a soldier's lethality and survivability, it's a waste of money no matter how cool it may be.

But I deny that "there's no money." They get all the money we allow them to take from us. Funding a new rifle wouldn't be a problem if our congress-critters give it to them.
 
First were going to pay out the nose to bail out the over-extended banks and mortgage companys, and now we have to pay for new rifles too!?

I actually would rather just help pay for the rifles!

I've talked to several of the soldiers returning from Iraq, and have yet to hear a single bitch about the M16/M4 weapons.

All that said, the M16 is getting pretty long in the tooth. I can't help but think about the Spanish American War. The one where we sent many boys armed with Trapdoor Springfield single-shots into battle against Spaniards armed with 5 shot 7mm Mausers!
 
If the army does any side-by-side rifle testing, somebody should show up with an AK to test. I think it'd be funny.
 
Let's look at this from a different angle: economy.
Some argue that if our soldiers can get an effective CNS shot in most firefights, then the newer rounds are not needed.
But think of this: How much extra training is needed for that level of proficiency?
How much money does that training cost? How much does it cost to continue to train soldiers? The answer is "a lot".
I don't know the figures, but they are practically limitless, only depending on how long the doctrine holds true.
But all of those costs are hidden costs. Buying new equipment is a out-of-pocket cost. It hurts more.
But it saves you money to buy new equipment versus more comprehensive training.
Especially if you do something like this:
Many people agree that for a multipurpose round, the Grendel is the leader. If you must span the diverse realms of DMR, LMG and assault rifle rounds, then the Grendel will give it to you in a 57.5 OAL, which had formerly been difficult to do.
Those who know of the 6.5 MPC will laud its light weight, ease of conversion (it requires only new barrels, and , I think, followers), and performance. But it falls slightly short of the Grendel.
I worked for a long time on a round that would combine the performance of the Grendel with the ease of conversion of the MPC.
I think I succeeded.
If you neck down the 6.5 MPC to 6mm, you can throw (theoretically) a 95-grain, 6.5mm Sierra MatchKing at around 2650-2700 fps, which approaches very closely the ballistic performance of the Grendel, the 6mm bullet having only a slightly lower BC.
I would not be surprised if someone else had thought of this already, but I think it is the best solution to the performance problem, especially since most (if not all) up-and-coming designs are being designed around the 57.5mm OAL.
 
Just get a improved upper in Nolo's caliber, and presto! a new, better rifle that doesn't cost more than new barrels, and any other improvements.
 
There's no need for a new caliber. 5.56mm does its job, period.

The 5.56mm is what's expended the most in soldier's hands so you're going to get more complaints about its "inadequacy". I'd bet that if it was any other round being used in such volume, there would be a similar number of complaints.

The grass is always greener on the other side.
 
Many people agree that for a multipurpose round, the Grendel is the leader. If you must span the diverse realms of DMR, LMG and assault rifle rounds, then the Grendel will give it to you in a 57.5 OAL, which had formerly been difficult to do.
Those who know of the 6.5 MPC will laud its light weight, ease of conversion (it requires only new barrels, and , I think, followers), and performance. But it falls slightly short of the Grendel.
Click to expand...

Now my understanding of the Grendel's ballistics is that the numbers we frequently hear were achieved with 24" barrels. What our troops are actually using now however are 14.5" barrels, so I'm wondering just how great it's ballistics would be with such short barrels. Also, I think a more tapered cartridge would be a plus. The Grendel is very straightwalled which would lower the reliability of whatever rifle it is used in.
 
For most missions 5.56mm is all that is needed. Keep a few AK's or PSL's around for shooting through bricks etc and they should be fine.
 
Now my understanding of the Grendel's ballistics is that the numbers we frequently hear were achieved with 24" barrels. What our troops are actually using now however are 14.5" barrels, so I'm wondering just how great it's ballistics would be with such short barrels. Also, I think a more tapered cartridge would be a plus. The Grendel is very straightwalled which would lower the reliability of whatever rifle it is used in.
Click to expand...
A): The Grendel showed very little performance loss in short (14.5") barrels, from what I have read
B): The round I described has a case taper identical to 5.56 NATO.
C): The 24" barreled tests I've seen were the source of numbers like 2700 fps with a 123-grain SMK. The 20" barreled tests, which is the standard I use when I do my research, was on the grounds of 2630 fps.
 
For most missions 5.56mm is all that is needed. Keep a few AK's or PSL's around for shooting through bricks etc and they should be fine.
Click to expand...

Thats true, but what happens when we finally (ever it seems like) move outta iraq, will the army allow our soldiers to keep um? That would be awsome if they did....:evil:
 
So I suppose I don't see the need for a single caliber across the entire spectrum of issue firearms... to me, .308 seems like a perfectly suitable round for medium machineguns (M240) and true "sniper" rifles (M40, M24), serving the need for long-range, accurate and lethal firepower.

Now noone can debate the accuracy of 5.56mm out of an M16 / M4 - for every Marine to be able to make hits out to 500 yards with their service rifle is, certainly, more than suitable for an en masse fighting force. I think the issue with 5.56mm is that, past perhaps 200m from a 20" M16 and maybe 50-75m from a 14.5" M4, M855 doesn't fragment and isn't sufficiently lethal.

So it seems to me that sticking with the current offering of .308 for special purpose roles is sufficient, and all we need to do is up the lethality of 5.56mm to make it a more reliable stopper...

Which brings me again to SLIGHTLY longer barrels (16-18") and a Mk262 Mod 0/1 generally issued round... If we could extend the lethal range of already sufficiently accurate weapons out to , say, 200-300m from a carbine, wouldn't that fulfill the needs of current US forces WITHOUT requiring a completely new carbine / caliber / etc.?

I know I'm repeating myself but I don't think I've heard any response to this proposal per se.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that sounds like a pretty good solution to the lethality problem, and really only sacrifices 3.5" of barrel length...

Sounds good to me, right? :confused:
 
ACR, anyone?
Seriously, the ACR has pretty much everything I'd look for in a standard weapon system for today. It is entirely ambidextrous, it has the capability to diversify calibers, quick change barrel... The gun is built to grow. And it's built by people who know what they're doing.
Click to expand...
Bushmaster? ;)

Seriously, I love the ACR- on paper. It has yet to prove itself in any sort of real-world setting. Oh, sure, the prototypes were apparently running fine, and that's promising. But what matters is what the guns rolling off the line do, in an actual combat environment. The only way to know that is for them to roll some off of their line (still...waiting!), get them in the field, and see what they do.

Step one in that process is to get some off the line.

Seen any? Me neither.

Mike
 
bushmaster said they were going to get um out in january or sometime early next year, when i e-mailed them. lets start a thread about them then...

Home made torture tests.:evil:
 
Coronach, I agree the Masada/ACR is, for all intents and purposes right now, vaporware.
However... Having gone through that exact same design process myself and coming up with nearly the exact same rifle speaks to the soundness of the design to me.
How will it perform in battle? I do not know. But, seeing as how Magpul, unlike some companies, actually care about what the end operator thinks of his equipment and listens, I am encouraged that they won't let their rifle suffer from the pitfalls of production.
I await eagerly the chance to buy one (two?) and push it as hard as it can go.
 
MK-262 gives up hard cover penetration for accuracy. There are a couple of very promising loads in use a field right now, but are REALY expensive for a general purpose round.

Besides the NEW 5.56mm green ammo MAY solve the problems with the current load/loads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Colt's M4 contract expired. Army acquires rights to M4.
2 3
Replies
63
Views
5K
Daniel Watters
D
rbernie
  • Locked
Army Times: Carbine Competition in FY09?
Replies
7
Views
404
Frog48
F
B
  • Locked
Army Times: M4 to be tested against other rifles including XM8
Replies
3
Views
712
Kaylee
K
T
  • Locked
Army takes HK416s from special unit
Replies
9
Views
578
Coronach
C
N9NWO
  • Locked
Are you ready for the Army to replace the M4 with the NGSW (6.8mm)?
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top