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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Accuracy isn't the only thing Mk262 has over M855 - it apparently fragments at considerably lower velocities (proportionally to its lower muzzle velocity), meaning longer fragmentation (i.e. lethal) ranges.

That's why I advocate it - M855 seems plenty accurate for general issue use. Just not lethal enough... and my understanding is that even M855 is an abyssimal penetrator for really "hard" cover, anyways - .308 is much better for that, or so I understand.
 
I agree that worrying about 5.56 under penetration, when you've got .308's handy is kinda a moot point. I don't think any 5.56 round will penetrate was well as a comparable .308. From what I've been readig the Mk262 sounds like the end result of the long process of going from a really light bullet that's unstable to a really heavy bullet that still fragments. About time :)

-Jenrick
 
That's why I advocate it - M855 seems plenty accurate for general issue use. Just not lethal enough...
Click to expand...

Actually, the number of complaints about lethality and fight-termination tend to get smaller and smaller the closer one moves towards combat arms and SOF units and the further one moves away from the internet. (And bear in mind that most SOF units still rely primarily on green tip for their 5.56mm weapons systems.)

On the other hand, the closer one gets to shooter units, the more likely you are to hear complaints about the accuracy of green tip, which is pretty erratic across lot numbers but which seems to be a 3 MOA or so round for the most part. Mk 262 tends to print groups about half that size out of a standard M4.

Combine the one with the other, and the contention from a lot of been-there-done-that combat solders that "poor lethality" is really about "poor accuracy" in most cases seems more and more likely. Unfortunately, a bigger round with fewer rounds in the gun will not effectively address that issue at all (much as I like 6.8 Rem SPC and think we should have adopted the British 280 round 50 years ago . . .). Better training (which of course costs $$$) or improvements in optics or other kit to increase odds of hitting the target at all would seem to be the more helpful approach.
 
the SCAR is a good idea, reliable, 7.62mm, it comes in a cqc model for room clearing, a sniper model for dm, and why not bring back 1911s
 
We WOULD have the money if we'd just cancel production and operation of the practically useless F-22 and B-2 fleets...
Click to expand...
In an urban counterinsurgency role, you're right, they aren't particularly useful. But they are not nearly as useless as an XM-8 or SCAR would be in an air-superiority or strategic-bombing role. :scrutiny:

The fact that we aren't fighting any wars right now that require an air superiority fighter, or strategic bomber, or quiet submarine, doesn't mean we won't need a few of them badly some time in the next 40 or 50 years (we learned that lesson in WW2, at great cost). And we are buying relatively few F-22's and what, 16 B-2's?

The F-15 and F-16 were much cheaper than the F-22 and F-35 because (1) a dollar was worth far more when they were designed, and (2) the development costs were amortized over a far larger number of aircraft.
 
And around and around we go! Wheeeeeee!

We WOULD have the money if we'd just cancel production and operation of the practically useless F-22 and B-2 fleets...
Click to expand...

Or, just stop getting into wars in which we have zero national security interest.

Or, stop giving money to fat cat millionaire execs of Bear Stearns, AIG, FNMA, FHLMC, etc. We privatize the profits and socialize the losses.

Or, stop subsidizing huge farming corporations and oil companies (corporate welfare),

Or, generally stop spending money like drunken sailors while running a deficit as our Prez and Congress do,

Or, stop prosecuting the war on some drugs,

Or, stop building bridges to nowhere,

Or, .... but I digress.

If there ever IS a major change to the primary grunt rifle, may as well make a sea change and switch to the superior 6.5 grendel. If there is NOT a sea change, then at least give the boys enough barrel length for radical deformation/fragmentation at all distances - add about 4" to the standard M4 (or more). I don't think you're gonna get better than the XCR - except maybe the ACR/Masada..
 
PremiumSauces and everybody:
That post was intended to illustrate the massive waste that is rampant in military spending.
Not that SPECIFICALLY those programs are overcosted, bloated, but as a representative group.
It looked a lot like I was picking on the Air Force. I am not, those were just the first that came to mind (though, probably the Avenger should have been...).
 
If they really do pick the one that comes out on top (with no political influences swaying the decision one way or the other) I wonder which one will come out on top.

It would also be interesting to see what specific hurdles they'll throw up for the competitors.
 
Combine the one with the other, and the contention from a lot of been-there-done-that combat solders that "poor lethality" is really about "poor accuracy" in most cases seems more and more likely. Unfortunately, a bigger round with fewer rounds in the gun will not effectively address that issue at all (much as I like 6.8 Rem SPC and think we should have adopted the British 280 round 50 years ago . . .). Better training (which of course costs $$$) or improvements in optics or other kit to increase odds of hitting the target at all would seem to be the more helpful approach.
Click to expand...

I've seen it argued that all the multi-shot, flechettes, caseless 2000 RPM burst and other assorted sci-fi concepts from the ACR program were essentially rendered obsolete by the availability and fairly low price of modern electro-optical sighting systems.

I think those approaches still have merit, but I've got to agree that the Steyr ACR, shooting plastic-cased flechettes at 4000 FPS did look a little silly with that 1x optical scope and shotgun style rib for aiming. If the weak link in your system is the target acquisition system a new gun is only going to help so much.
 
I've seen it argued that all the multi-shot, flechettes, caseless 2000 RPM burst and other assorted sci-fi concepts from the ACR program were essentially rendered obsolete by the availability and fairly low price of modern electro-optical sighting systems.
Click to expand...

Non-Sense.

If you can put an optic on one rifle, you can do it to another.

So which would be the obsolete rifle in this case? A G11 or M4 carbine both with the SAME optical sight?

An optical sight magnifies performance. If it is already known that the G11 gains a better hit percentage than the M4, what changes when both rifles are equipped with the same optic? NOTHING, the G11 will always be better. I'm not making a case for the G11 rather I am trying to explain if a rifle is so unorthodox in its mission to increase hits/accuracy and does a better job than what's standard at the moment, optics only magnify performance.

Basically, it only gets better.
 
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...
Click to expand...
The original plan was to have them out in 1st quarter 08. Then second quarter 08. Now it's first quarter 09. My point is not that they're missing timetables (though they are), because these things happen when you move from producing something yourself to selling the design to someone else. My point is that a great design does not translate into a great product 100% of the time, and we have not seen one single production gun. Saying the military should go with the Masada/ACR at this point is nothing but pure optimistic speculation.

Mike
 
well as soon as i get one, i will try my very best to beat the crap outta it. i don't have the sandbox to play with it in, but i will do my best.
 
Ok, so seeing how the economy is right now, I think that we should NOT field a brand new weapon system for the main forces. SF are fine, but what about equipping the main bulk of our military with upgrades. We could just swap out uppers on our rifles. We have already invested in magazines, accessories and parts for ARs. A new upper wouldn't change things much in terms of supply. We could still keep our lowers and just as easily change the magazines for them but utilize the Mk. 262 .77 grain round. It is proven to be killer, just read some stories about Special Forces and SEALS using them. Thats my 2 cents.
 
I vote for the Robinson Arms XCR in 6.8SPC.


I really, really want one, with a TA11 ACOG on it :)

Kinda like this:

Odin-XCR-Bipod-RS.gif
 
The XCR looks something like my MK14 SEI Mod 1 except the optic is a greater distance above the bore on the XCR.

MK14SEI-mod1-reduced.jpg
 
That's a very... "tan" picture... (the XCR)

But looking at that stock, that upper receiver and those Troy sights... It looks like it would be impossible to get a good cheek weld for just the iron sights, much less the ACOG... right? :confused:

I once designed my "ideal" rifle based on what I thought looked cool.

Then I tried to get good at shooting it.

Lots has changed since then.

;)
 
Refit a semi auto only M14 with an adjustable synthetic stock, 14 inch barrel, foregrip, and an optics rail (with a combination red dot/ACOG), chamber it in 6.8mm and shazam - new battle rifle.
 
Everyone talks about how great this new SCAR-H is. Tell me one thing the SCAR-H can do that a Mk 14 can't.
 
An optical sight magnifies performance. If it is already known that the G11 gains a better hit percentage than the M4, what changes when both rifles are equipped with the same optic? NOTHING, the G11 will always be better. I'm not making a case for the G11 rather I am trying to explain if a rifle is so unorthodox in its mission to increase hits/accuracy and does a better job than what's standard at the moment, optics only magnify performance.

Basically, it only gets better.
Click to expand...

But for the ridiculously complex breech design of the G11, and low wound potential of the steyr ACR's flechettes, that makes perfect sense. If all the whiz-bang fundamental changes to the ammunition and reloading mechanism were mature enough to deploy, by all means put an ACOG on them. Until that time, however, the recent advances in optics have largely obviated the need for any fundamental advance in small arms design and thus and mucking about with finicky, expensive, technology demonstrators.
 
Refit a semi auto only M14 with an adjustable synthetic stock, 14 inch barrel, foregrip, and an optics rail (with a combination red dot/ACOG), chamber it in 6.8mm and shazam - new battle rifle.
Click to expand...

WHY the heck would you do that? Why are you turning an M14 into a 6.8 M4? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Look, an M14 comes in .308. Don't change that...don't try to fix what definitely is NOT broke.

You can get a 16" barreled M1A. Other than that, you don't need one shorter.
 
Resurrect the United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 as the premier battle rifle system of the War on Terror!:neener:
 
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
710
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