Will the next major change for the Military be caliber and not rifle design?

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

A lot of people are thinking about what major change the US Military will choose regarding their battle rifle since the current M16 is nearly 50 years old. Even the great Colt 1911 (M11911) was eventually replaced by the Beretta M9 after nearly 70 years. (Which I think was a mistake, the 1911 is far superior design then the M9.)


The M16 replaced the M14 but a striking difference is the M16's ability to be customized and accessorized. Two other great weapons that have stood the test of time have been able to do so because of their ability to be customized and accessorized, these are the Colt 1911 and the Ruger 10/22. Although you can add a new stock, and other parts to the M14, it really can't be altered to the extent that these other weapons can.



So, rather then change the M16 platform that has proven so effective, do you think the next major change for the military battle rifle will simply be a change in caliber, rather then an entirely different rifle?



Perhaps change to a more effective caliber such as one of the great 6.5's (Creedmor, SPC, Grendel)? (The US Military Spec Ops have already used the M16 in 7.62 with great success although in small numbers.)



Ironically, two weapons that have stood the test of time and are not very customizable are the AK47 and the M2 Browning .50 cal.

.

 

[Javelin]

I would imagine that if they could the Army would adopt the 300 Blackout.

 

[nortexeric]

I think a slight change in the platform may occur, but overall its going to remain the same m16/m4 we know today. There honestly isn't anything wrong with the m16 (I carried a m4 in the various sandboxes of the world, never had a problem) A caliber change wouldn't be bad, but I really don't think the 5.56 NATO round is that horrible. Its more of a problem of FMJ vs hollow points than anything else. Also, something to look at is that whatever caliber chosen would have to be suitable for all NATO countries. Now, obviously a caliber swap of every AR-15 type rifle in the US military inventory wouldn't be that difficult, but other countries have 5.56 caliber rifles that are not easily converted.

With all that said, I can see something a bit more radical happening, caseless ammunition, for example. Or I can see just a overhaul of the current rifles or something similar, but would rather not go too far into that discussion.

-Eric

 

[USAF_Vet]

And the M-16 was replaced with the M16A1, then the M16A2, then the M4, and the M4A1... etc

The parent weapon proved to be adaptive enough that we now have a modular weapon system capable of adapting to many calibers (5.56Nato, 7.62x39, 9mm, 6.8SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .50 Beowulf just to name a few) based on mission needs.

Being a vet of Iraq, I consider the rifle to be adequate and modular enough to meet the requirements of specialty missions. SPECOPS notwithstanding, since they get to pick and choose their weapons from a variety of choices not available to the common GI, I think the M-16 parent platform will serve well into the 21st century.

 

[RyanAnchors]

Never happen.
All the NATO countries and other allies we have mostly use 9mm and 5.56.
Unless we change everyone's mind, we won't be changing caliber.

One of the main reasons they went to 9mm from .45 was because of NATO and sharing ammo.

 

[Evil Monkey]

All the NATO countries and other allies we have mostly use 9mm and 5.56.
Unless we change everyone's mind, we won't be changing caliber

That's not a strong argument. Many nato countries produce munitions for their weaponry that may not have the same pressure, material, etc, and may not work correctly in another country's weapon systems.

The next major change will be a system and caliber change over together. But it won't be happening for a long, long time. It's just not worth it at the moment.

 

[Ro1911]

What about the M14 ERB

I would think that this is very customized


If you want to know what the army is seriously considering look at what spec ops is using and likes the reason we have the m16 is because the green berets that were advisors in Vietnam that tested it liked it.

Of course they were humping it on larps through the jungles of Vietnam so what's not to love about a 6 lb rifle

 

[BCRider]

For a change to occur there would need to be a major shakeup in how the planners view a soldier's role on the battlefield.

Look at the thinking that lead to the current AR/M16 style and ammo. Have the thought process that caused the shift from the M14 and 7.62x51 ammo to the current 5.56 options changed at all? I doubt it. There seems to still be the idea that more ammo carried and shots fired is a better option than less ammo and careful limited expenditure of the supply.

This is not to suggest that the troops are trained to "spray and pray". Instead I think it emphasises the shift towards being self sufficient with their personally carried supply moreso than at times in the past. And being less encumbered by the weight of ammo and weapon system that they are more effective at moving around with a slower build up of fatigue.

I also think you'll find that no major shift in the delivery system, AKA the rifle itself, will occur until some major change in the cartridge takes place. And even then the current platform is going to be highly adaptable to any change other than to a shift to a heavier and more powerful round. A larger and heavier round would be best served by a design that has features to soak up and/or redirect recoil energy to maintain sight alignment. Something that the current M16 lacks. But for cartridges that are around the same energy as the 5.56 the M16 platform is highly adaptable given it's modular design.

Like most of us I have not been on a battle field so a lot of this is "arm chair quarterbacking". For those of us that have served in theatres it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on how they felt they might be served by a major shift in current cartridge use and the delivery systems that go with them.

 

[Hangingrock]

If one has noticed the convulsions occurring in Washington DC concerning deficit debt reduction and revenues a new general issue service rifle isn’t going to happen soon.

 

[R.W.Dale]

With operations in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down, the USAF and navy looking to lay off thousands of officers and enlisted men, and budgets tighter than ever with a rush to developed a more and more sophicated unmanned war fighting ability do you really expect the pentagon to put much effort onto replacing a perfectly serviceable battle proven weapons system that works as well as any in the world.

The m16 and it's descendants are not unlike the English "brown Bess" in that they'll likely be in service for over a century before it's all said and done.

Being in the hobby we hate to admit as much but the gunpowder powered projectile weapon Is a perfected technology and has been now for the best part of half a century. When you really think about it aside from materials and optics advances we don't have anything today that we didn't have in the 50's

Mark my words the m4/16 is the last "rifle" the us will issue. You'll not see a change till someone somewhere perfects either the handheld rail gun or a directed energy weapon and we move to adopt that.


Tapatalk post via IPhone.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The current solicitation for Improved Carbine designs allows the use of alternate calibers to 5.56mm but is biased against it. Submissions in a caliber presently supported by the military ammunition system can use .mil issue ammo, but any other caliber means the vendor has to provide about a quarter million rounds of ammunition, in addition to their weapons, for testing and evaluation. That added cost isn't going to encourage anyone to go with a 6.8 Rem SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 300 Blackout or whatever other option. So even if we get a new rifle out of the program, it's likely it will be in 5.56mm.

 

[nortexeric]

What I find interesting is the the AR platform is so modular, why get something new? I mean, look at the aftermarket stuff for it, the military would never be able to allow that level of personalization. Granted, a certain level of that is bad, but nonetheless you can buy the grips you want, the rail mounted stuff you want, your own optics if needed (this is all pending that the parts you provide is up to military standards, and you may be required to have a memo saying you can have those parts installed). Before I left for Iraq, the group I was with, the average guy spent a couple hundred dollars on their own stuff to put on. Like I said, any changes will be small changes.

-Eric

 

[BrocLuno]

I don't see a change in my lifetime - and I'm not sure I see a reason to change?

 

[BADUNAME37]

I also agree, I see no change needed in my lifetime. Any change could be the result of computerization and digitally signing each bullet as it leaves the muzzle to behave in such-and-such a way just at the time of reaching the intended target, i.e., explode the projectile five feet in front of the target or five feet behind the target for the most damage.

 

[CapnMac]

It's a debate which is endless, and probably endemic.
Probably went on with the .45-70/.30-40/6mmLee debates, too.

On the cartridge side, there's an appeal for a round in the 6-7 x 20-30mm sort of size.
A 6.9x32 would be a sort of .280kurtz, and would be an interesting direction to go in.

Except that, that direction would be already well-traveled in other calibers and weapon systems.

Bend that a bit and say, well, what about a "grown up" P90, in say, 6.7x23?

What might change the paradigm would be in a fully 'telescoped' round, with, say, a flush fit sabot. Changing the way we handle and feed the case gives some engineering latitude in how the weapon is designed. The question them becomes, "Is that enough reason to develop a completely re-engineered system?"

The design side of me is always invigorated by the "discovery" part of that. The End User side of me knows what it is like to have to hump the un-planned or under-planned parts of systems technologies around.

 

[JustinJ]

Going to one of the 6.5 type rounds may necessitate a new rifle due to increased wear and tear. Plus it is still early to say if such calibers result in an overall reduce liability in the AR platform, DI or Piston. Do these rounds result in an even greater amount of burnt carbon to be introduced into the receiver of a DI gun or do they cause the internals to get even hotter than 5.56? If so will it affect reliability in a combat situation?

I'm guessing here but i would assume that common calibers between all NATO countries was wanted because if the cold war went hot we would be supplying to almost all of our allies. Ecspecially if things weren't going well and our allies were losing ground in Europe so production capacity was shrinking. Since that paridigm has shifted we may start seeing more diversity in caliber selection of NATO militataries but if it will happen slow if at all.

 

[C-grunt]

I dont think we will see a switch until the caseless/telescoping cartridges are perfected. The M16/M4 series is a good rifle and I dont see them spending the money on a replacement.

With the adoption of the USMC Mk318 and the US Army M855A1, the standard 5.56 has become more leathal and more accurate. A standard issue M4/M16 is accurate enough with these rounds to deliver hits on a man sized target out to at least 500 meters.

Improved long range leathality given by a new bigger round is pretty moot as most Soldiers and Marines are unable to hit the enemy at those ranges. Not saying they cant shoot that far, but the enemy doesnt exactly just stand around in a firefight.

 

[ssyoumans]

I think this explains it all.. hahahahha. The Colt Modular Battle rifle. Interesting read for sure.

http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exc...s-forces-sof-and-general-infantry-forces-gif/

" The Colt CM901 Modular Carbine is a select-fire AR (AR-10/AR-15)-platform weapon, so it will immediately look, feel, handle, and shoot in a way that’s immediately familiar to all military end-users, including general infantry personnel."

"2) The CM901 multi-caliber battle carbine can be configured in any/every caliber between 7.62×51mm NATO (7.62mm NATO)/.308 Win. and 5.56×45mm NATO (5.56mm NATO)/.223 Rem., including 6.8 SPC (6.8×43mm SPC) and 6.5 Grendel, depending on what U.S. military end-users require. To switch from 7.62mm to 5.56mm, just push out the two receiver pins, take the 7.62×51mm upper module off, slap the 5.56mm upper module on, push the two receiver pins back in, and you’re good to go."

Note: This can take 7.62x51 NATO and 5.56.

"3) The CM901 universal lower receiver will accept any/all legacy MILSPEC 5.56mm NATO AR rifle/carbine/SBR upper receivers already in the U.S. military inventory, including the, Colt M4/M4A1 Carbine 14.5″ AR carbine , M4 Commando 11.5″ AR SBR, MK18/CQBR (Close Quarters Battle Receiver) 10.3″ AR SBR, and M16A3/A4 20″ DGI rifle uppers. The CM901 lower will also accept the Colt LE6940 16″ monolithic upper and Colt LE6920 16″ M4/M4A1 Carbine-type uppers. Thus, 5.56mm barrel length is determined by whatever AR upper you want to use."

 

[RyanAnchors]

Dude everyone always talks about 5.56 being weak.

I saw a gunshot wound picture of a guy's thigh who got hit with 5.56....it shattered his femur and shredded all the soft tissue in his thigh, causing it to blow out the back and balloon to a sac of dangling meat pieces bigger than a large softball.
It was gross. The guy was lucky to keep the leg. That was from ONE direct hit with 5.56....a doctor posted it on his blog because he operated on the guy.

 

[goon]

I agree that anything that replaces either the M-16/M-4 family or the 5.56mm round will not come soon. The money isn't there right now. If anything happens with caliber, we might see more widespread use of more long range capable rifles intermixed with the general issue M-4's. You don't need everyone to carry a 7.62. It's actually not going to be as effective that way - you want your not-so-good shooters to be able to fire more rounds. Issue the more powerful rifle to the guys with the skill and discipline to use it most effectively. And it's cheaper to acquire one more powerful rifle per squad than it is to rearm the entire US military with a new rifle.

 

[gun&knifecountry]

I believe the next round for the military will be a 6mm to 6.5 mm caseless or or telescoping caseless round. I think that the 5.56 will be the military's last brassed case round. There has been a lot of work in this area from military. From reports and a few things I have read on the current squad automatic rifle program things are progressing rapidly on this front. Supposed big Army thinking is the 5.56 will get us through to the next technology leap. That said I think it will be in 10-20 years. Please remember that the stealth plane technologies started in the 70's. We are probably 50 yrs off for rifle in the 40 watt plasma range.

 

[AethelstanAegen]

I know there has been some experimentation in using plastic cased ammunition to cut down on weapon weight. This goes hand and hand with some of the developments in creating a new light machine gun.

http://www.military.com/news/articl...on-have-lighter-machine-gun.html?ESRC=army.nl

 

[TenMillimaster]

My vote's on caseless ammunition, with a necessary? system change. The Army's LSAT program is already working on this. Of course it almost happened with the G11 way back when before germany reunited... but oh well.
"no" recoil bursts (another idea from the G11) have been adopted already (AN-94 Abakan), but not many eyebrows raised.
The south koreans have already adopted an airburst grenade launcher/carbine (unlike the xm-29 project) but it looks like they've already run into problems. http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/03/07/2011030701384.html

 

[Evil Monkey]

My vote's on caseless ammunition

never going to happen. Too many problems with caseless technology.
-heat dissipation/cook-off issues
-ammo durability in harsh conditions
-propelant manufacturing costs
-complex and expensive operating systems


The caseless version of the LSAT lmg program has already been put aside and the focus in on the plastic cased telescopic system.

 

[Tirod]

Wowsers, so much populist myth and misinformation.

The 1911 was dumped for the curio and relic it was. Even Browning saw the handwriting on the wall and was developing double action, double stack combat pistols at the time of his passing - which became the Browning Hipower. That has become the minimum standard worldwide. Single action single stack guns are really cool CCW pieces, but not main battle or duty rated.

The LSAT has the best potential of becoming that new "caliber." Battalion level exercises are planned, SOCOM is signed up as a partner, and there are already more than a few guns in existence. With the Improved Carbine trials notably holding out for a "significant" improvement over the M4, having 40% less weight in ammo means carrying 40% more and having a 40% improvement in hit ratio. That's firepower, and NOTHING else even comes close. You don't suddenly start dropping 4 more combatants per magazine with some gizmo ambi control or heat seeking scope. It still takes human hand eye coordination, and having more ammo to fire will get more hits.

Lethality of those rounds is going to come at the expense of ballistic coefficient. To get higher lethality, it takes more diameter - not necessarily aerodynamics. Penetration is accomplished by power - you can shove an ice pick through a ballistic vest, but it doesn't necessarily have incapacitating shock to stop a human responding. To transmit power, it takes mass, and larger diameter bullets transmit more power than smaller ones.

The 6.5 and under class aren't known for that, in a battlefield with average striking distances LESS than 500m, you DON'T need high balliistic coefficient. This is where geek riflemen shooting computer programs completely miss the target - it's not the purity of superior numbers that gets projected from a barrel, it's massive energy striking live targets and disrupting blood flow and the nervous system. End results trump pretty numbers, casualties inside the 500m maximum are superior to bragging about intellectual concepts.

What so many completely miss is that the M16 gets 3200 fps from it's 20" barrel, and that's simply another way to express power. When you cut the barrel down to 16", then delivered power drops, one way to bring it up is to increase the diameter. That's already been accomplished with one cartridge, but the real benefit is only incremental compared to a 40% increase with LSAT.

Some claim the costs are "too high to achieve." Well, Dupont didn't break even on Kevlar for decades, it was a sinkhole project that ate cubic yards of profit. Nonetheless, we enjoy the benefits. LSAT ammo is far less costly - in terms of development. What is costly is the industry changeover.

Two short cases in point 1) the introduction of the M16, in which Ordnance is on paper as having dragged it's heels due to it's typical conservatism. Don't forget, these were the descendants of the same mindset that refused Lincoln when requested to test the new lever action repeating rifle. 2) Industry foot dragging - I was running halogen Cibie headlights in the 80's, when DOT flatly refused there use. They were Euro legal for years, but Sylvania and others were the main members of DOT's Headlight Advisory Board. We didn't get halogens until THEY had plants capable of supplying new car makers with all they needed.

When Remington, et al, are assured of a standard consistent supply, we will have LSAT rifles. THEN Lake City and others will know where to order the equipment and the time table to put it on line.

It's NOT the development of the actual LSAT round that's a problem, it's MAKING 100 million a year. THOSE machines need development, and the dynamics of producing them are the risk, not the actual ballistics or use.

NOTHING WILL HAPPEN UNTIL INDUSTRY IS CONFIDENT THERE IS LITTLE RISK. They want enough time to comfortably get a consistent product online with little change or hassle.

When the Army produces a specification for LSAT ammo, the handwriting is on the wall. There may be debate, and change, but the existence of written guidelines will be as significant as survey stakes in a farm field. The interstate is coming.