The best carbine: Delta Force gets it, but you don’t

[CommunityEditor]

“We are not saying the [M4 and M16 are] bad,” said former Army vice chief of staff retired Gen. Jack Keane. “The issue for me is do our soldiers have the best rifle in their hands.”

Delta Force worked with a gun maker to come up with a better weapon. The 416 is now considered in many circles to be the best carbine in the world, but unless you're Delta Force, you won't get one.

It's cool, we know, and you probably want one. But do you think you need one?

Also --

* Read about the H&K 416 (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/)
* Flash animation: Comparing carbines (http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/)
* Video: The H&K 416 Carbine in action (http://www.armytimes.com/projects/video/daily/0219carbine/)

[johngiersdorf]

The underlying punchline to the piece was that it would be too expensive to outfit everybody with the new rifles.

What I fail to understand is why you would have to buy an entirely different rifle. The lower receiver of the HK416 Carbine is a carbon copy of the Colt rifle - why buy those when you already have a zillion of them in stock? Any number of companies - Colt - Armalite, Knights Armory, DPMS Panther, Bushmaster, Beowulf - can manufacture upper receivers from standard to match grade. Adding a piston with a spring to the upper receiver is a pretty minor upgrade.

It looks to me like somebody is too lazy to do the research and get some cost estimates.

[Blakjak572]

I don't know what the bellyaching is about not having enough money to outfit the troops. we've already spent billions of dollars on research and development on the latest and greatest high tech weapons such as the Commnache, the Crusader, OICW and the 80 lbs land warrior outfit.....oh wait those projects got scraped after someone on the line realized they wouldn't work. It's all about legacy ladies and gentlemen. Which Brass is going to have their name permanantly attached to "the next big thing". It's also about egos and contracts. That's why you wear body armor composed of a single ceramic plate that can withstand one maybe two direct hits from 7.62 before becoming completely useless as opposed to the proven DragonSkin Armor. As a side note, I saw a kick ass documentary on the Discovery Channel on Dragon Skin. They detonated a grenade underneath and it still maintained its properties. Try that with the Point Blank system and you'll be spitting out ceramic dust.

[detainee_guest]

While it is an expense, I do believe the military does need to look at getting a better individual weapon. M16 is fine, but really dated. I was never a big fan of the HK M-8 as the sights were, in my opinion, too fragile and one dimensional. 416 looks to be a more complete weapons system and if we can just get uppers for it as previously described, it'd be a good investment. I find that the biggest problem facing the m16 family isn't the weapon itself, but the CLP. I still can't believe that the military uses a lube to clean a weapon! Need a dry lube also to replace the goop that we currently use.

[detainee_guest]

Not to over simplify, but because black rifles are evil and the ATF makes it difficult to import or even manufacture much in the way of semi auto rifles. I do hope in time we can get the upper and whatever conversion kit needed to fit this to my Bushmaster lower.

:banana:

[drclem2]

The answer on this one is complex and would easily be a docteral thesis.

I'm retired now so I don't get to vote, that said:

1. Working every day with a Infantry Division currently opperating in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am hearing no complaints with the M-4, except the units that still have M-16A2's want M-4's.
2. I also hear no real complaints with 5.56mm. Further all of the published reports and user data I have seen show the verdicte is that 5.56mm is doing the job for 90% of the requirements.
3. CLP works. It isn't meant to make your rifles sparklie, it is mean't to lube your weapon. Also consider that a couple of the "Miricle Lubes" out there are carcinogens.....

Given that starting point, what do you buy? Many will tell you we need a new caliber, others say a new weapon, or a new lube or all three of the above. The 416 is only one of many solutions. Army Times if you want to make this a real discussion, why don't you look at the other systems that are availible and invite them to your Shoot Out at Blackwater, or the May NDIA Small Arms symposium in May.

Vendors? Try the IMI Tavor, MagPul Masada, Robinson Armament XCR, FN SCAR, FN 2000, Truvelo Raptor, SAR21, Vector CR-21 (not in production), ect...

:cheers:

[Neanderthal]

Dang - anyone know where I can get one? I'd like to have the best weapon on earth too - just in case of emergency!

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

But do you think you need one.There is always a bit of "saw off" when it comes to military weapons. The "Ross Rifle" (shudder) was one of the "finest firearms" ever issued to any country's military. Unfortunately it had a tendency to jam is someone said the word "Mud" within 200".

I recently watched a short video clip of one of the NATO forces in Afghanistan conducting an assault against a Taliban position (please note NOT "suspected Taliban position"). The troops were using personal weapons that were the equivalent of the M-16 but were capable of fully automatic fire, but were firing in the accepted "double tap" manner and the "SAW" was firing bursts that averaged around five rounds.

In other words, the troops were using their weapons as they had been taught to use them and not simply "burning mags" and their weapons appeared to be doing a more than adequate job of enabling them to "close with and destroy the enemy".

So, if the troops from one of America's allies can use weapons that are the equivalent of the M-16 (in fact based on it) to do the same job that the US military is asked to do, I don't think that "the problem" can be blamed on "the weapon".
:cheers:

[armynurseboy]

The underlying punchline to the piece was that it would be too expensive to outfit everybody with the new rifles.

What I fail to understand is why you would have to buy an entirely different rifle. The lower receiver of the HK416 Carbine is a carbon copy of the Colt rifle - why buy those when you already have a zillion of them in stock? Any number of companies - Colt - Armalite, Knights Armory, DPMS Panther, Bushmaster, Beowulf - can manufacture upper receivers from standard to match grade. Adding a piston with a spring to the upper receiver is a pretty minor upgrade.

It looks to me like somebody is too lazy to do the research and get some cost estimates.

Exactly. That is costs too much is a lame excuse. The beauty of the M16 series is that it is very easy and inexpensive to upgrade. But then again, a reliable rifle is no where near as sexy as a Stryker or a F-35, even though it will see more actual combat use then either.

[Unregistered]

It isn't a question of do you need one versus do you want one. The M4 and it's predessor models have always been steeped in controversy all the way back to Vietnam. Everyone knows this. If there is a better weapon for our troops what could be a valid argument to not purchasing and fielding as many as possible. Money, please we waste more money in a year let alone spend per day in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a rounding error at the end of the day to buy 200,000 to 400,000 of these rifles. What is it going to cost per rifle $600 maybe $1,000. So that is $60 million to $100 million per every 100K rifles. Buy them, field them.

[invisibledecoy]

i would highly doubt that purchasing this weapon is a problem, the problem is who's buying the people who pull the strings vacations, and new automobiles as "gifts"

i would not be suprised that no matter who puts in what for the quality and price, that the Colt's short stroke piston design shall win any future contract

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

i would highly doubt that purchasing this weapon is a problem, the problem is who's buying the people who pull the strings vacations, and new automobiles as "gifts"Oh come on now, surely you don't expect anyone to believe that the purchasing/acquisition processes for the US military are anything but completely open, honest, impartial, and above board do you?

Why if anyone were to believe that then they'd almost be forced to believe that there are Americans who are charged with procuring the best possible equipment for the troops who, rather than doing that, are abusing their positions of trust and acting from base personal financial motives (or possibly base personal electoral motives).

And everyone knows that that isn't the case - right?

[MeckieMesser]

Hi

In my army time in german Bundeswehr, we used G36. On a exercise about 3 weeks, I never had cleaned my rifle. Why? After fireing some hundred rounds (officers used my my weapon, too. To lazy to clean their own after shooting^^) I saw no dirt. I put some oil in the barrel after every shooting training. Clean. The same technology uses the HK416.
And in my opinion: When a HK416 is more reliable, parts can used longer time and the costs are not much higher. Why not. The good thing is, that HK uses the M4 design, so soldiers know how to handle the new rifle.

A G36E cost about 1000 Dollars with 1,5 Scope (not best scope, but we fire 400m with this scope, and its accurate enough). Without scope and in the K-variant (G36K), the price is about 800 Dollars. For a single order!
So a mass order could reduce the price a lot. With a EoTech (about 400 $) its a extreme good system.
Ok. Only a example. But G36 and HK416 are a good to compare.

I think the HK 416 is not more expensive then a G36, because gas system is not very different.

A big surprise is the the comment of Colts CEO. We do what army wants? Every modern weapon company offers new weapons when they see a possible replacement in a army around the world. So I wonder that Colt have no real answer to the ending M4 contract in 2008.

Greetings from Germany

[Unregistered]

It is criminal to send warriors into battle with the M16/M4 when there is a superior weapon available for virtually the same cost.

[Unregistered Norwegian]

I have a weapon dated 10/71. It is an HK AG 3 and it has never failed me. Its heavy and bulky and has too much penetrating power for urban combat but I don't see any point in changing weapons because it is such a reliable system.

My point being, if a weapon is reliable in adverse weather conditions... keep it.
And if it is not reliable, don't trust it.

[Unregistered]

When I see a military spokesman or Brass say that they can't replace a flawed weapon ( which the M16 and M4 have always been ) because of the MONEY it makes me wanna puke. We spend more on our military in America than anyone. Possibly ever. Even if switching systems cost 500 million, guess what? Thats just a few Air Force Fighters . 3 or 4 less F22s off the line and maybe several hundred Soldiers and Marines come home who wouldn't have and several thousand of the enemy never breathe again. Somebody nees to go to jail for this.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

When I see a military spokesman or Brass say that they can't replace a flawed weapon ( which the M16 and M4 have always been ) because of the MONEY it makes me wanna puke. We spend more on our military in America than anyone. Possibly ever. Even if switching systems cost 500 million, guess what? Thats just a few Air Force Fighters . 3 or 4 less F22s off the line and maybe several hundred Soldiers and Marines come home who wouldn't have and several thousand of the enemy never breathe again. Somebody nees to go to jail for this.Hey, come on now, be nice. I mean, how "glamourous" can you look in a "shooting suit" - even if you do stuff the front of it with socks?

And, after all, you don't get the same reactions from the crowds by running through them with your rilfe over your head screaming "ZZZZOOOOOooooooommmmmmm" as you do by flighing an aircraft over their heads. (It's those types of reactions that show very favourably come time to divvy up the budget pie.)

[sambandsmann]

YES I DO!!

I will not interfere in US internal affairs. (I am a Norwegian National Guard Soldier.) Whether your troopers should have the new HK416 instead of the M4 is really non of my business.

I just want to tell you of my joy!! The Norwegian Armed Forces are finaly replacing the aging HK G3, 7.62x51 NATO, with the HK416! About time as well. They have spent 11 years contemplating which weapon they would choose, and finaly went for the best.

Being a part of a high priority unit, I will recive my new HK416 by the end of this year! (Or so they say...)

VERNER - VOKTER - VIRKER
(Protects - guards - acts)

[Hornet fighter]

Buying new M4's is crazy. The Army is spending $300 mil to do this - 100 this year, 100 in FY08. and 100 in Fy09.

Coincidentally, the Colt contract expires after FY09. I wonder what the rush is?

Write your Senator, and tell him that the Army needs to rapidly compete this contract for 400,000 rifles instead giving it away to Colt for a 20 year old weapon.

[Unregistered]

Either way, the cost of both carbines is comparable. They would not have to outfit "a million soldiers" with the 416 instantly (like THAT would happen in the Army anyway). The cost of the 416 is so comparable to the M4 that they could simply buy 100,000 416's instead of the 100,000 M4's they have decided to buy. Then each time they purchase 100,000 or so carbines, they could just buy 416's instead of M4s. Then you leave the choice up the the soldier. "Sgt, Here is some data on the HK416 and the Colt M4. Read the information, then fire both weapons and report back to me. Very good. Now, which weapon would you like to take into combat with you? Roger that. Have a nice day there Sarge!"
It's a VERY simple solution. K.I.S.S.


The underlying punchline to the piece was that it would be too expensive to outfit everybody with the new rifles.

What I fail to understand is why you would have to buy an entirely different rifle. The lower receiver of the HK416 Carbine is a carbon copy of the Colt rifle - why buy those when you already have a zillion of them in stock? Any number of companies - Colt - Armalite, Knights Armory, DPMS Panther, Bushmaster, Beowulf - can manufacture upper receivers from standard to match grade. Adding a piston with a spring to the upper receiver is a pretty minor upgrade.

It looks to me like somebody is too lazy to do the research and get some cost estimates.

[Unregistered]

Hooah! .


While it is an expense, I do believe the military does need to look at getting a better individual weapon. M16 is fine, but really dated. I was never a big fan of the HK M-8 as the sights were, in my opinion, too fragile and one dimensional. 416 looks to be a more complete weapons system and if we can just get uppers for it as previously described, it'd be a good investment. I find that the biggest problem facing the m16 family isn't the weapon itself, but the CLP. I still can't believe that the military uses a lube to clean a weapon! Need a dry lube also to replace the goop that we currently use.

[Unregistered]

Personally, if I had to choose between the M4 and the HK416, I would choose the 416 (if you are gonna give me an M4, keep the Colt and give me a Benelli M4 Super 90). This is based on quite a bit of research I've done, as well as personal experience with the M16 family of weapons.
Now, If you let me have MY choice of weapons that are available, I'd take the TAV-21...HANDS DOWN! Give me a TAV-21, a Baby Eagle .45, a couple of Cold Steel Master Hunters, a Cold Steel 17" Khukri, a Benelli M4 Super 90 12 guage, and Dragon Skin. Then let me learn Kali with Tuhon Chris Sayoc (www.sayoc.com), and send me to battle!



The answer on this one is complex and would easily be a docteral thesis.

I'm retired now so I don't get to vote, that said:

1. Working every day with a Infantry Division currently opperating in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am hearing no complaints with the M-4, except the units that still have M-16A2's want M-4's.
2. I also hear no real complaints with 5.56mm. Further all of the published reports and user data I have seen show the verdicte is that 5.56mm is doing the job for 90% of the requirements.
3. CLP works. It isn't meant to make your rifles sparklie, it is mean't to lube your weapon. Also consider that a couple of the "Miricle Lubes" out there are carcinogens.....

Given that starting point, what do you buy? Many will tell you we need a new caliber, others say a new weapon, or a new lube or all three of the above. The 416 is only one of many solutions. Army Times if you want to make this a real discussion, why don't you look at the other systems that are availible and invite them to your Shoot Out at Blackwater, or the May NDIA Small Arms symposium in May.

Vendors? Try the IMI Tavor, MagPul Masada, Robinson Armament XCR, FN SCAR, FN 2000, Truvelo Raptor, SAR21, Vector CR-21 (not in production), ect...

:cheers:

[beehivetime]

let the soldiers buy it for themself if they want to pay for it( ar-15 Piston upper by Quality Part{Bushmaster}) and let all the politics of military cotract's end! were big kids and can handle the responsiblity of owning/deploying with a quality product like that example. of course that would be deemed a privately owned weapon, and we just cant have that now can we...cause "doing it wrong" will cause a portal to hell
to open up an cause demons too jump out on the free-way..sorry for the sarcasm.. the answer to this issue is plainly obvious to me..thanks for youre time

[TacticalheaD]

Well I've read some of the complaints, what I do understand is we have two weapons at almost economically equal prices, with some different features. From what I read through the article HK416's gas system is convincing enough for the Army to reconsider this matter. I think it worth it, imagine at almost same price you have a assualt rifle working double the time as Colt carbine's and with the gas system that helps soldiers worry less about jamming thing. I for one think improvements are in favor of soldiers, because they are in the field fighting, and high ranked officials usually stay away from frontlines and monitor things through tactical maps and sats, etc. I think the Army acting naively by neglecting the facts about both new XM8 and HK416.

Or maybe I'm too young and inexperienced for making any judgments.

[Myers11bTOG]

That's why you wear body armor composed of a single ceramic plate that can withstand one maybe two direct hits from 7.62 before becoming completely useless as opposed to the proven DragonSkin Armor. As a side note, I saw a kick ass documentary on the Discovery Channel on Dragon Skin. They detonated a grenade underneath and it still maintained its properties. Try that with the Point Blank system and you'll be spitting out ceramic dust.

I would just like to point out that i also saw the tests on the dragon scale armor system. and i would like to add that in order to get the same area of protection as a large point blank ceramic plate system you would have to wear a XL dragon scale vest increasing the weight you are carrying, the point blank system weighs around 25-30 lbs whereas the dragon scale armor weighs over 50 lbs. thats an extra 20 lbs on top of the roughly 120 lbs of gear that the average soldier wears on a average mission. on top of that the dragon scale armor loses its integrity when exposed to extreme temperatures, the discs inside of the vest move out of position leaving gaps in the armor. I would also like to see them do a test to see how much of the force of the projectile is transfered to the body, due to the fact that the force of the projectile can still cause internal bleeding rupture organs or even stop the heart. so even if it stops the bullet it may still not save more lives.

Also I would like to add that the military is developing (last i heard they had found a way to do this) a way to make the ceramic plates in rounded and cup shapes, this would allow them to make the armor to protect a variety of areas on the body instead of just the chest and back. I would also like to add that although there is a lot of bureaucracy involved i really don't believe that our leaders would put the lives of servicemen and women in more danger just to further their own career.

On the case of the better weapon is it really necessary to outfit the entire army with a brand new weapon system just because Delta uses it. The M16 family of weapons are still extremely effective and to date there just isn't a good enough reason to warrant the spending. Especially with the budget constraints we are currently under.

Next time I would advise you to do a little research and take all the facts into account not just jump to a conclusion just because you saw something on TV. Those who have to use the equipment know it best and I'd have to say that I'd much rather stick with what I know rather than use something brand new because of rumors and promises of a better system.

[Myers11bTOG]

Sorry for the double post but i forgot to mention that CLP works great (IF YOU USE IT PROPERLY) it is meant to be used sparingly. too many times have i seen guys dumping it on until it is dripping off. The proper way to use it is to put some on a clean rag and wipe the components with it. when there is too much of the CLP on the weapon there is that much more liquid for dirt, sand ect... to attach to using it the right way cuts down on malfunctions significantly, so if people are complaining about it they either have no clue what they are talking about or are using too much of it.

[katrina]

THE HK 416 is an awesome weapon it has alot of upgrades and seems to be reliable maybe the army should take a deeper look into what HK has to say and take some test with the weapon brake it down and see for them selves if they like it atleast analyze the weapon and see whats to it

[crash78]

“We are not saying the [M4 and M16 are] bad,” said former Army vice chief of staff retired Gen. Jack Keane. “The issue for me is do our soldiers have the best rifle in their hands.”

Delta Force worked with a gun maker to come up with a better weapon. The 416 is now considered in many circles to be the best carbine in the world, but unless you're Delta Force, you won't get one.

It's cool, we know, and you probably want one. But do you think you need one?

Also --

* Read about the H&K 416 (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/)
* Flash animation: Comparing carbines (http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/)
* Video: The H&K 416 Carbine in action (http://www.armytimes.com/projects/video/daily/0219carbine/)

Truthfully, I think that it is crap time and time again the m4 and m16 have proven to be sub standard weapons. You can call them that and still the army sticks with it I have spent time in the sand box and I have cleaned and cleaned it again and again still jam and malfunction. Why is that the speacial operations command decided that the weapon sucks that is good enough for me.......so how about somebody not getting their pockets lined decided on my future and the future of my brothers....

[crash78]

I have been the army long enough to know what works and what doesn't enough said.....H&K 416 or the SCAR it is not like that the m4 / m16 are the only options

[jimoer]

every soldjer fighting in a war to enable people to be free, needs, the best weaponary available in order to stay atop the enemy at all times. PERIOD.
in the nam` when offered a thompson sub-machine.. i bought it wrapped the 16 up in plastic and when the time came.. after extending for early out.. i found the 16 had rusted.. when .. turned in the dude says wow. i said i had a dependable .45 sub that entertained the enemy quite well.. we laughed and i was on the bird.. on the way back into country.
would have loved the 416 in the nam.
curiously i'm interested in the rest of Millers story?

:quote: Miller managed to fire about eight times using this frantic sequence under enemy fire.

It was a valiant, but futile, effort. His fellow soldiers were trying to fight, but their weapons failed them as well.

Miller turned around and shot at a target behind him.

“When I turned there were about 40 Iraqis that had moved up on the road” approaching his position, he said. “At that time there was not much else I could have done.”

Miller put down his rifle and surrendered. :unquote:

so glad you made it back.. if this is you.. or thanking the narrator for telling your story.
jimoer`

[kagbalete]

the way i see it those rifles are being promoted so that somebody can get a fat military contract. it offers no cost effective advantage over the m4, we don't know how that rifle will hold out in combat. somebody out there is reinventing the wheel so that they can have a fat contract. if you want an improvement over the m4 get an akm, they may not look futuristic but it has an excellent track record in combat and it is also way cheaper. or at least stick with the m4, at least we know they work.

[Silver Fox]

As some said, with all the money dumped into helmet and weapon mounted cameras, enormous rifles with 20mm "smart grenades", stealth (seriously wtf were they thinking?) helicopters, etc.... You'd think that things like the 416 and Dragonskin body armor would be a drop in the bucket.

It seems the military's philosophy is "if there is no chance in hell this will work, let's dump billions of dollars into it just to make sure.... but if we know it works already, there's no point in buying it."

[The_Marley_Roger]

Perhaps everyone needs to let the guys on the tip of the spear pick what weapon that they want to fight with and let the grunts wrestle with big army over petty Colt contracts. Clearly the best warfighters in the world have chosen the HK416, unless you are delta, STFU about and move on.

[Silver Fox]

Or maybe the guys that make up the majority of the spearhead should get a say in what weapon they want as well?

Elitist much? You're probably not a grunt or a member of delta.

[Seasons]

Weapons systems are rapidly evolving. Currently there exists a handgun capable of firing a triple-bullet spread on a single recoil through electrical firing, meaning it may be able to fire underwater. Or a 120 barrel machine gun capable of over 100,000 rounds a minute. Or the Halo-suit, full suit of body armor developed by a man famous for making anti-bear suits, that's being privately tested against munitions, knives, and blunt force trauma.

The problem is, in many ways, a reluctance to move forward with personal arms and armor, in preference of vehicles, missiles, aircraft, and robotics. SOLDIER could slowly replace grunts. Pin-point accurate missiles and UAV's could replace the need to send troops in. Highly mobile and well armed tanks could replace troops in the open.

I did see the tests performed on DragonSkin, and they were curious. Not only about the temperature tests, but that the tests were later repeated privately and passed. And the Army refused to release the test results until forced with legal action by the armor's maker. Now the Army is soliciting bids for new body armor, from 3 companies, of which the maker of DragonSkin is not included.

On the weapon front, 5.56 is a great caliber, but the stopping power has been proven time and again to be inadequate. 6.8 is an experimental caliber used in a few new carbines that are being tested, and it has been shown to perform far better. If I recall, the biggest complaints about our current arms are the length (too long for close urban combat), caliber (stopping power on suicide bombers), and jam-proofing (sand and water). All are being fixed, but there hasn't been much of an interest from the military higher-ups, it seems.

[Silver Fox]

The problem is, in many ways, a reluctance to move forward with personal arms and armor, in preference of vehicles, missiles, aircraft, and robotics. SOLDIER could slowly replace grunts.

Never. The lack of human observation on the front lines would be devastating.



Pin-point accurate missiles and UAV's could replace the need to send troops in.

We already have those, taken a look at the death toll lately?


Highly mobile and well armed tanks could replace troops in the open.

Have those too, again, still see troops patrolling the streets.



On the weapon front, 5.56 is a great caliber, but the stopping power has been proven time and again to be inadequate.

How so?

[Seasons]

Never. The lack of human observation on the front lines would be devastating.



We already have those, taken a look at the death toll lately?


Have those too, again, still see troops patrolling the streets.



How so?

Your thinking is too narrow and locked in the now. Human observation never needs to be in the field, or won't, at the rate of advancement. Pattern recognition, 1k fps w/ high resolution...optics are advancing at a phenomenal rate, as is AI. That's what drives UAV's, is it not? A human at a computer screen?

You're also completely wrong in that we have those technologies already in use. Our current armament is fairly limited in capability. We do not yet have UAV's that can effectively dogfight or carry lots of payload, but they're in the works. We do not have tanks with the maneuverability of a small car, but we could with a little time. We can't launch a missile and guide it through alleyways or buildings onto a target (we can, instead, punch through everything till we hit the right level; but the current tech is too expensive).

As to the 5.56, range testing has shown that the impact force of the caliber is insufficient to take someone down, and the wound cavity (or damage) is not large enough to severely hamper an enemy, even if struck in the torso. A determined attacker, or suicide bomber, can carry through multiple hits, requiring extreme accuracy to be lethal enough fast enough to prevent disaster.

[Silver Fox]

Your thinking is too narrow and locked in the now. Human observation never needs to be in the field, or won't, at the rate of advancement. Pattern recognition, 1k fps w/ high resolution...optics are advancing at a phenomenal rate, as is AI. That's what drives UAV's, is it not? A human at a computer screen?

A human at a computer screen destroys predesignated targets, or gives intel to infantry on the ground.


You're also completely wrong in that we have those technologies already in use. Our current armament is fairly limited in capability. We do not yet have UAV's that can effectively dogfight or carry lots of payload, but they're in the works.

And without instant 360 look around, the advantage of human instinct (which is degraded outside of the cockpit), etc. etc.


We do not have tanks with the maneuverability of a small car, but we could with a little time. We can't launch a missile and guide it through alleyways or buildings onto a target (we can, instead, punch through everything till we hit the right level; but the current tech is too expensive).

And you'll still need humans make those calls, from the battlefield calling for support. What, you think we're gonna just fire missiles and fly them around on a limited fuel source looking for the enemy? We don't need a missile we can guide through alleyways or buildings, it's still going to destroy said building. It'll be a long time before you see anything useful from that. Until they figure out how to control a missiles speed and build it small enough to be guided through a building, the application is for limited assassination, meaning the military would never use it. Maybe the CIA Mugs. And I've seen Bradley's do power slides, don't tell me they're not manueverable. You don't need a tank that can turn on a dime. It's a useless function. I'm not being narrow minded, I just realize technology won't ultimately take men from the battlefield.


As to the 5.56, range testing has shown that the impact force of the caliber is insufficient to take someone down, and the wound cavity (or damage) is not large enough to severely hamper an enemy, even if struck in the torso. A determined attacker, or suicide bomber, can carry through multiple hits, requiring extreme accuracy to be lethal enough fast enough to prevent disaster.

That's overanalyzing. By extreme accuracy you just mean center mass and head shots, which is what you'd need with anything. Everyone bitches about 5.56mm, but it's been getting the job done since the 60's.


You put entirely too much faith in technology. They said we'd be off the battlefield twenty years ago. It didn't happen then, don't count on it in your liftime or your grandchildren's.

Robots can't conduct COIN operations. Robots can't win hearts and minds. Robots can't be programmed to be unpredictable, or take wild gambles and risks in the name of victory, robots can't make 'judgement' calls or practice discretion, a robot can't be taught to read facial expressions and look into what people are thinking in close situations, etc. etc. They'll never be human enough. And with a human at a joystick, on the ground atleast, man's ability to do said things will be degraded enough to hurt their effectiveness.

[Seasons]

A human at a computer screen destroys predesignated targets, or gives intel to infantry on the ground.

And without instant 360 look around, the advantage of human instinct (which is degraded outside of the cockpit), etc. etc.

And you'll still need humans make those calls, from the battlefield calling for support. What, you think we're gonna just fire missiles and fly them around on a limited fuel source looking for the enemy? We don't need a missile we can guide through alleyways or buildings, it's still going to destroy said building. It'll be a long time before you see anything useful from that. Until they figure out how to control a missiles speed and build it small enough to be guided through a building, the application is for limited assassination, meaning the military would never use it. Maybe the CIA Mugs. And I've seen Bradley's do power slides, don't tell me they're not manueverable. You don't need a tank that can turn on a dime. It's a useless function. I'm not being narrow minded, I just realize technology won't ultimately take men from the battlefield.

None of this requires personnel to be fielded. If it saves American lives, do you really think they won't explore it in the end? Perhaps the missiles are an extreme example, but the rest? Easy, given time. If I can make a single soldier as effective as a unit, why field a unit? Give the right sections of industry the right push and you'll have that capability in no time. Pieces of it already exist, all it takes is someone to put it together.


That's overanalyzing. By extreme accuracy you just mean center mass and head shots, which is what you'd need with anything. Everyone bitches about 5.56mm, but it's been getting the job done since the 60's.

Hardly. If you're running at me with a bomb, I'm going to shoot center of mass hoping to stop or slow you so someone else has a chance to make a line-up shot of a critical area. 5.56mm works only because we've not had to deal with suicidal assaults that could wipe out a full unit if they made it. Previously, if someone got through, it resulted in hand to hand combat. Now, its bombs away.

You want a weapon that can deter or stop an attack no matter where it solidly hits.



You put entirely too much faith in technology. They said we'd be off the battlefield twenty years ago. It didn't happen then, don't count on it in your liftime or your grandchildren's.

Robots can't conduct COIN operations. Robots can't win hearts and minds. Robots can't be programmed to be unpredictable, or take wild gambles and risks in the name of victory, robots can't make 'judgement' calls or practice discretion, a robot can't be taught to read facial expressions and look into what people are thinking in close situations, etc. etc. They'll never be human enough. And with a human at a joystick, on the ground atleast, man's ability to do said things will be degraded enough to hurt their effectiveness.

First off, I wonder how much programming you've done. But alright. I put just enough faith in technology. Twenty years ago they thought we'd have flying cars by too. But nobody looked at the physics, or where their own tech was in reality. I don't have to project far to see where capabilities are, given research in the right directions. And that's what's often the problem. There's no money in advancing tech or removing soldiers from the field. So why should they, really? Most defense contractors make their money cause we field soldiers who need to be equipped and supplied, who lose things, destroy them, and die themselves. All that need to be replaced. Self-sustaining system, why should they stop the cycle?

[Silver Fox]

None of this requires personnel to be fielded. .

Yeah, it does.




Hardly. If you're running at me with a bomb, I'm going to shoot center of mass hoping to stop or slow you so someone else has a chance to make a line-up shot of a critical area. 5.56mm works only because we've not had to deal with suicidal assaults that could wipe out a full unit if they made it. Previously, if someone got through, it resulted in hand to hand combat. Now, its bombs away.

Remember Vietnam? People think suicide bombing is new.



You want a weapon that can deter or stop an attack no matter where it solidly hits.

That running through multiple gun shots is hollywood b.s.
There's more than enough "YouTube" footage of 5.56 impacts on bodies to see that it does the job.




There's no money in advancing tech or removing soldiers from the field. So why should they, really? Most defense contractors make their money cause we field soldiers who need to be equipped and supplied, who lose things, destroy them, and die themselves. All that need to be replaced. Self-sustaining system, why should they stop the cycle?

Still... Robots can't conduct COIN operations. Robots can't win hearts and minds. Robots can't be programmed to be unpredictable, or take wild gambles and risks in the name of victory, robots can't make 'judgement' calls or practice discretion, a robot can't be taught to read facial expressions and look into what people are thinking in close situations, etc. etc. They'll never be human enough. And with a human at a joystick, on the ground atleast, man's ability to do said things will be degraded enough to hurt their effectiveness.

[Mugg21B]

Gotta love how the army will spend millions on uniforms, berets, and new dress uniforms, but when it comes to outfitting the soldier with an updated rifle for modern combat, it's too difficult to change anything. I understand don't fix what aint broke, but why do we update fighter jets constantly and not our personal weapons?

And regarding 5.56, look at Mogadishu and the issues of Somalis getting right back up after being shot, because the round went straight through them.

Just because the Army's been using it for 40 years doesn't mean you can't change it, or that the system doesn't have problems. If the best soldiers the military has are getting the best weapons, why are the regular joes being left with a weapon system that's older than they are? I thought we were supposed to be the best equipped fighting force in the world...obviously I was wrong.

[Silver Fox]

Gotta love how the army will spend millions on uniforms, berets, and new dress uniforms, but when it comes to outfitting the soldier with an updated rifle for modern combat, it's too difficult to change anything. I understand don't fix what aint broke, but why do we update fighter jets constantly and not our personal weapons?

Right now we're having problems even getting fighter jets....


And regarding 5.56, look at Mogadishu and the issues of Somalis getting right back up after being shot, because the round went straight through them.

As I recall, that was due to a specific type of ammunition, not in use anymore, and the occurences were wildly over reported.


Just because the Army's been using it for 40 years doesn't mean you can't change it, or that the system doesn't have problems. If the best soldiers the military has are getting the best weapons, why are the regular joes being left with a weapon system that's older than they are? I thought we were supposed to be the best equipped fighting force in the world...obviously I was wrong.


I agree they deserve a new weapon, we agree on this, I'm just stating the beef ain't with 5.56mm, cartridge wise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm not opposed to an improved cartridge, but I would be fine with 5.56mm. I'm not opposed to change, I just think the complaints against the 5.56mm are over exaggerated. If they went to a slightly heavier cartridge, I'd be fine with that. If they stick with 5.56 I'd be fine with that too.

[standstillplease]

One would think that the best trained, best equipped military as a whole would be issued the best carbine readily available. There could be many reasons for this. Cost to the American taxpayer, the logistics involved to refit, time constraints do to persistent conflict.

But I do have a different opinion.

William Morgan Keys the CEO of Colt would be a real great guess. As he is a retired Lt. General for the Marine Core. Can you imagine what a CEO might loose in royalties if they no longer made the carbine of choice that is handed out to the masses or regular JOE as you call it?

Coincidence? I think not.

Here's another coincidence.

General Larry Rudell Ellis (retired) just happens to be the President and CEO of DHB Industries' Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. Who just happens to make the Interceptor and the Improved Outer Tactical Vest.

It just stands to reason.

[Seasons]

One would think that the best trained, best equipped military as a whole would be issued the best carbine readily available. There could be many reasons for this. Cost to the American taxpayer, the logistics involved to refit, time constraints do to persistent conflict.

But I do have a different opinion.

William Morgan Keys the CEO of Colt would be a real great guess. As he is a retired Lt. General for the Marine Core. Can you imagine what a CEO might loose in royalties if they no longer made the carbine of choice that is handed out to the masses or regular JOE as you call it?

Coincidence? I think not.

Here's another coincidence.

General Larry Rudell Ellis (retired) just happens to be the President and CEO of DHB Industries' Point Blank Body Armor, Inc. Who just happens to make the Interceptor and the Improved Outer Tactical Vest.

It just stands to reason.

Why do think there have been so many lawsuits? Imagine what a world we'd live in if people thought with their brains instead of their wallets.