Army considers options in replacing the M4

[CommunityEditor]

Gun makers from across the country will display their top carbines for Army officials in Washington, D.C. Thursday with the hope of replacing the service’s M4 carbine.

So far, 19 small arms companies have signed up to participate in the Army-sponsored industry day at the Doubletree Hotel in Crystal City, said Col. Doug Tamilio, Program Executive Office Soldier’s project manager for Soldier Weapons.

The event is the result of a “request for information” the Army put out in August to assess what the U.S. small arms industry is capable of producing.

This is the first step toward a carbine competition the Army intends to open next year after Colt Defense LLC, the company that makes the M4, turns over the weapon’s technical data rights in June 2009. When that happens, the Army will have the opportunity to make major improvements to the M4 or buy a new carbine.

Secretary of the Army Pete Geren is scheduled to speak at the opening of the event, which “is designed to enable industry to showcase what is achievable in terms of carbine technology to ultimately allow the Army to develop a higher fidelity carbine to meet future soldier validated requirements,” Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie said in written statement.

The M4 is the Army’s primary individual weapon. For more than a year, it has been the subject of increased scrutiny by lawmakers on Capitol Hill concerned about whether soldiers have the best available weapon.


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/11/army_carbine_day_111108w/

[SFCJTGRIMES]

And here we go once again...
How many times, and how much money is going to be spent to show that there are better weapons out there than the M4? I am not a huge fan of it, I have carried it in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is adequate but it is not the best or my first choice of weapons. I just get sick and tired of the Army doing this over and over and wasting millions of dollars that could have been used on a better weapons system for us. They run these "events" and "tests" and the M4 under performs most of the other weapons systems. And then the excuses come flying from all over the place. ANd the numbers game starts on how the soldiers love the M4 and how from polls conducted of soldiers returning from combat favor the M4...blah blah... well just let me say...just like all those political polls NO ONE has ever asked me. I have had just cleaned M4 jam so bad in afirefight that I could not clear it, dropped it and picked up a dirty, nasty AK that worked like a champ. Hmmm... So, Army...get off the duff, we all know the capabilities of these weapons, just look to our Special Ops they know weapons inside and out, they are the EXPERTS. There is no need for 5 years of testing (and millions of dollars) to not pick a better one than the M4!

[Bruce]

I didn't see any foreign weapons in the competition. Which foreign carbines should be considered, if any?

[weazlefuzion]

I didn't see any foreign weapons in the competition. Which foreign carbines should be considered, if any?

Isn't the DoD required to use all-American equipment and uniforms? Even if there is a better foreign weapon out there, I think the morale and political backlash would be horrible. "Look, the stupid Americans can't even make their own guns!" Obviously an exaggeration, but you get the picture. I say stick to "Made In USA" for our weaponry.

[CommunityEditor]

The Army took its first formal look at the latest weapons from gun makers hoping for the chance to unseat the M4 carbine as the service’s primary soldier weapon.

Nineteen small-arms companies, including M4 maker Colt Defense LLC, hauled their top carbines to a Washington-area hotel to attend the Nov. 13 industry day designed to help Army weapons officials assess what the U.S. small-arms industry is capable of producing.

This represents a significant course reversal for the Army. Until recently, senior officials have maintained that the M4 is a “world-class weapon” and saw no reason to consider anything new.

The Army-sponsored event attracted other large firms such as FNH USA, Sig Sauer Inc., Heckler & Koch and Colt Defense LLC. But several small companies like New Bremen, Ohio-based Precision Reflex Inc. and Troy Industries from West Springfield, Mass., also showed up to display their weapons crafting prowess.

There were M4 look-alikes available in multiple barrel lengths. There were also several futuristic weapons with names that used “advanced” and “adaptive” to describe their potential. Many companies offered weapons in larger calibers than the M4’s 5.56mm, such as 6.8mm and 7.62mm NATO.

“Today is an important step in an effort to ensure that our soldiers always have the best,” Secretary of the Army Pete Geren said in his opening remarks.

While Geren described the M4 as a “battle-proven weapon,” he has directed Training and Doctrine Command to update the Army’s carbine requirement, using a “comprehensive analysis” of the technology presented at the industry day.

“The U.S. Army is committed to ensuring that we have the right capabilities and the right weapons and equipment for our soldiers,” he said.

The Army-sponsored event is the result of a “request for information” the service put out in August.

This is the first step toward a carbine competition the Army intends to open next year after Colt Defense LLC, the company that makes the M4, turns over the weapon’s technical data rights in June 2009. When that happens, the Army will have the opportunity to make major improvements to the M4 or buy a new carbine.

Army officials hope to have the carbine requirement completed by the end of the calendar year and approved by next summer, said Col. Doug Tamilio, Program Executive Office Soldier’s project manager for Soldier Weapons.

Provided that the new carbine requirement is approved, the Army will issue a formal request for proposal for a new carbine to gun makers late next year, Tamilio said.

If the Army decides to put up the money for a new weapon, weapons officials estimate they could begin fielding a new carbine to soldiers by 2012, Tamilio said.

“We want to do it correctly,” he said. “We just don’t know yet; it could be a variation of the M4 that wins. It could be that we just end up replacing the upper receivers. There are many potential outcomes for this and a new carbine is just one outcome.”

To date, the Army has invested $462 million into the M4, buying 473,000, Army officials said. The service has fielded 365,000 so far. The remaining 108,000 will be fielded over the next two years, officials said.

The Army began buying M4s in the mid-1990s as a replacement for the full-size M16, a weapon that has been in service since the mid-1960s. Its collapsible stock and shortened barrel make it ideal for soldiers operating in vehicles and tight quarters associated with urban combat.

For more than a year, the M4 has been the subject of increased scrutiny by lawmakers on Capitol Hill concerned about whether soldiers have the best available weapon.

In late November of last year, the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against other carbines. The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the other three competitors: the Heckler & Koch XM8; FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR; and the H&K 416.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform the dust test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July 2007. Coburn took up the issue after a Feb. 26, 2007, Army Times report on moves by elite Army Special Forces units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable.

U.S. Special Operations Command decided to move away from the M4 in November 2004 when the command awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its SCAR to replace its weapons M4s and older M16s.

Colt officials declined to be interviewed by Army Times at the event. The company had more than a dozen weapons on display, including an “advanced” line with both direct gas system and piston-driven gas systems.

Each company was given equal space to display their weapons at the event. Congressional aides and reporters were given a strict 60-minute window in the morning to talk to gun makers and handle weapons before being asked to leave. The rest of the day was consumed with participants making 30-minute presentations to Army officials as well as representatives from the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.

Many companies have been preparing for this opportunity for years.

Smith & Wesson, a company founded 156 years ago, made a dramatic shift three years ago with its decision to go after the military market, said Joe Bergeron, a defense product manager for the company.

“Over the past three years, we have invested more than $50 million in facilities,” he said, describing Smith & Wesson’s three manufacturing sites in the United States.

“We saw a need for the rifle,” he said. The company has developed a line of M4-style weapons that feature a gas port that’s positioned mid-length along the barrel. This midlength system helps reduce some of the port pressure, “allowing the gun to run a little cooler and cleaner,” he said.

Bushmaster/Remington officials were showing off their Adaptive Combat Rifle.

The weapon features a gas piston operating system, tool-less quick change barrels and a multi-adjustable folding stock. It was created and first unveiled as the Masada in 2007 by Magpul Industries of Boulder, Colo. Magpul is best known for inventing a molded-plastic magazine attachment that helps combat troops perform speedy magazine changes.

Since then, Magpul signed a deal with the larger Bushmaster to produce and market it as the ACR.

LWRC International LLC displayed several of its piston gas system carbines that are available in multiple calibers.

The company’s M6A2PSD is chambered for 6.8mm and features an eight-inch barrel.

“That eight-inch barrel, 6.8mm — in that tight little package — is delivering more velocity and a bigger bullet than a 14.5-inch M4 is,” said Dave Hall, LWRC consultant with a special operations background.

FNH USA displayed both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm versions of its SCAR as well as a conversion kit to adapt the weapon to 6.8mm.

“It’s an open architecture design; if they want a different bell or whistle, we can put it on or take it off,” said Gabe Bailey of FNH USA. “If they don’t want a feature like a selector level; if they don’t want the butt stock to fold we have a non-folding stock.”

The company hopes to start delivering low-rate initial production SCARs to Special Operations Command by January, Bailey said. In addition to SCAR, FNH USA makes the Army’s M2 and M240 machine guns and the M249 squad automatic weapon.

Some gun company representatives said they were skeptical about this latest effort given the Army’s track record.

From 2002 to 2005, the service developed the XM8 as a replacement for the conventional Army’s M16 family. The $33 million program led to infighting in the service’s weapons community and eventually died after failing to win approval at the Defense Department level.

The XM8 was a spinoff of an older Army program called Objective Individual Combat Weapon.

Started in 1994, the OICW program featured the XM29, which combined a 5.56mm carbine with a 20mm airburst weapon to maximize ground soldier firepower. But after a decade, development had stalled in the face of technical challenges that made the weapon too heavy and bulky.

Together the XM29 and the XM8 ended up costing the Army $100 million.

Still, participants of the industry day said they were pleased the Army took this step.

“I think this is a wonderful opportunity for the soldiers; it will give a whole industry a chance to give some input into updating the” M4, said David Dunlap, president of Precision Reflex Inc. “The weapon is a good weapon, but it does need updating.”

But there was also an undercurrent of skepticism by many small-company officials who wondered if the Army’s process would treat them fairly and not favor larger small-arms companies the service has dealt with in the past, said several individuals who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution.

When asked about this concern, PEO soldier commander Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller said “it’s better to be fair like this through the whole process. We are going to have another industry day; we have the big guys, but we want to see more small guys because small guys can come up with these great new and innovative ways to deal with things.”


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/11/army_carbineday_112308w/
Compare the carbines: http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/photo/replacing_the_m4/

[Bruce]

Isn't the DoD required to use all-American equipment and uniforms? Even if there is a better foreign weapon out there, I think the morale and political backlash would be horrible. "Look, the stupid Americans can't even make their own guns!" Obviously an exaggeration, but you get the picture. I say stick to "Made In USA" for our weaponry.

The problem is easily worked around by the foreign manufacturer. As proposed in the new Air Force tanker contract, the foreign company fines an American partner, establishes a new American corporation, finds a US manufacturing site, and licenses it the foreign design.

[TJMAC77SP]

The M9 Pistol contract award stipulated that production of the weapon must transition from Italian to US production after two years. Beretta simply built a factory in the U.S. and made M9’s here.

[Bruce]

Thanks. So back to my question: What foreign made carbines should the Army consider to replace the M4?

[MRMIXITUP]

Soldiers should be permitted to bring their own carbines to war with them.

My carbine is much better than anything the Army issues, fires the same ammo, too.

[weazlefuzion]

Soldiers should be permitted to bring their own carbines to war with them.

My carbine is much better than anything the Army issues, fires the same ammo, too.

And when you get killed because your personally-owned rifle jams, your family gets no benefits.

[MRMIXITUP]

And when you get killed because your personally-owned rifle jams, your family gets no benefits.

My personally owned weapon is an H&K 416 carbine. Piston powered; which is far more reliable, lower maintenence and higher quality than the 40 year-old gas powered technology in the Colt we carry today.

We won't get a new rifle for at least 20 years. Hell, my unit still has M16A1 rifles. Here we are talking about XM8s, and my unit still has A1 rifles! We didn't deploy with them, thankfully. We were given beat to hell M16A2s instead. They look like they had been dropped no fewer than 100 times and had been run over by a truck.

[fenway]

the m-4 and m-16 are good weapons, especially with modern scopes

I think a higher caliber would help but maybe just putting a few higher caliber would help in a platoon.

[USMC_8156]

the m-4 and m-16 are good weapons, especially with modern scopes


You're right, they are good weapons. There are just far, far, far, far, far better ones.

[MRMIXITUP]

You're right, they are good weapons. There are just far, far, far, far, far better ones.

And of course, cheaper better ones. Then again, they're cheaper because they don't charge the extra for the government kickbacks.

[Lord of War]

the m-4 and m-16 are good weapons, especially with modern scopes

I think a higher caliber would help but maybe just putting a few higher caliber would help in a platoon.

Just get rid of that 3 round burst bull**** and go back to full auto than yes they will be good.


You're right, they are good weapons. There are just far, far, far, far, far better ones.

They would not be so bad if they had full auto instead of 3 round burst. Why doesn't the Army talk about getting rid of the 3 round burst? It was a stupid idea from the start and it needs to go away. Any weapon in full auto sounds good right now.

[OIFCOMBATVETNYC]

go with H and K. case closed.

[MitchellJD1969]

Well the army times has been telling us we are getting new rifles since Ive been back in. I now kinda have doubts when the times reports we are getting new weapons systems.

[Lord of War]

Well the army times has been telling us we are getting new rifles since Ive been back in. I now kinda have doubts when the times reports we are getting new weapons systems.

They get reports from the Pentagon time and time again about these "studies" about replacement weapons but someone at the Pentagon is getting too many blow jobs from Colt to keep buying M4s and they do these fake B.S. polls about how all the troops love the M4 but if they were given the choice they take the SCAR or H&K 416. Its called politics with some fatass who has never fired a gun in his life thinks he knows more about the military than the solders who actually do the fighting. If you see this shit all the time you will want to start drinking.

[MRMIXITUP]

They get reports from the Pentagon time and time again about these "studies" about replacement weapons but someone at the Pentagon is getting too many blow jobs from Colt to keep buying M4s and they do these fake B.S. polls about how all the troops love the M4 but if they were given the choice they take the SCAR or H&K 416. Its called politics with some fatass who has never fired a gun in his life thinks he knows more about the military than the solders who actually do the fighting. If you see this shit all the time you will want to start drinking.

Although highly partisan, your rant is pretty much correct.

[Lord of War]

Although highly partisan, your rant is pretty much correct.

Yes it is.

[fenway]

basically, it comes down to someone somewhere who does not have a colt plant in his district.

are their better weapons, probably ...but their have been for years.

[MRMIXITUP]

It's going to be at least another 15 years before all units have compact carbines. If ever.

[RECONMG4]

SFC Grimes,

I appreciate your input, though I feel you may be stretching the truth. I carried the M4 in Iraq with the 10th Mountain and used it in contact with the enemy many times. I never experienced a stoppage with the weapon. The M4 works best with as little lubrication as possible and a daily cleaning with a shave brush. As far as your story of "grabbing an AK47 in the middle of a firefight", sounds like a story you might here from a clerk in line for pizza on the FOB. Your user name implies that you are a Senior NCO. I find it hard to be believe that during a firefight you would have a AK47 just lying around. Stories such as yours lead to other myths such as "toss weapons" and such and believe it or not many carreers are ruined over FOB myths. Lastly, every Johnny SOCOM wannabe that talks about replacing the M4 does not consider the expense of such an action with current budget issues. Long term we may have a replacement, in the meantime you should be conducting PMIs for your men to educate them on the weapon that they carry. It may not seem so glamorous for a war story, but it will keep your men alive and in the fight.
Recon PSG

[tvalks]

There is no weapon currenlty being tested that offers any significant advantage over the M4/A4. They all offer roughly the same reliability and same size. The piston/gas debate is complete crap they are both equaly reliable, one just takes a little longer to clean and one has more parts to break, it is mainly just people wanting to look cool by having a different weapon. Of course people would want to carry the SCAR or 416 but not becasue they offer any specific advantage, becasue people want to look different and appear to be SOF even when they are just average Soilders/Marines. The main problem with the M4/A4 system is the magazines, this is an easy and cheap fix.

The bigger debate should be how do we get ALL the Soilders/Marines a smaller package with the same preformance(M4) vice the A4/A2/A1.

Also why not a bullpup?

[longshots]

While it may not seem like it, The Army is finally on the right track with the "Next Carbine" effort as it is being called at present. While there are many things that could derail the effort many important differences are in place this time around. 1. There is a formal requirements document (CDD) being finialized and staffed within the DA. This has not happened before and was not done for the failed XM8 program. 2. After more than a year of stating publically the current carbine is well loved by the troops and meets the current specs (and it does!) the Army now officially has stated that they will look to industry for incrementally superior carbines/technology versus waiting for the so-called R&D "leap ahead" technology to come on line after 2012. 3. The current carbine contract expires in summer 2009 and thus if the Army wishes to buy more carbines after that time they will need a new contract mechanism (or would need to recompete the current specs which they will own after 14 years). The Army currently has ordered all of the M4's it is authorized to purchase - 473K. 4 & 5. The Media (4) has been keeping the carbine issue visible to all to include Congress (5) who have been pushing for a new carbine competition including some of the modern "op rod" carbines that have been developed and/or fielded with good results, such as the HK416, SCAR L and the XM8 over the bast 5 years. 5. Senior level Army/DoD officials are involved and have now pushed for a new carbine and 5.56mm PDW spec to be developed by the USAIC and TRADOC which is happening now. Most notably is the direct personal inviolvement of the current Secretary of the Army Pete Geren which speaks volumes about his strong interest in the subject and doing the right thing for the war fighters. 6. Real user representation is involved in developing the spec and they have the ear of the SEC Army as well. They are making sure the spec is actionable in the end that that all available modern capabilities are included and considered and the BS is removed - and it is.

This combination of these 6 key ingredients to "pursuade" the US Army Small Arms "system" to look to industry for a new individual rifle/carbine has not come together for a very long time - since the 1920's in fact when the Army looked to industry for a replacement for the bolt-action M1903 rifle which lead to the eventual fielding of the M1 Garand. We did not do this when we fielded the M14, the AR-16/M16 or the M4. So this ongoing effort is historic in many ways. We must take pause however that this is the fisrt time in the history of this country that we have "pure fleeted" a carbine length weapon in our front line units. While this is convenient for transport and carry the 5.5" shorter barrel of the carbine versus the rifle reduces maximum effective range, accuracy, penetration, muzzle velocity and energy and thus terminal effects on protected and unprotected targets - all things you do not want to give up especially as we transition our forces to the more mountainous battlefields of Afghanistan. A truely "user-modular" (without special tools or any tools) familiy of weapons available with quick change barrels, stocks and sights, and calibers, would allow the unit to configure the weapons as they transition from one role or area of operation to another. Add a rifle length barrel and magnified optic and sniper-type buttstock for long range fighting, a short CQB length barrel and medium caliber parts and retractable stock for urban or vehicle use where you would want maximum effects on target from short barreled weapons, or a heavy fluted barrel for use in the Automatic Rifle role like the USMC is planning for CY09/10 - all user changes made to one common receiver. There are systems out there already that offer this level of user flexability - such as the SCAR L, Magpul ACR and the HK XM8 or HK416 with the available QCB option added. I am sure if we ask for it industry can provide it - the technoliogy already exists and has been proven in testing and if we set a maximum per unit cost - say NTE that of the current carbine (@ $1200-1300) industry will respond.

There were 19 vendors at the Next Carbine Industry/Technology Day. Not all had new carbines to show. Most were AR-15/M4 type systems and many offered options of upper receiver upgrade kit to the current M4 or M16 platform. Notable modern weapons were missing to include the XM8 and IWI Tavor pullpup. The current spec does not exclude bullpups nor does it mandate only 5.56mm rifles yet no industry participants submitted data on alternate cartridges apparently though Barrett was there with their fine M468 carbine in 6.8x43mm Rem. SPC caliber. The final spec and the release of a RFP later in CY09 will determine the actual participation of industry and one would hope that we see an all encompassing mixture of systems and calibers for consideration - and hopefully the high water mark of a user configurable modular family of weapons as described above. We must do this right this time and look at the entire range of options which could mean easily more than 25 systems to be submitted for consideration which could take a full year to test completely.

So as I said to start, there are many things that could sideline this effort. Just a change in the administration or SEC Army or, or, or.... However all reading this should be encouraged that this effort is happening. Now what needs to happen next is that we apply the same process and look at the rest of the weapons in the "Big 8" from the M9 to the MK19 and see what is superior out there as COTS from industry because there are incrementally superior weapons in each category that are in use by select US SOF units and foreign governments, all that are cost comparable with the current US legacy systems that comprise the Big 8 and would/do outperform the legacy weapons which on average are now 35 years old.

How do we know if we are giving the very best to our troops (and the tax payers) if we do not evaluate what is available, combat proven with other US users and then offer it to all US military units? We are already spending the money. Why not spend it on the very best verus just what meets current (and aged - some decades old) specs. This model is/will work in the war fighters favors for the Next Carbine and PDW. It's time we change policy and apply this concept to all US small arms and on a regualr basis (every few years, not every few decades!).

[Shrink]

SFC Grimes,

I appreciate your input, though I feel you may be stretching the truth. I carried the M4 in Iraq with the 10th Mountain and used it in contact with the enemy many times. I never experienced a stoppage with the weapon. The M4 works best with as little lubrication as possible and a daily cleaning with a shave brush. As far as your story of "grabbing an AK47 in the middle of a firefight", sounds like a story you might here from a clerk in line for pizza on the FOB. Your user name implies that you are a Senior NCO. I find it hard to be believe that during a firefight you would have a AK47 just lying around. Stories such as yours lead to other myths such as "toss weapons" and such and believe it or not many carreers are ruined over FOB myths. Lastly, every Johnny SOCOM wannabe that talks about replacing the M4 does not consider the expense of such an action with current budget issues. Long term we may have a replacement, in the meantime you should be conducting PMIs for your men to educate them on the weapon that they carry. It may not seem so glamorous for a war story, but it will keep your men alive and in the fight.
Recon PSG

As much as I can agree with you, there is just as much to disagree with. I agree that the M4 is a very effective weapon and is reliable. However, I have used an AK-47 several times in a firefight. It was not so much that my M4 malfunctioned but more so that the AK carries a bigger punch. I have had my M4 jam several times and in some of the worst situations. I have seen a fellow brother get shot because of his gun jamming and not being able to suppress his quadrant, however this is not to say that there is a non-problematic gun out there. But I like many others are tired of the goverment spending money on shit for the military that we will never see. And as far as units still using the old M16-A1's and A2's, it happens I was in Tikrit North AF when we ran into a troop that had just recently came over from the states that were carrying beat up and damaged M16-A2's and A1's. That is not to say that they weren't replaced at a later time but its the fact that these reports come out that the Military is looking into a "New" weapon and we still have units and troops in the states that don't even have the M4 yet.. Seriously our government needs help.. BAD..

my brothers call me the Shrink.. SSG US ARMY

[RECONMG4]

my brothers call me the Shrink.. SSG US ARMY[/QUOTE]


Hooah Shrink!

[infantry_weasel]

I didn't see any foreign weapons in the competition. Which foreign carbines should be considered, if any?


I believe delta uses the H&K 416. The 416 is essentially an M4 with a gas piston pusher rod system, and a several upgrades to the M4, like an improved and more durable barrel.

Heckler and Koch I believe also offered a $600 (not 100% sure of the exact cost) mod kit for the M4 that is an amiable compromise for all parties. The gas piston, push rod system adresses many of the main concerns of the M4. See the below links...

http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/newcarbine/

http://www.militarytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/

[DKELSMITH]

I am for using the best possible "American Made" weaponry available. The M4 is a reliable weapon if you are in an environment where you can clean it on a daily basis. If you launch from a FOB into a patrols space and RP every day or several times a day there is no problem. If you are operating in a COP where there are no amenities you could have problems depending on the weather, dust and etc...

I agree that all of these tests and surveys cost a lot of money. Let's just get the best possible american made carbine into the hands of our Soldiers as soon as possible.

[Rika]

I think this is a good idea because the military probably will not be able to keep the carbine for much longer, eventually they will have to switch to a better gun that will have a better rate of fire, better firing range, and is easier to use. I personally think that the best guns are the TDI Kriss SuperV submachine gun, and the Denel PAW-20Neopup grenade luancher. Aaaaahhhhhh, heaven. ^_^

[fenway]

right weapon for right job,

I think this is more about changing administration and someone hoping the gun gets built in his district and not the opposition party's district

[Shrink]

http://world.guns.ru/assault/beretta_arx160-16-gl-optr.jpg

Baretta ARX160-16

I like this weapon, it is basicaly set up like the M4 but with a higher rate of fire. A sealed interior so less outside elements contaminate the weapon. It is also made by Baretta and not Colt so you know its built better lol.

Shrink

[JDK86]

I think this is a good idea because the military probably will not be able to keep the carbine for much longer, eventually they will have to switch to a better gun that will have a better rate of fire, better firing range, and is easier to use. I personally think that the best guns are the TDI Kriss SuperV submachine gun, and the Denel PAW-20Neopup grenade luancher. Aaaaahhhhhh, heaven. ^_^

The military must replace the M4, but not with a .45cal weapon.

[AMADEUS]

...It is also made by Baretta and not Colt so you know its built better lol.

Colt makes the 1911 while Beretta makes the M9... Do you really wanna talk about which of those weapons is better!?

Colt has some very quality products and the M4 is one of these yet it has run its course. Alot of people are in love with the H&K 416 mainly cuz of its piston system. I agree that it is the one thing that really sets it apart from the M4. Recently however Colt has introduced its own piston system which is basically the same thing. I think in all likelihood the next generation of battle rifles will still be Colt but with their new piston system.

But to answer the original question... Personally I'd like to see LWRC M6A2 in a 6.8 caliber become the new battle rifle. But I won't hold my breathe.

[jonnygunsuk]

Hi Guys,
I've been reading your thread with interest, and have been keeping tabs on this subject for years.
I'm not American, I'm British, English to be exact. As you are probably aware, the British are using the SA80A2 weapon in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sure your troops who have had the opportunity to see or test it will agree that it is a pile of mass produced junk. However, it is compact and accurate. Our special forces, like your own, get to choose slightly more exotic weapons in there quest for reliability, stopping power etc.
The SA80 has been problematic from it's introduction and amazingly cannot be fired right-handed. This was as a result of government cost cutting in the 1980's, when they cancelled the LH version. As a consequence, the rifle has had a virtually non existant overseas sales history and rightly so!
We are desparately in need of a replacement and my preferred weapon of choice would be the FN F2000.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/weapons_fireams/fnf2000top.jpg

The one thing I find interesting in this whole thing is the emergance of the 6.8mm SPC round. I would agree that the limitations of the 5.56mm round are finally coming to light once and for all. It's time for a change. The F2000's modular design is similar to the XM8 to an extent, and the rangefinding optical sight with 40mm UGL is superb. See this demo:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nd-dFpgxE4M&feature=PlayList&p=FF94C2B531ACDF81&playnext=1&index=16

As you know, the U.S military already use several FN weapon systems, The GPMG and Minimi. Let me know what you think.

Regards
Jonny

[USMC_8156]

That thing looks like we should be fighting the Borg with it.

[AMADEUS]

We are desparately in need of a replacement and my preferred weapon of choice would be the FN F2000.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/photos/weapons_fireams/fnf2000top.jpg



No!!! I think I can universaly say for everyone here that the last thing we want if we're going to replace the Colt M4 is another gas operated bolt system chambered for 5.56.

Beyond that I personally do not want a bullpup design... They are rear-end heavy and awkward to change magazines.

[wellman]

now im not in the military (hell im not even old enough to be in the military) but i whould like to give my 2 cents on the problem at hand. the whole problem with the reliability issue and the lack of power that our rifles have it because the army has a fixation about light weapons. ever since the introduction of the m16a1 the weapons that we have been giveing you are loyal troops have been quite light and not to powerful compaired to other rifles at the time. so far the army has put much effort into makeing are armed forces highly moble with and in turn the weapons we have made have had more moveing parts in a smaller area that will be more prone to jaming. the olny reason the ak-47 is realible is because it has biger parts that arnt so clumped togather and if olny the army whould just make a weapon that was bigger and haveing bigger working parts that wont jam so easy.

but for now theres not much hope for the army to produce a new rifle with such things that whould really make a difference.im not to sure about what the rules are about what weapons you bring over but i have heard nice things about this sig550 and the sig552. i hope this might. (even though im sure u already know all the things i just said :( )

[Seasons]

Thanks. So back to my question: What foreign made carbines should the Army consider to replace the M4?

IMI Tavor I believe would be a justifiable test piece. However, the comments about bullpups is a very valid one. While they often increase accuracy, they can be very awkward to reload rapidly. The increased accuracy can also be obtained in various other manners.


the m-4 and m-16 are good weapons, especially with modern scopes

I think a higher caliber would help but maybe just putting a few higher caliber would help in a platoon.

Stopping power versus accuracy is the game you're playing. While the 5.56 is proven to be more accurate, the 7.62 causes more damage and a larger wound cavity. The 6.8 that is being tested by various rifle manufacturers is an attempt to gain a middle ground previously unseen.