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
* Flash animation: Comparing carbines
* Video: The H&K 416 Carbine in action

[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.

[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...

[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]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

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".

[armynurseboy]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.