Breakingdefense.com; DoD cuts IDC(M4) program....

C

ClydeFrog

Moderator
I went over www.breakingdefense.com & saw a new(07/14/2013) article that reports the US DoD & armed forces will cut the funding & T&Es for the Individual Carbine program(M4).
The military brass claim that 86% of US combat troops are "satisfied" with the issue M4 5.56mm rifle.
Of Interest to me was the T&Es showed that several of the prototype M4s designed to upgrade the weapon system, did not work or meet their factory standards.
Brands like Colt Defense, HK, Ruger, SIG Sauer, S&W, etc.
The carbine program isn't a major push for today's armed forces who have serious budget issues in the next few FYs.
CF
 
I think I read this before. Given the budget cuts, redoing the service rifles really wasn't in the cards.

There are some studies that indicated that most of the folks who complained about 223 stopping power actually didn't hit the guy. I have it somewhere.

Of course, this is controversial - what isn't?
 
Sliced white bread....

I posted this item partly because of how the DoD & military R&D showed how poorly these "high tech" M4s seemed to have performed.
The HK416 & FNH SCAR 5.56mm were always hyped as the greatest thing ever for spec ops & military troops.
I've heard the piston type M4 5.56mm rifle isn't that well made & can have serious problems under extended combat conditions(dust, sand, mud, snow, marine environments, etc).

It also irks me when the DoD drops millions of tax $$$ on programs that in the end, go nowhere. :mad:
 
Lots of info here about the carbine non-replacement:

National Defense article

First paragraph: "The Army has officially called off its search for an M4 carbine replacement without anything to show for five years of effort other than data suggesting that its current weapons work about as well, if not better, than anything industry had to offer."

So Clyde, it does take lots of money to test and find out just how all the weapons stack up against each other.

Bart Noir
 
No, it doesn't....

I disagree.
To conduct a review of combat troops & ask how the M16A4 or M4 5.56mm works doesn't cost as much as buying & shooting 100s of rifles no one is ever going to use.

CF
 
It also irks me when the DoD drops millions of tax $$$ on programs that in the end, go nowhere.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that the they didn't really want a new weapon system and that it was congress that was really pushing for something new. Kinda like all the new Abrams that the army has explicitly stated that they didn't want.
 
Rifles/R&D...

I think it may be a mix.
Spec Ops(USSOCOM) wanted their own rifles & sidearms but, in fairness, they have a separate budget & contract/procurement system from the DoD/service branches(US Army, USAF, USMC, etc).
I also think a few general officers or SES grade civilians thought the new piston type M4s were superior to the Colt Defense 5.56mm M4.

It's somewhat of a surprise in 2013 that no defense contractor or major arms maker can create a military grade rifle that works correctly in all common areas(jungle, desert, snow/cold weather, marine).
Id think the FNH or HK(416) would do far better considering the cost & the hype. :rolleyes:
Overall, Im not a huge fan of the M4/AR15 format in general.

ClydeFrog
 
Nothing wrong with the M16/M4 systems, not with 86% of the soldiers satisfied (you'll never make 100% happy).

With that in mind, at a time when we are cutting hazard pay to the guys using the weapons, this is not the time we should be wasting money trying to fix something that isn't broke.
 
true but....

I agree but I think there is merit for a advanced caliber to be deployed for small arms; 6.8x40mm, .300 AAC Blackout, .458socom, etc.
There was a good article in the printed NRA member magazine about 2 years ago that discussed the need for marksmanship & service rifles that can work in combat ranges past 300m.
This was a common problem for troops in OEF.

The US economy should get back on track someday but not for several years.

My concern is that US lives are not wasted or the safety of US service members isn't compromised to save a few $$$.
 
the need for marksmanship & service rifles that can work in combat ranges past 300m.
Click to expand...

That problem has been addressed. They started stuffing 77 gr bullet in 5.56 cases. Works good to 7-800 yards.

As to marksmanship in the military, with that I agree, its been a problem since there has been a military, switching rifles wont fix it, training will.

I've suggested, to no avail, that every soldier attend a Small Arms Firing School as conducted at the National Matches by the AMU/CMP as part of basic training.

That will give you the most bang for the buck.
 
86% of US combat troops are "satisfied" with the issue M4 5.56mm rifle
Click to expand...
conduct a review of combat troops & ask how the M16A4 or M4 5.56mm works
Click to expand...
This type of survey does have some utility, talking to the guys who have used them makes sense, right? But I wouldn't use this as the gold standard/definitive answer on what works and what doesn't in the way of firearms. Everyone who was in the Army and DIDN'T run into plenty of Joes who knew nothing about firearms outside of whatever (fairly minimal) usage training they were given, raise your hand. No one? Yeah, me neither.

Most people not in the military would be stunned at the (lack of) firearm training and knowledge. There's training, to be sure. And it's gotten a lot better in the last decade or so of wartime operations. But, outside of the top tier special ops units, the training is surprisingly light. Guns are only one part of a soldier's job and, in most positions, not even the most important part.

As Kraig said, marksmanship and training has been a problem since forever. That was the whole reason for the founding of the NRA.
 
Article, marksmanship...

No, the John Plaster item wasn't it.
It was about how OEF troops had to engage enemy forces in rough terrain at ranges beyond 300m.
The article also said US forces didn't get adequate levels of marksmanship training. It noted that one US Army Aviation unit deployed "down range" with NO M9/9mmNATO sidearm training! None. I think it was a USAR or NG unit.

I agree that training is a big part of the small arms system but Id add that a better R&Ded round like the 6.8x40mm or the new .300AAC Blackout should be issued to all combat units not just SOCOM(Rangers, SEALs, ParaRescue, ACE, etc).

CF
 
a Small Arms Firing School as conducted at the National Matches

And where will you get the instructors to put every soldier through that?
Click to expand...

There are thousands of them out there already.

Take for example the Army's Designated Marksman Program. The Army has the Army Marksmanship Unit, but they don't have enough instructors so what to do.

The Army & AMU wend to the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) for instructors.

They have a list of Distinguished Riflemen, Master and High Master HP shooters, and CMP GSM Master Instructors.

They help provide the instructors for the Army DMP, the CMP keeps a list of such volunteers who are willing to assist.

There are more then enough to provide instructors for the SAFS for Basic Trainees.

After a while, it would feed upon itself, meaning students of the SAFS who excel would be used as trainers.

If one has attended the SAFS he would see how beneficial and cost effective it is.
 
Much (most?) of the discussion about replacing the US armed forces battle rifle is generated by companies that want to sell them to the US government and applied to lawmakers by lobbyists. I'm not a huge fan of the M-16 or its derivations, but I have yet to see any evidence that any of the rifles being considered as a replacement would produce markedly superior results. Budgets being as tight as they are, what is the benefit in what would have to be an enormous expenditure (assuming total replacement of the M-16/M-4 platform) with only marginally better rifles in only marginally better chamberings?
 
1990s; Flechette rounds, 5.7mm, 4.6mm...

Remember the '90s? :D
Back in the day, all the talk was a super fast(high vel), low recoil flechette type small arms round that could work in rifles/SMGs/sniper rifles.
These AP loads could crack a PASGT combat helmet 900m away & a service member could "run & gun" with a combat load of 500/600 rounds.
The major firms like Heckler & Koch and FNH put out 5.7mm & 4.6mm loads but the rifle type flechette never really got any notice.

CF
 
300AAC Blackout
Click to expand...
I don't see how this round is relevant to this conversation especially since long range seems to be the concern.

They have a list of Distinguished Riflemen, Master and High Master HP shooters, and CMP GSM Master Instructors.
Click to expand...
"Those who can't do, teach", but not all those who can do, can teach. Also, there is a HUGE difference in the numbers of DM and everyone in uniform. Minimum 15 to twenty times as many people I would guess. Probably 30-50 times isn't too far off. The DMs should be chosen based on who shows aptitude beyond the norm to begin with. My guess is most of the DMs are shooters outside their profession AND they probably have a personal interest in going through the training. Teaching someone who is personally interested is MUCH easier than teaching someone who is there b/c they have to be. I would also bet DMs are career and don't turn over as much as others.

In modern warfare as waged by the US military, spending the resources on teaching relevant individuals to call in fire support correctly is probably a better use of resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top