“I’m very positive in my outlook that the Army is going to see a new carbine,”

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I think cost is not as big a factor as most think. M4s are wearing out and have to be maintained or replaced, thus the change to the heavier barrels and redesigned BCGs. The question the Army is facing is- is it better to replace M4s that are wearing out for $1300 each or buy a new carbine for the same or less? Those sustainment costs are already in the budget and always will be. Small arms make up a tiny fraction of the Army's budget. When the Army changed from the M16A2 to the M4 it went from a $181 rifle (NSN price, various manufacturers) to a $1300 carbine with reduced effective range from a single-source contract. That was also a time when the defense budget was half what it is now.

In the same light, ammo cost is a moot point. As 5.56 is expended it is cost neutral to replace it with a new caliber.

Is a new carbine that shoots 5.56 a giant leap forward? No. Is a new carbine that costs less and shoots a more lethal round? Probably so, and I think that's what it'll take for the Army to change, as unlikely as that may be.

A lot of Army brass, especially Infantry Branch, are still angry with Colt and the thought of signing another contract with them is a bitter pill. If the Army does keep the M4, now that it holds the patents the contracts will go to another bidder.

Interesting times ahead for small arms development.
 
Last edited:
Army/Navy/Air Force times are just tabloids for people in uniform. A wonderful place where even the lowliest desk private is issued an FN SCAR, an M11 and the very finest in cuban cigars, not to mention the crates and crates of Xboxs headed for deployed locations. A land where every uniform is just what we asked for, and video games and unlimited wifi access rain down on us from the sky. Body armor weighs only 7 ounces, but can withstand anything short of a near miss with a thermonuclear weapon!

But I digress. Like all other tabloids, they are only to be trusted if you can find the information from a reputable source.

The M4 isn't going anywhere; the moneys simply not there to replace it. The M16 might get replaced finally, but not by any of the high dollar next-gen carbines. An M4A1 including optics costs DoD a little over a thousand dollars (about half the price of any of the other gadgets listed). In times of financial hardship, "if it ain't broke..." tends to find its way into million dollar firearms transactions.

The very same thing happened with the M9 in the last year or so; they solicited contractors for a new pistol. The Times had a field day with it, declaring that "the woes of the berretta are finally a thing of the past" and then 6 months later the Department of Defense signed an order for half a million more M9s. I think I'm seeing a pattern emerging here...
 
I'm not seeing any of the potential replacements as being any cheaper than the M16/M4 family of weapons. Even assuming a good price break for the fed.gov, every last one of the supposed "best new rifle EVAR" guns that we've seen introduced costs about double the M16/M4. The TDP for the M4 is no longer a proprietary item, so the M4 requires no licensing fees or anything like that- it is a design that provides for more supplier competition. Factor in the immense industrial base for M16/M4 parts as opposed to any of the new designs, and there's just no way a new rifle will be any cheaper.

Furthermore, acquisition costs are one part of the whole. There's spare parts. There's training. There's the trouble of physically replacing the infrastructure to support the weapon. All that costs time and money.

The question has never been "is there a better rifle out there?" but rather "is there a rifle that is better ENOUGH to justify all the trouble?" The answer to that has been "no," and that isn't going to change anytime soon. For every rifle with a design improvement over the M16/M4 family, there's a cost to the switch that means it just isn't worth the trouble.

IMO, we'd be better off just opening up bidding for new M4 contracts than going through this "hey, we're going to spend a bunch of money to arrive at the same answer every couple years" dog and pony show.
 
In the same light, ammo cost is a moot point. As 5.56 is expended it is cost neutral to replace it with a new caliber.
Click to expand...

Replacing 5.56mm isn't cost neutral. You must develop the new projectiles and replace massive amounts of tooling at Lake City and other ammo plants in order to maintain the same production capabilities in the new caliber.

On top of that, if the new caliber uses more lead, brass, copper, high performance powders, or advanced technologies etc., it is going to be more expensive per round to produce even with economies of scale.

And finally, there is going to be a logistical cost - if 30 rounds of 5.56mm weighs 16 ounces and 30 rounds of new caliber weighs 17oz, then 1 million rounds of the new ammo weighs almost one ton more and there is fuel cost, vehicle cost, additional maintenance for vehicles, etc. to move that extra ton of ammo that must be considered.

Replacing 5.56 with something else may be cost neutral for the individual civilian because all of these costs are already built into our ammo pricing. For the Army, changing caliber is easily going to be measured in billions of dollars.
 
Don't let the costs seem astronomical. In the budget wars of the Pentagon, refitting all our soldiers with new M4's costs less than two fighter planes. Our fuel budget for training is substantially more difficult to manage.

On the heavy barrel, don't go too far with that. All the M4A1 did was eliminate the M203 launcher cuts, it's actually old news from last year. The Army is NOT making this an HBAR by any means, the thing is already loaded up too much with a quad rail.

Don't underestimate the LSAT, it knocks everything in a cocked hat. The required action is dramatically different, and the 40% ammo weight reduction means you get 40% more ammo - and an automatic 40% increase in hit probability. You can't get a 40% increase with anything else, even scopes. It takes more bullets flying to do it, the entire point of going to the intermediate light weight FULL AUTO combat rifle. Sounds like we're going back to square one and exploiting it even more - dropping the M203 cuts means less droopy barrels on full auto, which SOCOM uses.

Funny, the Beretta ARX isn't mentioned specifically. Been there, carried the result of ignoring the fact we use bases in Italy a lot. The M9 is standard for 25 years, and yes, history can repeat itself.

For you Glock fans ( I have one, too,) we wonder what might be adopted that just precedes a better evolutionary step up had development been a year faster. Don't get all wrapped up one platform is a WIN! History also has a tendency to show we could have moved to intermediate cartridges in the '30s, not the 60's, etc etc. What we DON'T choose may eventually be of more importance in the long run, I don't expect an LSAT this time around, when the ammo makers would basically wind up scrapping million dollar brass forming machines to injection mold a plastic case. That noise you hear is footdragging from Lake City ammo plant Congressional reps.


Note the comments about "service life," we could be seeing serious changes in an adopted TDP and milspecs, like tossing the outdated button rifled barrel to hammerforged and nitrided. Costs would go down significantly, and MOST of the American industry already uses them for civilian rifles. It's the public still asleep not noticing the switch.

The one thing I would like to have heard is a significant effort to improve magazine durability - the current platform has been significantly troubled since the introduction of the 30 round mag from day one. The straight mag well is too restrictive in feed and length. It really doens't need to be carried forward, the HK416 is the classic field report, troubled by mag issues almost from day one, the piston failures were almost a no brainer to fix. Not HK's fault to have to use a heritage design compromised by a change that should have forced a simple redesign in 1969, but there were other simpler production issues that grabbed all the attention. One more wouldn't be tolerated, and it was ignored.

Mags remain the #1 problem area, and Magpul has done good work. Still, it's a mag well design issue.

What would be appropriate from the Carbine Tests is to not select one maker, but singular design features and move them forward as they become obviously superior - like a suppressor mount. AAC isn't ignoring that part of the request, Remington didn't buy them on a lark. It helps cover all the bases, hard not to get something out of it. South Korea now issues one per soldier, what better beta test for us to observe?

Exciting time ahead, don't get wrapped on the one-shooter mentality, combat is a TEAM sport and the TEAM's needs come first, like the compromise on using a quad rail.
 
M4s are wearing out and have to be maintained or replaced, thus the change to the heavier barrels and redesigned BCGs. The question the Army is facing is- is it better to replace M4s that are wearing out for $1300 each or buy a new carbine for the same or less?
Click to expand...

The cost of a change would be astronomical.

If you're an armorer or in the supply field, you probably know what I'm about to say.

The rifle is not the only cost. Each military weapon (heck, almost ANYTHING in the services) come issued with component packages:

1. The "end item", which in this case is the M4 rifle.
2. BII, also known as Basic Issue Items. These are typically stocked for use with the rifle. You normally have:

1 cleaning kit, complete
1 sling
1 blank adaptor
7 magazines (unless that number is changed. Remember, I'm not talking about what you actually CARRY, but what is issued with the rifle)
1 operator's manual

The rifle also has an AAL, also known as an Additional Authorized List. These are items that you MAY have at unit level, to assist in maintenance and operation of the rifle. Sight systems, NVOs, other special attachments fall in this category.

The most costly items are the repair parts. There are quite literally BILLIONS of dollars of repair parts in the system--from the springs, pins and parts at the unit armorer's level to complete barrels, uppers and other items replaceable at depot level.

If the military replaces those they will have to replace ALL of the parts. All the repair shops from the DS/GS/Depot level would have to change their machinery--there are tons of weapon specific tools that exist, whose sole purpose in life is to service the M16 series of weapons.

Put a dollar figure on the cost of issuing the rifle to each servicemember. Now, TRIPLE that cost to replace the repair items, spare parts and other items unique to the rifle.

Now, of course, they could go with the obvious solution--simply purchase conversion kits to turn the DGI system of the M16 series to a piston driven system. A fraction of the cost, repair tools and BII/AAL are almost exactly the same, and a more reliable firearm as a result.

If you shoot the enemy, he will be KIA from a wound made by a 5.56mm bullet--whether that bullet is fired from an M16A2/A3/A4/A5, M4 or otherwise, a FN SCAR, HK 416, KelTec, zip gun or otherwise does not matter. He will be dead.

Save the money.

Keep the M16. It has proven itself reliable for 40 years, and it's MADE IN THE USA.
 
In the budget wars of the Pentagon, refitting all our soldiers with new M4's costs less than two fighter planes.
Click to expand...
True, but that's why it's not going to happen. Buying a fighter aircraft means work for the companies that make the airframe, landing gear, engine, fuel system, avionics, ejection seat, gun system, weapons system, ECM/ESM gear, and so on.

Virtually all of those suppliers are spread out across the country. Which means that there are a lot of congressmen who are interested in seeing those jets built. Far less, in comparison, are going to be politically interesting in a new rifle being produced.
 
When is colt's m4 contract up? I know they lost the m16 already but im wondering how much longer their monopoly on the carbines gonna last.
 
When is colt's m4 contract up? I know they lost the m16 already but im wondering how much longer their monopoly on the carbines gonna last.
Click to expand...

Colt's exclusive rights to the M4 TDP expired July 1, 2009. Which is yet another reason why I am skeptical the Army is going to chose a new carbine. They just got out of the 20yr deal with Colt and can now competitively bid the M4 and get prices down. You would need a real strong incentive to enter into another 20 year exclusive deal.
 
Good point. An Army spokesman stated last year that they will never sign another contract like they did with Colt. I agree that they will probably keep the M4 but buy from the lowest bidder. Remington is already aggressively marketing their M4, promising a lower price point.

Judging from the comments in this thread, in order for the Army to select another carbine it would have to be cheaper, more lethal than 5.56 with no increased ammo costs, have better magazines, and maximize use of existing BII.
 
Remington is already aggressively marketing their M4, promising a lower price point.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine it should be simple enough to get a decent price on the M4, especially if buying in bulk. The difference between a full auto or burst capable M4 and a modern high end civilian AR-15 is extremely small in terms of manufacturing difficulty and cost. You can get your hands on a *really* nice AR for $1000 without breaking a sweat. If Colt has been charging $1300 per weapon, I imagine Uncle Sam could probably knock $400+ off that without even trying all THAT hard.
 
But colt fanboys will claim the pony makes it shoot better and that anything not milspec like it will fail:p

Im glad a better (hopefully better, not just cheapest company that makes the bare mininum standard) gets it. Hell ive seen CG m16s on old general motors a1 lowers still marked full auto but have the a2 trigger and bolt group in it.
 
Quote:
I hope .gov nails down a mil-spec M4 piston upper for parts commonality and then chamber for 6.8mm.

ROTFLMAO
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where that's coming from but whatever. I'm just trying to be realistic.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I wil say this...

I do not know how many thousands of M16 family rifles I have personally inspected, repaired, rebuilt, etc. I will tell you this, based on personal observation and experience with this platform...

For quality, fit, finish, reliability and durability, NOTHING out there--in the just-off-the-assembly line version--equals the Colt M16 series.

Now, I'm sure that someone will now tell me how brand X is just as good. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this is the truth. The Colt rifle is THE standard.

There are two others that equal the Colt rifle for quality.

Armalite makes an excellent product.
Bushmaster is now putting out rifles that are durable and reliable. As a matter of fact, Bushmaster also has a DoD contract for M16 series rifles.

And yes...I do like Colts. But I'm far from a fanboy, as some here would put it. I state this categorically, based on over ten years working on military M16's, and also as a current Law Enforcement Armorer.

You simply can not beat a Colt.

And, don't think for a second that just because you or I pay $1200 or more for a Colt rifle that the military does. Last time I was able to get the figure, the M4 and M4A1 carbines cost the military right around $500 each.
 
tirod said:
Mags remain the #1 problem area, and Magpul has done good work. Still, it's a mag well design issue.
Click to expand...

Well, every single entry mentioned in the Army Times article uses a AR mag so I don't see that problem going away soon. The Mk17 SCAR with a conversion kit or CM901 would give some flexibility in magwell dimensions; but by and large it looks like the AR mag well is here to stay.

Rob3 said:
Judging from the comments in this thread, in order for the Army to select another carbine it would have to be cheaper, more lethal than 5.56 with no increased ammo costs, have better magazines, and maximize use of existing BII.
Click to expand...

I think you are extrapolating comments too far. For example, I was just pointing out that new ammo was not cost-neutral, not stating that the Army would not choose a new carbine unless it there was no increased ammo cost.

However, given that any manufacturer who submits a carbine in a caliber other than 5.56x45 faces significant additional risk and expense, I'm going to go out on a limb and say all of the submissions will be in 5.56x45, though I imagine most of them will be modular enough to easily convert to other calibers.

Nitesites said:
I'm not sure where that's coming from but whatever. I'm just trying to be realistic.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of those are a realistic outcome of these trials. For reasons I already explained earlier, none of the carbines are going to be submitted in 6.8x43, so the chances of a standardized chamber as a result of this particular set of trials are slim.

Likewise the gas piston for an M4 carbine, the Army hasn't even done an RFP for that yet. Short of the LWRC M6A4 being chosen to replace the M4, this trial isn't going to do anything to standardize a gas piston.

Powderman said:
As a matter of fact, Bushmaster also has a DoD contract for M16 series rifles.
Click to expand...

An FMS contract or an actual contract to supply DoD? I was curious because I knew Bushmaster had won a contract to supply the Navy with M16A3 rifles; but they lost said contract before they could even start to deliver, apparently due to complaints about their minority-owned small business claim. Prior to this, I think Anniston bought 67 Bushmasters for evaluation in the early 1990s; but I haven't been able to document any other direct DoD purchases of Bushmasters.

I'd be interested in learning more if they have picked up another DoD contract.

Last time I was able to get the figure, the M4 and M4A1 carbines cost the military right around $500 each.
Click to expand...

Colt has lowered the prices of M4s several times in recent years. I suspect that now that they no longer have an exclusive TDP, they are more willing to deal on price. I know that in 2006, Colt dropped the price on the M4 right after the Army announced a presolicitation notice for a new 5.56x45 carbine (which it later cancelled after Colt dropped its price). But globalsecurity.org reported that the government was paying $1k per M4 for FY2006.
 
“I’m very positive in my outlook that the Army is going to see a new carbine,”
Click to expand...

I'll believe that when I see it happen. Eventually it's going to happen, but we've heard rumors before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top