“I’m very positive in my outlook that the Army is going to see a new carbine,”
- Thread starter Rob3
- Start date
davlandrum
New member
Nitesites - Sorry, that was rude of me. Luckily, the learned Mr. Roberts cleaned up my mess.
On the ammo side of the problem, there is also that sticky little NATO problem...as well as who is going to hump more weight around.
And I think pistons are the funniest solution to a non-problem that has ever been invented.
On the ammo side of the problem, there is also that sticky little NATO problem...as well as who is going to hump more weight around.
And I think pistons are the funniest solution to a non-problem that has ever been invented.
It is all down to political will. Political will is created by campaign contributions.
The funding is there, just look at the MEADS program. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/34b-development-contract-signed-for-meads-0639/ (Status down the middle of the page ) .Even though the program is going to end and nothing useful will actually come out of it, the US is going to spend $800 Million to $1 Billion more for the next couple of years. Program total was $4 Billion. According to the insiders, the program is too expensive to cancel. So it will be funded until it dies. What a waste.
Now for $1 Billion dollars the Army can replace every M16, M4, every variant in inventory, buy new parts, new training, new ammunition, probably several times over. Imagine what they could do with $4 Billion.
It is just a matter of how much money is crossing the politician's palms.
The funding is there, just look at the MEADS program. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/34b-development-contract-signed-for-meads-0639/ (Status down the middle of the page ) .Even though the program is going to end and nothing useful will actually come out of it, the US is going to spend $800 Million to $1 Billion more for the next couple of years. Program total was $4 Billion. According to the insiders, the program is too expensive to cancel. So it will be funded until it dies. What a waste.
Now for $1 Billion dollars the Army can replace every M16, M4, every variant in inventory, buy new parts, new training, new ammunition, probably several times over. Imagine what they could do with $4 Billion.
It is just a matter of how much money is crossing the politician's palms.
Custom weapons
The M4's are practically custom rifles now, covered with commercial doodads. The M110 SASS, M24, and M40 rifles are hand made. There are so few combat troops compared to support people, that the US should be able to afford to change calibers or even maintain different calibers/rifles for different operating environments.
The high tech capital hardware is so expensive that the army can only afford limited production runs making tanks, planes and helicopters practically hand made. The days of cost effectively mass production of millions of rifles, tanks and planes are long gone. The technology as so far surpassed what is actually needed that it is becoming destructive.
The M4's are practically custom rifles now, covered with commercial doodads. The M110 SASS, M24, and M40 rifles are hand made. There are so few combat troops compared to support people, that the US should be able to afford to change calibers or even maintain different calibers/rifles for different operating environments.
The high tech capital hardware is so expensive that the army can only afford limited production runs making tanks, planes and helicopters practically hand made. The days of cost effectively mass production of millions of rifles, tanks and planes are long gone. The technology as so far surpassed what is actually needed that it is becoming destructive.
The M2 is still likely to be used in vehicles, tanks and air assests for a long time due to the weight being less of an issue. However for soldiers the new system offers alot of advantages.
Just the fact that it has severely reduced recoil means that they can use a much lighter tripod which no longer needs to be weighted down with sandbags when emplaced. Less weight= more ammo, which is always good. This is important because it might open up the heavy machine gun for infantry operations where the M249 was as heavy as they could get.
So no the M2 aint broke, but neither is it ideal in every situation. It will still probably be in service at the turn of the century.
Technosavant
New member
It seems to me that these continual tests getting the same results end up showing just how mature self loading firearms are as a technology. Sure, metallurgical improvements allow for weight reductions, but with few exceptions, there are not too many new designs that do much of anything that much better than designs that have served for decades. Even new ideas end up showing that the time honored solutions are great for their purpose, even in the face of the innovations (such as caseless ammunition- while it has a couple advantages, the expended brass removing heat from the weapon makes the standard brass case cartridge still the most effective answer).
I'm just not seeing any major shifts unless and until we see a major breakthrough in small arms technology, such as an effective and reliable man portable energy weapon.
I'm just not seeing any major shifts unless and until we see a major breakthrough in small arms technology, such as an effective and reliable man portable energy weapon.
About 10yrs ago I was the NCOIC of my unit's Armory. I had about 2600 M16/M4's. My CA/CRL (inventory listing) had them valued at $540+/-...not 1300. I know that is what a decent one cost a citizen but Uncle Same doesnt pay that way.
Also...look around folks. They're about to start slashing gov't spending programs at all levels in all departments. You can count on that. A new service rifle has zero chance of going through.
Also...look around folks. They're about to start slashing gov't spending programs at all levels in all departments. You can count on that. A new service rifle has zero chance of going through.
THEZACHARIAS
New member
The base M4 is in the $600 range, but when you start adding rail kits and optics it winds up in the $1k range. We don't get much of a price reduction from aimpoint, trijicon or eotech unfortunately.
At the end of the day, I would be happier if they would stop all these goofy "competitions". Higher leadership know darn well that we won't be getting away from the M4, M9 and crew served weapons any time in the next two decades, but are willing to drop a couple million dollars to be able to go out and play with some fancy prototypes for a week and a half.
Time to face reality and stop wasting money on weapon contracts that rarely go further than a handful of prototypes. $30 million for a carbine solicitation? Give me a break...
At the end of the day, I would be happier if they would stop all these goofy "competitions". Higher leadership know darn well that we won't be getting away from the M4, M9 and crew served weapons any time in the next two decades, but are willing to drop a couple million dollars to be able to go out and play with some fancy prototypes for a week and a half.
Time to face reality and stop wasting money on weapon contracts that rarely go further than a handful of prototypes. $30 million for a carbine solicitation? Give me a break...
Not true, any small change such as making the M4 fully automatic as the original M16 was designed will help, a shorter stouter barrel will improve life of the weapon system and shot placement as well as let more rounds go through with out over heating. None of these changes require a complete replacement of existing rifles, just a modification to existing ones. And at a much redueced cost than rifle replacement.
So all of you that think we should keep our heads in the sand and not improve our weapon systems need to have your sticking out butts kicked.
Let's give our troops a better chance of coming home.
Jim
Technosavant
New member
Jim, those aren't what I see as a "major shift." That I refer to as something like dumping the M4 in favor of an SCAR or some other completely different design. There just isn't enough improvement in that kind of switchover to get the military willing to put forth the cash and the effort.
If we end up just changing around the fire control group and barrel, well, fine. But that's just detail tweaking on the same platform. The M4 isn't getting our troops killed in any manner that a different platform on the same caliber is going to change. Changing the caliber itself means yet more cost/expense, and while it might be worthwhile for our current engagement in Afghanistan, we won't be in central Asia forever. The day will come when we'll be wishing we had something else for another kind of fight.
The simple fact is that these yearly rifle competitions just keep ending up reaffirming the same thing we already know- the M4 is 5.56mm is good enough. Not perfect, but good enough. Sure, they'll probably tweak the platform forever, but a major movement away from it won't come short of a technological breakthrough.
Whatever we pick, the only thing certain is that you'll find servicemembers griping about whatever it was, and that's been true ever since Oook and Gurrgh sat around the campfire wishing their spears were lighter/longer/more tactical.
That was a nice pic of the XM806 lightweight .50-cal. But it was still just a still. Picture, I mean.
Doesn't tell us the rate-of-fire. But Jane's Infantry Weapons online does. I just looked there.
The XM806 fires at a rate of 230 rounds per minute
That is half the rate of a Ma Deuce, roughly, isn't it? The only think slower is a baseball pitching machine.
I think that the M2 will be around for a long time, for anything other than infantryman carried carried use.
Doesn't tell us the rate-of-fire. But Jane's Infantry Weapons online does. I just looked there.
The XM806 fires at a rate of 230 rounds per minute
That is half the rate of a Ma Deuce, roughly, isn't it? The only think slower is a baseball pitching machine. I think that the M2 will be around for a long time, for anything other than infantryman carried carried use.
I think in general, the M16/M4 family is a pretty well thought out design. It has been improved steadily for about two generations and I can't see it replaced wholesale. This is the reason behind my previous post (#29). With further refinement, it could carry on another generation or two.
HorseSoldier
New member
I believe this is what the kids these days refer to as "epic fail."
Far as I can tell noone is advocating "keeping our heads in the sand" while failing to improve our personal weapons. Incremental upgrades are welcome as long as they incorporate changes that are truly useful to the troop on the ground (M68, ACOG, MWS/SOPMOD, etc).
I agree upgrades are no problem, and a reasonable answer with the M4 while maintaining some semblance of fisal responsibility. That is basically what has been happening for almost 50yrs with the M16 platform. I think replacing the M4/M16 is an unlikely event anytime soon...too many budget cuts on the horizon.
Full auto, while handy in a extremely narrow range of scenarios, by and large is wasteful. Burst is more functional to the Infantryman. Every time Ive used my M4 its been well aimed shots in Semi mode. Burst is a decent alternative but I find Semi much more effective.
As one of the Troops...I appreciate your concern in getting us home. I can't wait to get that part done, too.
Evil Monkey
New member
more of this please.
