10
10
0
The below article by Robert Scales makes lots of points about improvements that may be needed in the next major service rifle. Which specific improvement do you think is most necessary? Why? Which are likely to be improved the most in the free market -hunters -LE? In the Military Procurement system?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/?single_page=true
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/?single_page=true
Rifles
Technology
Development
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
8
8
0
I voted feeding system, Capt Richard I P., because I think the issue of jamming is THE most important issue to be improved. The author highlights that issue near the top of his list, and I agree.
(8)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
1LT Scott Doyle Like, for instance, infantrymen in dirty places and heavy engagements. Like the ones the author writes about.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
1LT Scott Doyle Then you likely noted that replacing only the rifles of the infantry and SF was suggested as an option by the author?
(0)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
1LT Scott Doyle I think the whole reason we went to one weapon system in the first place may have been flawed. Someone crunching numbers imagined the commonality in parts and ammo would incur huge savings. I can see the attractiveness of arguments, but the WWII mix of battle rifles, assault rifles, sub machine guns and pistols by roles is an interesting concept.
I think the point you and the author both made of replacing infantry and SF arms and leaving the rest of folk with the current system could make a lot of sense.
I think the point you and the author both made of replacing infantry and SF arms and leaving the rest of folk with the current system could make a lot of sense.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
One platform for all would work, primarily for logistics. We just need different variations of the same platform to suit the needs of the MOS or mission.
(0)
(0)
I went with caliber but also believe the operating system needs improvements. All in all I think the M16/m4 platform has performed pretty well. So I don't think we need a new weapon system just to change. Spec ops has fooled around a little with the 6.8 spec out of the AR15 platform with some success. But there are problems using the 5.56 mags with the 6.8 different bolt etc. One of the problems I see is when they went to the shorter barrel on the 5.56 and lost effective distance, but better for CQB.
I say caliber because I believe they could improve the AR15 platform going to 300 black out. Noting has to change except the barrel they use the same bolt and mags as the 5.56. And the 300 blk out was designed for the shorter barrels (CQB) and for suppressed fire. It also has the ability to penetrate barriers with high mass projectiles. Also use subsonic rounds and still have a max effective range of 460 meters. So I believe an all purpose round as much as anyone can be.
I say caliber because I believe they could improve the AR15 platform going to 300 black out. Noting has to change except the barrel they use the same bolt and mags as the 5.56. And the 300 blk out was designed for the shorter barrels (CQB) and for suppressed fire. It also has the ability to penetrate barriers with high mass projectiles. Also use subsonic rounds and still have a max effective range of 460 meters. So I believe an all purpose round as much as anyone can be.
(4)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
I haven't played with the AK very much in my career, but from what I know a little dust will not jam this weapon...a sandstorm in the Middle East, how common are those? Perhaps there is a weapon for every season, every climate and every place...it just hasn't been invented yet.
(0)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
Barrel Cartridge Velocity Energy
9 in (230 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 115 gr UMC 2,120 ft/s (650 m/s) 1,136 ft·lbf (1,540 J)
16 in (410 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 115 gr UMC 2,295 ft/s (700 m/s) 1,344 ft·lbf (1,822 J)
9 in (230 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 125 gr OTM 2,030 ft/s (620 m/s) 1,143 ft·lbf (1,550 J)
16 in (410 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 125 gr OTM 2,215 ft/s (675 m/s) 1,360 ft·lbf (1,840 J)
9 in (230 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 115 gr UMC 2,120 ft/s (650 m/s) 1,136 ft·lbf (1,540 J)
16 in (410 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 115 gr UMC 2,295 ft/s (700 m/s) 1,344 ft·lbf (1,822 J)
9 in (230 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 125 gr OTM 2,030 ft/s (620 m/s) 1,143 ft·lbf (1,550 J)
16 in (410 mm) barrel 300 AAC Blackout, 125 gr OTM 2,215 ft/s (675 m/s) 1,360 ft·lbf (1,840 J)
(1)
(0)
(1)
(0)
5
4
1
AR-15 Fired Full Auto Untill It Catches On Fire
Colt AR-15/M4 fired Full Auto until Gas tube Melts, however barrel is OK. http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=516531
Sir, you didn't give the option of "Leave it alone," so I didn't answer the poll. New technology is not at a point where it is of any advantage to adopt a new rifle. If we did adopt some new technology without it being refined to a point of usability, such as the plastic cased ammo, we would be in the same place we were, when they rushed the adoption of the M16. Adopted over the objections of the Army, who if you remember DID NOT want it. If meddlers like the author of this article would have stayed out of the process, we would have adopted a more modern rifle than the M14 in due time.
As for reliability, I just do not believe it. I know it has been widely reported that they had issues with the weapon at the battle of Wanat. There were issues reported at the beginning of the Iraq war as well. I will continue to say that if the Army would spend the money they spend on chasing a perfect rifle on training troops to use the rifle, almost all, if not all the issues would go away. The rifle is capable. Google "M4 torture test." Heck, I'll give you a head start, here's a youtube link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzfm4pYhIyY There are many others out there too.
If the rifle is such a piece of crap why is it that other countries such as Canada make a clone of it for their troops. Great Britain issues their troops the L85 bullpup, except of course the SAS who uses the C8, which is the aforementioned Canadian clone of the M4. http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/c8.php The Aussies use the F88 Bullpup. Except the SASR whose primary weapon is the...drumroll...the M4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service_Regiment (scroll down to where it says equipment and weapons) They aren't the only ones, but I think I've proved my point.
Modularity? It's a very modular system. Just because the Army chooses not to take advantage of it, ain't the rifle's fault.
Caliber? There is no modern military fielding a larger round than we are. The Ruskies dropped the 7.62x39 back in 1974. They saw the performance of our 5.56, and decided to copy, hence the 5.45x39 that they use to this day. Norway and Germany were among the last two holdouts with the 7.62x51, or 7.62NATO, Norway waiting until the mid 2000s to switch to... no, not the 5.56! Yes they did. I don't know of a single country in the world using a 7.62 caliber rifle as their general rifle for any other reason than that they can't afford to upgrade.
Sights? Computer guided sights are a VERY new thing, the Army cannot be blamed for not adopting them yet. Otherwise, ACOGs and Aimpoint M68 CCOs have been around for a while now, long enough that even support units are carrying them. And both are excellent optics.
Suppressors? Only place he has an argument.
As far as direct impingement vs. op rod, the Stoner system was not the first to use direct impingement. The Swedish Ljungman, the Egyptian clone of that rifle, the Rasheed, as well as the French MAS 49 are all direct impingement weapons without a reliability issue.
I have never personally met someone who has had an actual issue with the rifle. I have had people tell me, "Oh, it jams all the time on the range." Yes, that's because ranges use mags that have long overlived their lifetime and should be thrown away. I've seen soldiers over oil it, I've seen them under oil it. I've only met one soldier other than myself who has read the TM front to back. That's just the technical manual, that's not even getting to know the weapon.
I hope I wasn't to sarcastic, or offend anybody, but I feel that article is a hack job, and it did raise my blood pressure a little.
As for reliability, I just do not believe it. I know it has been widely reported that they had issues with the weapon at the battle of Wanat. There were issues reported at the beginning of the Iraq war as well. I will continue to say that if the Army would spend the money they spend on chasing a perfect rifle on training troops to use the rifle, almost all, if not all the issues would go away. The rifle is capable. Google "M4 torture test." Heck, I'll give you a head start, here's a youtube link. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzfm4pYhIyY There are many others out there too.
If the rifle is such a piece of crap why is it that other countries such as Canada make a clone of it for their troops. Great Britain issues their troops the L85 bullpup, except of course the SAS who uses the C8, which is the aforementioned Canadian clone of the M4. http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/weapons/c8.php The Aussies use the F88 Bullpup. Except the SASR whose primary weapon is the...drumroll...the M4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service_Regiment (scroll down to where it says equipment and weapons) They aren't the only ones, but I think I've proved my point.
Modularity? It's a very modular system. Just because the Army chooses not to take advantage of it, ain't the rifle's fault.
Caliber? There is no modern military fielding a larger round than we are. The Ruskies dropped the 7.62x39 back in 1974. They saw the performance of our 5.56, and decided to copy, hence the 5.45x39 that they use to this day. Norway and Germany were among the last two holdouts with the 7.62x51, or 7.62NATO, Norway waiting until the mid 2000s to switch to... no, not the 5.56! Yes they did. I don't know of a single country in the world using a 7.62 caliber rifle as their general rifle for any other reason than that they can't afford to upgrade.
Sights? Computer guided sights are a VERY new thing, the Army cannot be blamed for not adopting them yet. Otherwise, ACOGs and Aimpoint M68 CCOs have been around for a while now, long enough that even support units are carrying them. And both are excellent optics.
Suppressors? Only place he has an argument.
As far as direct impingement vs. op rod, the Stoner system was not the first to use direct impingement. The Swedish Ljungman, the Egyptian clone of that rifle, the Rasheed, as well as the French MAS 49 are all direct impingement weapons without a reliability issue.
I have never personally met someone who has had an actual issue with the rifle. I have had people tell me, "Oh, it jams all the time on the range." Yes, that's because ranges use mags that have long overlived their lifetime and should be thrown away. I've seen soldiers over oil it, I've seen them under oil it. I've only met one soldier other than myself who has read the TM front to back. That's just the technical manual, that's not even getting to know the weapon.
I hope I wasn't to sarcastic, or offend anybody, but I feel that article is a hack job, and it did raise my blood pressure a little.
(5)
(1)
SSgt (Join to see)
I got fired up enough in my reply that I forgot to address some of the specific fallacies in the Atlantic article. The author is either ignorant, or intentionally deceiving those who are. He attributes "failure to feed" to the direct impingement system, which is like blaming hail on the weather gods. He also states, "A Russian infantryman can fire about 140 rounds a minute without stopping. The M4 fires at roughly half that rate." You have to be fairly talented to confuse sustained fire, cyclic fire, and weapon failure all in one sentence! It's really has nothing to do with the issue at hand, but, "Stoner's little 5.56mm cartridge" is quite inaccurate. Eugene Stoner patented the rifle as the AR-10 and chambered it in 7.62x51. The Army rejected it, choosing the M14 instead at the Aberdeen rifle trials in 1956 (This is off the top of my head I might be off by a couple years on the date) Portugal adopted the AR-10 by the way, and it didn't have a reputation for unreliability with them. Fairchild Corp. who Stoner worked for sold the patents, but not the trademarks to Colt. When the Army decided that they wanted a new rifle in 5.56, Colt redesigned it in 5.56 and pitched it to the Army as the AR-15. A small matter of history, but it does rub my fur the wrong way when the author is pitching HIS version of history in my mind.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSgt (Join to see) Polls only allow 5 choices, but honestly I wouldn't have thought of your central point. As I commented to MSG Brad Sand there will be a new rifle and I intended to spur debate on which of the primary principles should be the central focus, whether or not you think the current rifle is good or bad.
What I hadn't anticipated that you brought in is that none of the improvements currently available are good enough or sufficient developed to rate a full scale replacement.
Personally I think a lot of the M16's problems have been training related too, but there's also some significant powder problems (gums up and increases fouling) and the direct impingement system is certainly less reliable and rarer in weapons than piston driven. Not just the AK, but also modern piston AR's, the M14 (which is a superior rifle to the AR15 DI ) and medium machineguns feature pistons, DI is is the exception, not the rule.
Nevertheless, I think you made a fantastic point in the idea that none of the tech is ready for the major overhaul of the service rifle.
What I hadn't anticipated that you brought in is that none of the improvements currently available are good enough or sufficient developed to rate a full scale replacement.
Personally I think a lot of the M16's problems have been training related too, but there's also some significant powder problems (gums up and increases fouling) and the direct impingement system is certainly less reliable and rarer in weapons than piston driven. Not just the AK, but also modern piston AR's, the M14 (which is a superior rifle to the AR15 DI ) and medium machineguns feature pistons, DI is is the exception, not the rule.
Nevertheless, I think you made a fantastic point in the idea that none of the tech is ready for the major overhaul of the service rifle.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Richard I P. , I probably would have caught the drift of your question better, if I hadn't read the article you linked to, and then your post. If you are talking what I'd LIKE to see in a new weapon, I'd have to think about it. If you're asking what's wrong with the one we have now, I'll stick by my original post and say, "nothing."
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google