Bullpup designs seem to be better at the task.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2022-04-20/army-soldiers-weapons-new-rifles-ammunition-sig-sauer-5745050.html
Give them a few years and they'll circle all the way back to a 30 caliber carbine.
The replacement is a 6.8 with a high pressure loading.
It looks like soldiers have some difficulty shooting it.
They needed it for long range engagements in Afghanistan but it came too late for that.
In the end, the armed forces will procure whatever provides the greatest kickback to the politicians.
The AR/M4 type platform is a very mature and reliable design these days. The availability of commercial parts makes it easy to customize and very versatile. The only drawback I see, and its only in the most recent decade or so, is that modern body armor has become so prolific and the 5.56 was not really designed to defeat this. This is the only reason that the services have sought out a replacement, the need for a capability to defeat the armor defended enemy.
The down side for civilians will be the cost both in platform and per round to keep up with the innovation the government spends your money on for our troops. I think this is great for our troops. I just wish the reality was that new platform and ammo didnt cost so much. But hey, I wish I had a good blaster and a light saber, too.
They did eventually come out with a shorter version of the M-16 called a GAU. Our Flight Chiefs in SAC used to carry them.
Plenty of anecdotal evidence that the 5.56 cartridge is way underpowered in the combat arena. Bad guys getting shot several times and still in the fight.
Maybe the replacement in 6.8mm will help that...
I spent about 23 years and four deployments to using the M4 as an Infantry guy.
I love it.
Versatile, reliable, accurate, customizable, LIGHT...small..
Its great.
The only issue is when contact is greater that 400 meter...it becomes lackluster. But in those cases you have the M240, M249, and aviation or indirect anyway.
I used the British SA-80 Bullpup...it was clunky, awkward, and didn’t do anything better then the M4 did.
I used Russian Ak-47s and AK74s, both of which were heavy as hell, and didn’t do anything better then the M4....hugely overrated. Then if you talk about the Chinese, Chech or any other nationality that made the AK....they are utter trash. Especially any AK using Stamped steel versus honed steel.
I also hate the safety mechanism on AKs...which is awkward and slow compared to the M4...and unlike loading an M$ magazine that you literally can drop the old one with a button and slap the new one in...with an AK...you have to “Rock” the magazine out and “Rock” a new one in.
Then I used the M14 with the specter receiver on it...but it was also heavy, and awkward.
I love the M4.
Advantages: small, handy, accurate, easy to carry. Disadvantages as someone else has already said, in the ammo. Not good past about 400 meters in terms of terminal energy and not good against body armor. Despite the clumsy terminology, it really is more carbine than battle rifle, as a certain retired Gunnery Sergeant used to tell me. Loudly.
I say give the new kid a chance. Lots to like about performance, lots not to like about how we obtain it. If I could make one change, it would not be in the rifle, it would be in the procurement process. Lowest bidder judged by non-combatants isn't the way to go. All IMHO, of course.
I had to laugh at that. I had an A2 in OIF I (03). The A4s we had in 04 were brand new, and issued to us in 04. LTI'd right before deployment. They sucked. We still had folks with those into 06/07, and I believe 07/08.
The major problem is they are prima donnas. In heavy sustained combat, and in grimy conditions (misting rain in a place full of sand), there isn't enough time to properly clean the weapon....the gas tube fouls, the bolt doesn't go all the way back, failure to eject, and they jam with a double feed.
Popping a few rounds on a patrol - the A4, M4 etc is fine. Day at the range - fine. Throw a couple hundred rounds down range, in grimy conditions - it's junk.
I would want something I can clean after the fight, not something I need to clean in the middle of one.
In one firefight during Phantom Fury, while caught in an ambush, and trying to fight our way to the next building, I had two jams requiring remedial action (actually taking a knee and stripping brass/rounds with a Leatherman). Others had similar experiences. Granted - it had misted rain, and we wer in sandy conditions. Prior to this point in the day, we had been in continuous sustained combat for many hours and our platoon had went almost complete Winchester three times. (we took over 50% casualties in 24hrs)...so this was a little extreme.
But, when it's your Marines' asses on the line, as well as your own - you want something that will handle extreme conditions.
Aside from that we were shooting guys several times....the meth and other drugs they were on - left them still in the fight even after 4-5rnds in the chest.
A good friend of mine blew out the gas tube on his M4 in Afghanistan and wound up with a bolt action rifle, while caught out in a remote area.
My next two deployments I had the M4. No major issues, a little easier to get out of vehicles, easier for CQB, etc - but I never trusted those weapons. I also never had to put them in the same conditions as in 04.
As with anything else, some folks love the M16/M4, some hate them. But, the problems of the CAR-15 variant weapons, identified in Vietnam, still remain some 50-60yrs later <- repeated jams, and no stopping power - it fires a souped up varmint round. It's time for something else.
If I were king for a day - I'd keep with the same principle of the M16/M249 - interchangeable ammo...and go with something 7.62x51 NATO that could use the same ammo from an M240 if needed. It would also prevent the need from sourcing another line of ammo (the 6.8) and the ammo is interchangeable with other NATO main battle rifles.
This has a piston driven system, which probably explains some of the additional weight. The higher chamber pressures for the new round probably drive additional weight as well. Not sure if the almost 10 lb weight (with suppressor) includes the optics. If not, its a heavy beast. As much or more than a typical AR-10.
Effect on accuracy aside, I want to convert my ARs to piston ($$$). Being trained on the M14, have never liked the cruddiness of the bolt and bolt carrier of the DI AR.
Since i was trained that way, I always do a complete cleaning every range trip, and I find it onerous compared to a piston type rifle.
