Army Sets Sights on New Rifle

Wall Street Journal ^ | February 2, 2011 | NATHAN HODGE

[Pan_Yan]

For the first time in almost 50 years, the U.S. Army wants to replace the standard rifle shouldered by hundreds of thousands of frontline troops around the world.

The service this week advertised its interest in a new weapon that would incorporate futuristic sights and other advances in rifle design and be able to handle improved ammunition.

The gun would potentially supplant the M4 carbine, a shorter-barrel version of the M16, the Army's main infantry weapon for decades.

Operations in Afghanistan—where troops often engage the enemy over long distances—have rekindled debate over the quality of the Army's standard-issue rifles and their reliability in dusty, primitive conditions. An Army report on a 2008 battle in Wanat, Afghanistan, cited soldier complaints about jamming and overheating M4s, in particular. Nine servicemen died in that fight.

Critics have also raised concerns about the range and lethality of the 5.56 mm cartridge of the M16/M4.

[Sarajevo]

121 replies, and I've noticed that no one has lost their guns in an unfortunate boating accident.

I think you guys are slipping;)

[RC one]

I watched my old man shoot a blade of buckhorn at about 85 yards with his AR15 (and he called his shot before he did it). That's about .15 MOA by my estimation. I then proceeded to shoot hole for hole at 100 yards with the same rifle/ammo combo. 30 rounds of 5.56 mm went exactly where I put the crosshairs without fail. It made a believer out of me you might say.

[RC one]

any word on whether the brass is reloadable or not? I know the HK91 tears it up so you can’t reuse it.

[Joe 6-pack]

I haven't read anything about it, but this slo-mo video looks like it treats the brass pretty gently.

[OneWingedShark]

I am both interested and broke.

[Uncle Miltie]

A buddy brought his Garand to the range. He hadn’t shot it in years.

He, our mutual friend and I each shot 3 shots at 100 Yards. We’re all duffers.

I had no idea if I hit the target, box or hillside. I use scopes for deer hunting, and iron sights were sort of a mystery.

Our 9 shots were all within a 3” circle. Two of us had never shot the gun.

That’s a mighty fine weapon. A little heavy, though.

[Yo-Yo]

Why go with HK if they are copying Stoner?

They "copied" Stoner only in as much as the HK416 upper cam be used on any M4 lower. The commonality of controls and their locations eases the transition from the M4 to the HK416, and is an approach taken by many weapon systems these days.

The reason to go with them is that instead of a direct gas impingement system (ala Stoner,) it uses a short stroke piston action. This keeps propellent gasses away from the bolt carrier, greatly reducing both carbon fouling and the cooking of lubricating oil due to heat buildup, both of which contribute to the M4/M16 malfunction rate.

There are other piston operated uppers (and complete carbines) available, but I prefer the HK416 as the most tested and proven design.

[driftdiver]

IMO the problem with the 5.56 round is its relatively low power and small size. This was intentionally selected so troops could carry more ammo.

[Yo-Yo]

121 replies, and I've noticed that no one has lost their guns in an unfortunate boating accident.

I think you guys are slipping;)

I think you missed reading post #58.

[Manly Warrior]

Here’s a novel solution the M4 problem:

Replace the 14.5” flimsy barrel with a non-chrome lined 20” medium weight fluted chrome-moly version, keep the free floating rail handguards, keep the retractable stock and flat-top upper, add a proper two stage trigger and keep the burst capability if you must, or go back to auto (or not).

Upgrade to .223 Wylde or similar chamber dimensions for accuracy and reliablity (hybrid between 556 nato and 223 REM SAAMI)75 or 77 grain OTM ammo-currently making ~2950 fps from a 20 inch tube (and a short list of AP and tracer too) all loaded with extruded versus ball powders and the capability of the now modified M16A4 (I call mine an AR15A4mk1)would be the best optimization of what our guys need on the platform we already have. Oh, by the way, increase marksmanship training (on the KD range from 50 to 600m at decimal targets for score) by 50% at minimum. Include both zero power and mid-power optics in a single reflex type sight (non-battery powered). Qualify with both irons and optics. Keep the gizmos available to a minimum-IR and daylight laser, weapon light and maybe a forward handgrip (mission-equipped weight to under 8lbs). Use improved (magpul) magazines.

Notice, I did not specify altering the direct impingement gas operating system. Even heavily fouled, they still work and work and work, but Joe still must love his rifle more than is life (clean it well and frequently)....

There are a few bolt carrier mods that help reduce both heat and fouling-additional vent holes, fluting and the clean(er) burning extruded powders help here.

The standard length gas tube helps reduce gas temps as well-as it was designed, the CAR/M4 length does lots of bad things-namely extraction under pressure and heat.

Remember-as always, there are no free lunches for the Dogs of War.

Significant increases in accuracy, terminal performance and portability.

[Durus]

There are reasons why the AR is more accurate then piston guns including the vaunted M1. That is why they typically win the NRA High Power matches, CMP Nationals, and virtually all national 3-gun competitions. AR’s are available in many different calibers and all the military has to do is adopt a better one the the .223. Take the 6.5Grendel (.264LBC-AR) for example, it would increase the operational envelope of the AR to 800 meters (minimum) and the round is still supersonic past 1000 meters. In fact it has more energy at 1000 meters the the .308. All that would be required are new barrels and new magazines. That makes more sense then going with a monstrosity like the XM8 that really brings nothing to the table.

[Darksheare]

The barrel overheating could have been worked out.
If they hadn’t wasted time with the stupid politicking.
And waste time they did.
Just like every other project in the past twenty plus years.
(A-12 Avenger II comes to mind. One project manager was upset with inline seating, so he demanded side by side seating, which necessitated redesigning the entire airframe.)

[RC one]

Originally, the M16A1 used a round known as the M193 ball round which fired a 55 gr projectile at around 3200 fps. It lacked the tungsten penetrator of the SS109 projectile found in the new M855 round. The M193 round is designed for use in M16A1s, not M16A2s. The M16A2 rifling twist is tighter (1:7") to stabilize the longer ss109 projectile and, as such, has a tendancy to twist the copper jacket off of M193 projectiles. M855 ball ammo, on the other hand, is designed for the M16A2 but will function in an M16A1 OK(or other AR style rifles with a slower twist). Modern AR clones typically compromise and use a 1:10" rate of twist.

I have read that the older M193 round was considered "inhumane" as it would fragmentate upon impact (due to its super high velocity). It directed its energy into the target as opposed to the M855 round which was designed to better penetrate a steel plate at 400 yards.

My point then is this, the 5.56 mm round is not low powered. The M193 projectile hits a soft target and explodes createing a tremendous wound channel. The M855 ball round was designed to penetrate a 10 gauge steel plate at 400 yards and it does so. That is not a characteristic of a low powered round either. Both rounds encompass the realization that the modern field of combat does not typically require one to regularly engage point targets beyond 500 meters. So, at the distances the round is designed to work at, the 5.56 mm round is effective. It is not as powerful as the 7.62 nato round of course so it will not penetrate vehicles or other hard cover nearly as reliably as the M80 ball round; on the other hand, a soldier can carry a lot more rounds which improves his chances of shooting more enemy soldiers. It's a trade off, as always.

I wound be interested to see a data table of "one shot drops" versus "one shot got up and kept shooting back" for the 5.56 round in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[CodeToad]

What, again?

[archy]

Yeah, I’m fascinated by the new mount they make for the Garand. That could be *very* interesting.

You seen the one that the CMP offers?

[Charles Martel]

I do recall seeing one listed in the e-store, but now it's not on the list where I remembered seeing it. Got a link?

IIRC, it looked like the Fulton Armory Scout mount. Is that the one you're talking about?

[archy]

I do recall seeing one listed in the e-store, but now it's not on the list where I remembered seeing it. Got a link?

I don't have my CMP catalog with me RTI, but if you can hang on until Mon or Tue, I'll dig it out and post it here for you.

IIRC, it looked like the Fulton Armory Scout mount. Is that the one you're talking about?

I haven't seen the Fulton unit, so don't know. But it looks about like this.

[Charles Martel]

Yep, looks like both CMP and Fulton mounts might be variants of the ones made by Amega mounts.

The CMP mount looks like the big color image on that page, while the Fulton Armory piece looks like the version shown in the slide show box beneath. Maybe it was a running change to the Picatinny rail - note the different number of locating grooves.

BTW, Amega recommends a pistol scope positioned as far forward as possible, as the scout scope objective lenses are prone to fouling when crud blows out of the breech. I guess a well-greased Garand might flick a Militec-1 or Lubriplate booger up there, too.

I do love an impolite rifle. :-)

[Red6]

No!

The government will spend millions to destroy / demilitarize those weapons paid for by the American tax payer.

I would bet a dollar- law enforcement, foreign sales, destruction - but NOT the American tax payer.