Posted on 04/05/2011 8:02:14 AM PDT by re_tail20
The Army has outlined the competition that will select the best new carbine and one that ultimately will face off against the improved M4A1 in a battle to become your next weapon.
The overall schedule of competition, testing, production and fielding is approximately three years to first unit equipped.
A draft solicitation to industry released Monday morning said the down-select will occur in three phases covering two years. The Army will host an industry day in March or April to solicit feedback and answer specific industry questions. The final solicitation will go out in May, and competitors typically have a couple of months to present their submissions.
The weapons will then square off in what officials have described as extreme and extensive tests expected to last 12 to 18 months. The Army will fire more than 2 million rounds to produce piles of data. Weapons will be tested to their destruction point and to determine whether they maintain accuracy throughout their life cycle something the military has not tested before. A weapon typically loses accuracy as it ages.
No caliber restriction has been placed on a new design. It will be at least a 500-meter weapon and have a higher incapacitation percentage. It can have a gas or piston system. Interchangeable barrel sizes and calibers are not required, but many early contenders such as the FNH SCAR and Colt CM901 already incorporate this capability.
(Excerpt) Read more at black-rifle.net ...
I just hope they come to a decision that they act on.
HK-93 was 5.56mm. HK-91 (G-3) was 7.62.
Me too.
With SOCOM moving on with their SCAR, and the Marines moving on with their new Infantry Assault Rifle - the M-27, peer pressure just might be the catalyst that causes the Army to finally stop screwing around and playing games when it comes to rifles and pistols - having the highest possible quality all the time and keeping up with upgrades as they occur over time.
Correct - I was looking at them both and reminsicing. I used to have a 91. Loved it, even though it fluted the brass.
You basically made the .308 argument. 30-06 was a great round, but the .308 had similar ballistics, was smaller and lighter, and could be in a short bolt weapon. We have plenty of that round also. As for the .45, .........winner,..duh. If I had a 9mm in battle, it would probably do more damage if you threw the gun at them. If you just have to have a 9mm, go for the 357 Sig. Maybe it’s just me, but when my life is on the line, I want something that will go through car doors, house doors, a little armor, trees, bricks and so forth. The AK 47 has the ballistics of a 30-30 and it seems to be ok for every war in the world because the .30 cal bullet is heavy and you usually don’t shoot 100 yards. The .308 is just far superior for long ranges and penetration. M4 is a pop gun,IMHO. The M16 at least had a longer barrel and more speed. Cutting the barrel just takes any punch you may have and sacrifices it for compactness. If you are in a building, couldn’t you have your pistol out( if it is a .40 cal or above)? I don’t know, just random thoughts from a guy that loves to see bricks shatter and bark fly when he is shooting. .22’s are fun when your plinking, but I don’t consider soldiering, plinking.
Thsi is the phrase which worries me. Is this supposed to be 500 meters effective range or maximum range? Unless the RFP is written to specify, a smart contractor could use this ambiguity to tie up a competition reward in protest.
They are all piston rifles and therefore less accurate than the standard M16/AR15 independent of caliber of ammo used.
That’s what my prediction is as well. They’ll spend millions in tax money, then announce that they are keeping the M-4.
I bet after all this talk, the Army just punts, keeps the M4 and calls it “improved”.
+1
Because the M-4 allows for lots of ‘development’ dollars to be spent rectifying design deficiencies.
[/cynic]
In the USAF, I believe they call them "sustainment programs" or something of the sort.
What does the red button on the bottom do?
The .30-06 was adopted when the ability to kill enemy cavalry mounts (i.e. horses) on the battlefield was a legitimate requirement.
I'm not taking anything away from the round or the weapons that fire it (IMHO, I think some type of BAR equivalent should be available at the squad level), but it's a little rough for a lot of female soldiers to shoot. That's just reality.
Of greater concern to me is logistics. If the military is going to a new rifle will its cartridge be compatible with being used in existing SAW-type belt-fed weapons ? I’m attracted to the Remington modular concept, but how “soldier proof” is it ? The advantages of even single-caliber modular designs are obvious, but ready bullet selection/optimisation for specific tasks might be even a better benefit to small unit commanders.
I tend to favor the 7mm caliber as if offers excellent ballistic profiles and a range of useful bullet weights and would certainly address the reputed “500 yd. range”, issue. With alloys, inserts and controlled-expansion options bullets can be tailored to the need and weapon profile. Of course that flexibility raises further logistics issues...... >PS
Maybe the problem in that calculation isn’t the caliber.
I’m curious what you see as design deficiencies.
The big one, considering it is intended as a field weapon, is that it needs constant cleaning to function properly. Field conditions are, in a word, nasty. You're not going to be in a clean-room, but somewhere dry, and hot, and with sand/dirt blowing everywhere; or in the hot, wet jungle with plants (and the attendant sap/pollen/crap) everywhere; or maybe in a swamp with water and decaying bio-mass getting in all the cracks... the whole M-16/M-4 platform is extremely fickle about any dirt/grime anywhere. {I've seen it act funny because of too much CLP and carbon from firing.}
This is all compounded by the difficulty of field-stripping the weapon for cleaning: it has a lot of parts, some that are pretty small and will easily get lost in the above-mentioned environs.
To illustrate allow me to present several rifles, filed-stripped.
This is the M-4, almost-field-stripped (the buffer & buffer spring are still inside the lower reciever):
The M-1:
Rather a lot of small parts, but a larger round & I've not heard of it being described as finicky in-general.
AK-47:
A few small parts, but it has a reputation for always firing (i.e. working in field conditions).
This is the PS-90, field-stripped:
No really small parts, compact, light, and has 50-round magazines.
The Mosin-Nagant:
"What's field-stripping?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.