Shown (from left to right) are the 30 Remington (a rimless 30-30), the new 6.8mm Remington SPC and 5.56mm used in the M-16. The 6.8mm SPC is under serious consideration as the cartridge for the new army assault rifle, the M-8.
Very interesting.
Posted on 10/23/2002 2:39:06 PM PDT by SlickWillard
The Marine Corps chose a new infantry rifle, and it’s not the short assault rifle with which the Army equipped soldiers in the Afghan campaigns.
Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., announced last week it would buy 65,463 of the M-16A4 service rifles for infantry Marines between now and 2007.
The new rifle resembles the M-16A2 service rifle in use now but allows for add-on parts as emerging technology warrants.
After head-to-head comparison tests, the Marines rejected the M-4, the shorter rifle the Army issued to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.
“The ground board chose the M-16A4 over the M-4 because it had a lesser frequency of malfunctions,” said Marine Corps officials from Headquarters Marine Corps in a prepared statement. “The initial units will be fielded to Ground Combat Elements.”
The M-4 received sharp criticism from soldiers who fought the Taliban in Afghanistan earlier this year in Operation Anaconda and Mountain Lion. Some soldiers complained bullets used in the rifle lacked stopping power, according to a survey Army officials conducted. They also noted that heat shields in the hand guards often rattled, prompting soldiers to remove them, only to burn their hands from overheating hand guards.
Marine support units will continue to use the M-16A2 rifles.
The old rifles were nearing the end of their life cycles and needed replacement, according to the Marine Corps statement. But Corps officials also wanted to be able to integrate attachments Marines could need for different missions, such as flashlights, laser sights and a rail system for interchangeable sights and scopes.
In a head-to-head performance comparison between the M-16A4 and the M-4, a shorter carbine version with a collapsible stock, Marine officials found few similarities.
“Both weapons have flat-top receivers with the 1913 Military Standard rails for mounting optics, as well as forward rail hand guards,” said Marine Capt. John Douglas, project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command.
The new rifle can handle standard rifle sights plus night vision options and scopes. The rifle also can be fitted with a vertical forward handgrip.
But that’s where comparisons end. The M-4 is 10 inches shorter and one pound lighter than the current M-16A2.
Marine officials found some deficiencies in the M-4. In tests and surveys conducted last July at Camp Lejeune, N.C., most Marines preferred the M-4 over the longer M-16A4 for most combat situations, but the M-4 had more malfunctions, they said. The comparisons were based on Infantry Training Standards and reviewed by Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity.
“Though the number was very low for each weapon, the M-4 was found to have three times the number of weapons malfunctions as the M-16A4,” the statement read. There was no significant difference in accuracy between the two rifles.
Several Marine units already use the M-4, including Force Reconnaissance platoons, Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security teams and Military Police Special Response teams. Those units will continue to use the M-4, and the Marines still may purchase more in the future after corrections are made to reduce malfunctions, said the Marine Corps statement.
However, give me a 7.62mm rifle any day over 5.56mm. While 5.56mm is great in a gun like the SAW/M249, I'd rather have more stopping power in a rifle than the 5.56mm provides.
Shown (from left to right) are the 30 Remington (a rimless 30-30), the new 6.8mm Remington SPC and 5.56mm used in the M-16. The 6.8mm SPC is under serious consideration as the cartridge for the new army assault rifle, the M-8.
Very interesting.
Nah, just da mojo!..lol
Stay safe !
The XM8 or the M8.
But didn't I see Senator Dodd on c-span the other day saying how he didn't care how many lawsuits were brought against the firearms manufacturers in his home state, those jobs don't matter anyhow?
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.