Tony Williams Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 It's reported in Jane's Defence Weekly that the US Army is preparing to host its long-awaited trials for a new carbine. The calibre is not specified, but 5.56mm guns will have to use the new M855A1 EPR ammo (purpose-designed for the M4) and guns in 7.62mm calibre will have to use the standard ammo (M80). The M4 itself is not due to take part; it has its own programme of improvements in parallel with this. Note that the Army is only looking for a new carbine (= not long range) rather than a family of small arms. The latter would need to be specified for a new intermediate round to stand any chance at all. So, the odds go as follows: Probability that the carbine will remain in 5.56mm calibre: 99.9% Probability that a traditional rather than bullpup layout will be retained: 99.9% Probability that, after exhaustive tests of all new contenders, the US Army will conclude that while they all have advantages over the M4, none of them has such a big advantage as to be worth replacing the current gun, especially since it is steadily improving: >90%. Or I am just getting cynical in my old age?
Paul G. Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 I concur. No point to a separate "carbine" nowadays. A famly of rifles that includes a short version fills the need. Everyone makes those. So unless you are replacing the M16/M4 this is pointless. Now if what the Army is after is a PDW the only one that fills the role of a modern carbine is the FN P90.
Dawes Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 The SCAR might make a good showing, and is already in production to fill SOCOM contracts, but I would imagine that it would be more expensive than the M4.
Paul in Qatar Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 You guys know more about this than me. Why the long odds on a bullpup? Who cares what the fool thing looks like?
Tony Williams Posted December 10, 2010 Author Posted December 10, 2010 You guys know more about this than me. Why the long odds on a bullpup? Who cares what the fool thing looks like?The last I heard, no bullpup had been entered in the competition. I find it rather surprising that IWI haven't (so far) offered the Tavor. Maybe they know that the US Army has no interest in looking at a bullpup.
DanielStarseer Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 The last I heard, no bullpup had been entered in the competition. I find it rather surprising that IWI haven't (so far) offered the Tavor. Maybe they know that the US Army has no interest in looking at a bullpup. In a War On Terror where the US claims repeatedly that "this is not a crusade against Islam",slaughtering predominantly muslim insurgents with a, ahem, "Jewish gun" would be the ultimate PR no-no...
Chris Werb Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 In a War On Terror where the US claims repeatedly that "this is not a crusade against Islam",slaughtering predominantly muslim insurgents with a, ahem, "Jewish gun" would be the ultimate PR no-no... I read that the USAF retired the AGM-142 - a very capable weapon that went through quite a few variants in the few years it was in service - partly because it was perceived as Israeli and thus couldn't be used against many potential opponents for PR reasons.
tankerwanabe Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 The SCAR might make a good showing, and is already in production to fill SOCOM contracts, but I would imagine that it would be more expensive than the M4. I sometimes wonder whether Colt should just purchase the patent to the SCAR, and make it available in mass for a cheaper price as the M4A3.
Assessor Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 I sometimes wonder whether Colt should just purchase the patent to the SCAR, and make it available in mass for a cheaper price as the M4A3.There seem to be two obvious flaws in this plan: 1 It might work; and 2 It makes sense. Therefore it won't happen.
Wobbly Head Posted December 10, 2010 Posted December 10, 2010 Tony you forgot "It will cost 3 billion dollars for the trials, but they still will pick the M4".
thekirk Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd be willing to bet that my grandkids (if I ever have any...) will be issued a member of the M16/M4 family upon entering service. Barring a truly inarguable quantum leap in technology, which I'm just not seeing happen anytime soon, we're going to go with a product-improved status quo as long as we can make the damn thing work. How long will that be? I have no idea. But, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it wind up being the next fifty years, or so. Then again, maybe they'll get the telescopic case thing working, or even caseless. Barring some outlandish improvement in materials technology and/or chemistry, I don't see that happening, however. Not in the next few years, anyway.
Tony Williams Posted December 11, 2010 Author Posted December 11, 2010 I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd be willing to bet that my grandkids (if I ever have any...) will be issued a member of the M16/M4 family upon entering service. Barring a truly inarguable quantum leap in technology, which I'm just not seeing happen anytime soon, we're going to go with a product-improved status quo as long as we can make the damn thing work. How long will that be? I have no idea. But, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it wind up being the next fifty years, or so. Then again, maybe they'll get the telescopic case thing working, or even caseless. Barring some outlandish improvement in materials technology and/or chemistry, I don't see that happening, however. Not in the next few years, anyway.I suspect that you are right. The LSAT programme represents the only possibility for making any significant changes to small arms in the foreseeable future. It is also the only opportunity for considering a different calibre to replace the current 5.56/7.62 combo. What I fear is that even if LSAT is adopted they will take it in 5.56mm as the easy option, which will tie us to that calibre until our grandkids have grandkids.
shep854 Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'd be willing to bet that my grandkids (if I ever have any...) will be issued a member of the M16/M4 family upon entering service. Barring a truly inarguable quantum leap in technology, which I'm just not seeing happen anytime soon, we're going to go with a product-improved status quo as long as we can make the damn thing work. How long will that be? I have no idea. But, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it wind up being the next fifty years, or so. Then again, maybe they'll get the telescopic case thing working, or even caseless. Barring some outlandish improvement in materials technology and/or chemistry, I don't see that happening, however. Not in the next few years, anyway.An M16/M4 firing telescoping/caseless ammo?
BLAH Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 It'll be found that some competing rifles, perhaps all of them, offer a little more reliability than the AR-15, but it's not enough to change over. And really, the AR-15 is good enough for a 5.56mm rifle, so they are right there. The HK416 might have a chance, as it offers "refurbishment", which those with the blank check like to hear. I'd like it if they go back to 7.62mm NATO, but supposedly, I'm like the only person who thinks that that round has negligible recoil in semiautomatic, even in carbines.
rmgill Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 (edited) Funny, they don't look Jewish. It's how they remove the material from the muzzle brake/flash suppressor with the milling machine. Edited December 11, 2010 by rmgill
Tony Williams Posted December 11, 2010 Author Posted December 11, 2010 An M16/M4 firing telescoping/caseless ammo?I doubt it very much. The LSAT gun and ammo have been developed to work together (and the gun mechanism is very different from a conventional one). I don't think that LSAT ammo in a conventional gun would be feasible (or conventional ammo in an LSAT gun).
Archie Pellagio Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Didn't we go through these shennanigans about two years ago?If the decision to stay with 5.56 has already been made, then it there is four-fifths of five-eighths of f*ck all chance of a new rifle being adopted. The only reason SCAR/416 were real contenders was the ability to switch to 6.8/6.5 if the switch was made in the future, with that not happening, there is little justification.
demosthenes Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 They did this several years ago to get Colt to lower their prices. Looks like they're playing that game again.
Gunguy Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Whats the latest on the SCAR and HK418 programs? I thought this was all over and the HK won. Why a "new" contest? I'm getting a little confused on the entire small arms programs........
Tomas Hoting Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 Doesn't the US Army now have the possibility to award contracts for new M4s to companies other than Colt (just like it was done with new M16s being manufactured by FN USA)? If Colt is too greedy, award the contract to somebody else Is there are list of the contenders and their entries, or is it just the "usual suspects" again (H&K, FN, Colt)? What about a company like Colt Canada, would they be allowed to take part in the trials as well? Their C7/C8 family were and still are quite successful on the export market. Denmark recently ordered 5000 examples of the new C8IUR AKA M/10:
demosthenes Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 (edited) The M4 is proprietary to Colt. FN can't get in the game, not with a carbine anyway. EDIT: Or at least not until 2011 when the M4 contract expires, with the army paying royalties for every rifle made other than by Colt. Edited December 11, 2010 by demosthenes
Dawes Posted December 11, 2010 Posted December 11, 2010 IIRC, Colt actually tried to trademark the designation "M4", but lost out in a lawsuit brought by Bushmaster.
Chris Werb Posted December 12, 2010 Posted December 12, 2010 IIRC, Colt actually tried to trademark the designation "M4", but lost out in a lawsuit brought by Bushmaster. That's a bit like Microsoft trying to patent '586'.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now