Army.mil reports (emphasis added) ...
Another lawmaker questioned Fuller about the Army's individual carbine competition, to find a follow-on to the M4 Carbine weapon Soldiers are using now in Afghanistan. Fuller told the lawmaker the competition was not about meeting a specific need but about seeing if there was something better for Soldiers.
"We want to continue to improve the M4 -- not necessarily associated with a complaint or challenge the field might be having -- but we want to refresh that technology," Fuller said. He told legislators there's been 63 improvements to the M4 since it was first fielded in 1991
"This (competition) is another iteration of improvements," he said. "We want to see through a full and open competition is there something better? That's what this competition will be doing for our individual carbine."
After competition, he said, the Army would evaluate what comes out of that and measure it against the current M4 to build a business case for making the investment to replace it.
Rather than the M4 Carbine competing against the challengers, the challengers will first have to fight it out1 before the powers that be will even consider if the M4 needs a replacement. This is weak sauce.
[ Many thanks to Lance for emailing me the link. ]
I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.
The only way anything will change is if Gates pulls a McNamara and just picks a replacement and forces it on the branches. And since he is in full on budget cutting mode, that will not happen.
Get used to your M4s/M16s. They’re gonna be around for a while.
The problem here is that the Army has invested in the AR platform. Like the M-1, the Army chained itself to the tech of the last wars.
The thing a new rifle will have to beat is cost (forget the ACR) and reliability. Even then, the plan to keep the M-4/M-16 for “non-combat” troops seems to be a poison pill if the M-4 loses. Either replace the M-4 outright or just admit that you’re under the spell of Colt Defense.
I have been following this issue passively and I am not surprised that it boils down to “prove that X system is markedly better than current system and we might look into it”. The venue is open and there is room for improvement. I hope that something of value comes from this. Like many readers of this blog I think that 5.56 is a little small and a 6.8 or 6.5 is better(although I believe caliber is not part of this comp). We know the benefits of a short operating gas piston design over direct gas impingement one. And we know that clearing a double feed malf on an M16 type takes alot of time due to control layout. Then there is the M4 barrel length/profile issues. On the other hand, D.O.D. has many constraints, and not much motivation to fix stuff that works. Defense spending is being cut and the ground pounders seem to always be last in line for new gear. IMO, this issue will be looked at from the usual top down cost/benefit analysis, with some improvement made to the currrent M16/M4 (read gas piston/heavier barrel profile) and/or a more serious look at the alternatives. Just one more step in the never ending cycle of technological advancement mixed with bureaucratic intrigue.
I would like to see a chronological list of all the improvements the M16/M4 platform has gone through since day one. I think it’d be a nice little thing to have on hand.
Yep, that was obvious from the start.
So was the calibre issue, which might be expressed as: “you can use any calibre you want, but if you want to be taken seriously it will be the 5.56mm M855A1?.
Didn’t H&K already go virtually bankrupt in the 80s building the G11 for an Army competition?
What about FN, anyone care to guess how many millions that they lost designing the SCAR, which, as of writing this, has been used by absolutely no police or military forces in existence? Short of civilian sales, they have not sold it to anyone.
Personally, I am amazed that firearm manufacturers actually bother showing up at US Army rifle procurement events anymore. Supplying the worlds richest army, and all 2.3 million of their personnel with a new rifle is the holy grail of the the firearms world, but it seems to be little more than a pipe-dream for the foreseeable future.
Nothing is really being improved until you improve the caliber the rifle is chambered for.. These other rifles are just another .223/5.56.. nothing really changes..
They said months ago any competitor would have to been a significant improvement. Well, even SOCOM said the SCAR didn’t really do anything the M4 didn’t already do.
The Army isn’t looking for incremental baby steps with ambidextrous doodads, or where somebody decides to put the piston this week. It’s about hit probability, what delivers a higher percent of rounds IN the target. Full auto does that, red dots help do that, what’s next?
Ammo at half the weight can do that, you carry and shoot twice as much. That’s a huge increase in hit probability. What was last weeks sudden revelation, the feature not previously discussed but put on the table? Hyperburst, the ability to put to rounds in the same hole. With small high speed bullets, another one offers more incapacitation. It’s difficult to get that from current designs, it doesn’t mean more hits, just more effective ones.
That’s a picture window into the mindset of the Command chain and what they are thinking, and it’s not operator based baby steps in mounting offset sights, another optic on top of the existing one, or the other almost useless stuff marketed to the shooting public.
Weapons designs are evolving toward lighter guns, less recoil, faster bullets, more of them fired, and better sighting methods. The most improvement we can do in this technical environment is eliminate the brass case.
If only the pentagon had bought one less F-22 Raptor. Instead get 233,333 new carbines (if priced at $1500 like the M4).
My reasoning…when’s the last time we actually shot down an enemy aircraft with the invincible F-22?
Word up Nadnerbus
Thing is most competitors are M-4 upgrades anyway so if the army is updating the M-4 whats the point?
There is nothing wrong with the AR based weapons they work.