Will the M-4 Be replaced?

[GeneralFox7]

The army has been thinking about changing the main battle rifle (M4) because the M4 made by colt has had a lot of jams and has been around for a while there thinking of maybe replacing it with the M8. I want your views on this.

[2wiceBorn]

It's has been around for about 12 years? This isn't much at all, considering the 40 year old M-16 remains in service.

[Narusegawa]

I heard they were going to be replacing them with these.

[ExeHL]

Definitely going to see replacement. The M4's seen plenty of service and there's better, more efficient infantry weapon concepts, exactly like the XM8.

[K-RadPie]

The xm8's were cancelled in 2005, must be workin on somethin better.

[SmackBang]

Well, Carbine's are light, efficient accuracy and powerful. Although the jamming maybe an issue they are still very cheap to use and implement for an army budget.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/8/07 03:13 PM, BigScizot wrote: I heard they were going to be replacing them with these.

Nope, the program got cancelled. It's too bad really, the M16/4 family sucks. They need to switch to the HK416 like Delta and other special operations forces are doing – but that won't happen...

[AcDiK-DR4G0N]

The worst mistake the government made was canceling the M1-Garand (I've shot one, so I know what I'm talking about). It was easy to fire and accurate. And it let you know when you need to slap a new clip in.

[HighlyIllogical]

Uh, yeah...

The Garand was a battle rifle – it is unwieldy for urban combat, but a great weapon, yeah. After all, the M-14 is still being used.

The M16/4 family was an improvement in some aspects, but something like the HK416 would be much better given it's huge improvments and a weapon with a 6.8mm round would be great.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/8/07 03:06 PM, 2wiceBorn wrote: It's has been around for about 12 years? This isn't much at all, considering the 40 year old M-16 remains in service.

Um... actually the M4 has been around for almost just as long as the M-16. The M4 is a carbine version of the M-16, it's only shortened.

At 6/8/07 03:13 PM, BigScizot wrote: I heard they were going to be replacing them with these.

Nope, the Xm8 program was canceled. It had ALL KINDS of problems. Don't let the exaggerated depiction on TV shows fool you. The XM8 was basically a modified HK G36, but HK was so bent on meeting the weight requirements set by the US Army that they created basically a toy gun, it was very flimsy and not very durable at all.

I know some of you won't believe me, but I've actually personally fired an Xm8 and there wasn't anything special, it only looked cool and had a nifty modular design. After the demonstration though, the front handguard began to melt, the gun is plastic.

Anyway, M4s are here to stay for quite a while, the Army is still buying a large amount of them and the development for a new rifle is pretty much dead. The Army had a goal of increasing the capability of the average rifleman by 100% with a new rifle, that wasn't met.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/8/07 04:20 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

The M16/4 family was an improvement in some aspects, but something like the HK416 would be much better given it's huge improvments and a weapon with a 6.8mm round would be great.

I hear people tout the 6.8 Rem SPC all the time and it makes my blood boil. Yes, it is more powerful and has better killing ability. But that isn't what assault rifles are for.

The M4/M16 family with the 5.56 is the most effective standard issue rifle system for the entire spectrum of war.

1) Troops can carry more rounds because they are lighter and smaller.
2) The smaller size and weight makes logistics (supply) a lot simpler and easier
3) The recoil is very low, making follow up shots easier, making rifleman more accurate, and increasing the rate of accurate fire.

Those 3 things contribute to a larger amount of wounds on the other side. That is the point of an assault rifle, to cause as many WOUNDS on the other side as possible. When you wound an enemy instead of killing them, you damage your adversary's war fighting ability much more. A wounded man needs to be lifted off the battle field, this takes away usually 2 enemies from the fight, or exposes them to be wounded or killed themselves. The wounded require medical care, and transport, which sucks up more of the enemy's material and fuel.

The 5.56 round is exceptional in the full-spectrum of war because it does just that, and much better than any other round tested. A squad of 9 men armed with M16s firing 5.56 rounds can vastly out gun a 15-man squad armed with 7.62 M14s. Or conversely a squad of 12-15 men armed with 7.62x39 AK-47s.

Now, the war in Iraq isn't a large scale conventional war, so the strengths of the 5.56 aren't really being utilized because the enemy consists of guerrilla forces. However, the proportion of casualties on both sides (US side and insurgent side) by small arms fire (specifically rifle fire) is very low. I think only about 10% of US troop casualties are from small arms. This is because it is incredibly rare for insurgents to actually engage US troops when they are on patrol, they'd rather hide and push buttons when US troops near their rigged explosives.

So regardless, the 5.56 is just fine. The M16/M4 family could use some work, but they are still exceptional rifles. Adopting a new round like the 6.8 would be incredibly expensive, and there are no studies to show that it will even be more effective overall.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/8/07 04:37 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I hear people tout the 6.8 Rem SPC all the time and it makes my blood boil. Yes, it is more powerful and has better killing ability. But that isn't what assault rifles are for.

Assault rifles are for mobility and killing fast and accurately. I can't see why the 6.8 is so bad at that?

1) Troops can carry more rounds because they are lighter and smaller.

The 6.8 is only 1.24 mm longer than the 5.56 NATO. And the 6.8 SPC only weighs 7.45 grams, a significant increase over the 5.56 at about 4.02 grams, but when you look at velocity etc, the advantages of the 6.8 are apparent.

WOUNDS

Stopping power. Accuracy. Penetration capability.

So regardless, the 5.56 is just fine.

If we want to keep the 5.56, we should at least switch to the HK 416.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/8/07 05:21 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/8/07 04:37 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I hear people tout the 6.8 Rem SPC all the time and it makes my blood boil. Yes, it is more powerful and has better killing ability. But that isn't what assault rifles are for.

Assault rifles are for mobility and killing fast and accurately.

Wrong. That would be a battle rifle like an M14 in 7.62x51 or any other that fires a full-power round. An assault rifle is designed to inflict more wounds with less powerful, intermediate rounds.

I can't see why the 6.8 is so bad at that?

First of all, it hasn't been proven to be that much better at wounding to justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars for changing our entire military to use it. It also hasn't been through the extensive tests and scenarios where a round is judged to be logistically sound, or effective in a full-spectrum war.

An assault rifle and it's ammunition isn't designed to just kill only. That is incredibly shortsighted. They are designed and engineered in order to fit into an entire doctrine of war. In order to be effective, there has to be balancing act between stopping power, accuracy, logistical efficiency etc... the 5.56 is a perfect balance. The 6.8 hasn't proven itself to be more effective in anything other than simple wound ballistics.

1) Troops can carry more rounds because they are lighter and smaller.

The 6.8 is only 1.24 mm longer than the 5.56 NATO. And the 6.8 SPC only weighs 7.45 grams, a significant increase over the 5.56 at about 4.02 grams

See this is what boils my blood. People read a few things and think they understand what they are talking about.

Listen, even the slightest difference in the weight and size of each round adds up when you're talking about billions of rounds being transported, carried, fired etc... in a large scale war.

As I said, there is a balancing act, and the increase in stopping power of the 6.8 isn't shown to counteract the negative side effect which is its greater size, weight, recoil level etc..

but when you look at velocity etc, the advantages of the 6.8 are apparent.

Hmmm? The 6.8 doesn't have higher velocity, it only has a heavier projectile. The 62-grain of the standard issue M855 5.56x45 (what the M16/M4 fire) has a muzzle velocity of about 3000-3100 ft/s when fired from a 16-inch barrel. The 6.8 usually has a 110-gr projectile fired at between 2500-2600 ft/s.

What makes the 6.8 better is the larger diameter of the projectile, not velocity. But just to inform you, a lot of people base their support of the 6.8 round on its civilian tests when it was firing expanding hunting bullets such as hollow points and soft points. Of course it's going to perform better than a 5.56 FMJ round when it's using hunting rounds. But those are outlawed from military use under the Hague Convetion which the US is a signatory of.

You have to have full-metal jacket rounds that don't expand. So you'd have to use a FMJ 6.8 and therefore its only real advantage is bullet size and weight, which doesn't necessarily always add up to more stopping power.

WOUNDS

Stopping power. Accuracy. Penetration capability.

That depends. There are 5.56 rounds that would make those claims debatable. There are new 5.56 rounds that outperform even 7.62x51mm rounds in all of those aspects.

So regardless, the 5.56 is just fine.

If we want to keep the 5.56, we should at least switch to the HK 416.

I wish it was as simple as that. You know what the difference is right? The original M16/M4 has a direct gas impingement system that blows carbon back into the action, leading to earlier fouling if it isn't cleaned properly. The HK416 is only different in that it uses a gas piston system where no carbon is blown back into the chamber.

It only makes the rifle a little more reliable, it doesn't do anything in terms of accuracy, in fact it can make a rifle less accurate because the inertia of the piston movement tends to flex the rifle (including the barrel) slightly when firing (before the bullet leaves the muzzle), which although small, affects accuracy at long range.

But it's incredibly expensive to switch over to that system when we have our entire military designed to accommodate the original direct gas impingement system. All our troops are trained on it, we have millions of rifles with it, maintenance kits are designed for it. The Army has a policy only to change when it is actually worth it, when a new rifle will cause a 100% increase in the effectiveness of the average rifleman, the Hk416 isn't going to even come close.

[HighlyIllogical]

I do see your point, Cellar, and I defer. But I will say that we should have stuck with the XM8 system.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/8/07 07:37 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: I do see your point, Cellar, and I defer. But I will say that we should have stuck with the XM8 system.

Why? What made you think the XM8 was better? Because it looks better?

See, this is why I get irritated about this subject. People don't really understand the issue, they don't understand about firearms or warfare of any kind. But they see a few segments of a show on the History Channel, they see a spiffy looking gun and they automatically jump to some conclusion without any real info.

The Xm8 was actually a train wreck. It was incredibly flimsy, it was only really a HK G36 with a new plastic body and slight improvements to wow some people. It didn't really perform any better than the AR-15, it was hyped up because it was supposed to slowly improve over a phase of development funded by the Army, but it never did. And now it's only a relic of the past and a testament to how companies that vie for a US Army contract tend to create a bunch of hype because they know they can't actually meet the requirements for a new service rifle.

[JakeHero]

I'm actually in favor of replacing alot of the standard issued rifles our military uses. I'm no expert on guns, but I've fired both an M16 and M-4, and I can't say I'm too impressed with eithers durability or firepower.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/8/07 08:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Why? What made you think the XM8 was better? Because it looks better?

It was built for modularity, firstly. Quick change barrels, add ons, etc. make the weapon much more functional. And it has universal components...not all the generations of the '16 are the same, apparently.

The Xm8 was actually a train wreck....

The prototype weighed 6.4 pounds. The M4 weighs 6.9 pounds with a 30 round magazine (5.9 pound weapon, 1.0 pound magazine). Also, "Unlike the current M-4 and M-16 direct gas system with gas tube, the XM8 gas system does not introduce propellant gases and carbon back into the weapon's receiver during firing." That seems good to me...

[cellardoor6]

At 6/8/07 08:22 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/8/07 08:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Why? What made you think the XM8 was better? Because it looks better?

It was built for modularity, firstly. Quick change barrels, add ons, etc. make the weapon much more functional.

Yeah and because of its construction it was not very durable.

And it has universal components...
not all the generations of the '16 are the same, apparently.

Yes but almost all of them in service now are. M16A1s are no longer in service except for a few stateside guard units. The current M16A2/A4 and M4A1/A2 that are used now have almost entire parts commonality.

The Xm8 was actually a train wreck....

The prototype weighed 6.4 pounds. The M4 weighs 6.9 pounds with a 30 round magazine (5.9 pound weapon, 1.0 pound magazine).

That was all what it INTENDED to do. If it met those requirements the Army would have adopted it.

Also, "Unlike the current M-4 and M-16 direct gas system with gas tube, the XM8 gas system does not introduce propellant gases and carbon back into the weapon's receiver during firing."

Yeah I already said that. It does make it more reliable, but that didn't negate the deficiencies of the design. Otherwise it would have been procured.

[Demosthenez]

At 6/8/07 03:13 PM, BigScizot wrote: I heard they were going to be replacing them with these.

Huh, they got like a sub-machinegun version of the M8. Wierd ass gun.

And whats that gun I saw on Future Weapons or whatever that show is that has those rifle grenades you can program to explode at a certain distance in the air? Was in the M8 or can they stick those air burst grenades on every gun?

[cellardoor6]

At 6/8/07 10:41 PM, Demosthenez wrote:

At 6/8/07 03:13 PM, BigScizot wrote: I heard they were going to be replacing them with these.

Huh, they got like a sub-machinegun version of the M8. Wierd ass gun.

And whats that gun I saw on Future Weapons or whatever that show is that has those rifle grenades you can program to explode at a certain distance in the air?

I'm not sure which one you're talking about, but you're referring to Airburst technology.

Was in the M8 or can they stick those air burst grenades on every gun?

Well there is the XM307 which is the crew-served weapon. It fires 25mm programmable ammunition and can also be converted to fire .50 BMG rounds. When set up to fire .50 BMG rounds it is referred to as the XM312.

Then there was the XM29 OICW which was a hybrid individual weapon system which had both a 20mm programmable grenade launcher and a 5.56 rifle in one package. The 5.56 rifle in that sustem was the predecessor to the XM8.

They army split them up into two separate projects before the XM8 rifle was scrapped. But the XM25 is the descendant of the XM29 and is still being developed but as a stand-alone individual weapon and now fires 25mm grenades.

But just to clarify, the Xm307 and the XM25 fire different grenades, the XM307 fires high velocity 25mm, and the XM25 fires a lower velocity "snubby" version of the same caliber.

[Demosthenez]

Haha that XM307 is fucking nuts. Im not sure when they would ever get a chance to use that thing except for on HMMWV's or whatever but I would sure as fuck not want to be on the wrongside of that motherfucker.

And it was the OICW I was thinking of. I remember seeing that on one of those shows and seeing it in Ghost Recon. Was real fun to use in that game.

[TheMason]

I think we should start cranking out American AK-47s. I like the 7.62x39 round better and the rifle itself is all-around better for combat. It is more rugged than the M-16/4, longer lasting and easier to maintain & use. Furthermore, time and time again it has proven itself in battle much more than the M-16. I do wonder about the 5.45x39 the ex-Soviet block and current Sino block are currently toying with...

[cellardoor6]

At 6/9/07 12:05 AM, TheMason wrote: I think we should start cranking out American AK-47s. I like the 7.62x39 round better and the rifle itself is all-around better for combat.

Hahaha, that must be why the Russians themselves ditched it and started using the 5.45 to immitate the 5.56 right?

That must be why the 7.62x39mm is relegated to the poorest militaries in the world while every advanced military uses the 5.56 or a similar round made to duplicate its effects.

It is more rugged than the M-16/4, longer lasting and easier to maintain & use.

Because it was designed to equip hordes of illiterate Russia peasant farmers who couldn't be counter on to maintain their weapon properly. Meanwhile, the AK-47 design is much less accurate, especially when coupled with the 7.62x39mm. The 7.62x39 has one of the worst ballistic coefficients out of any rifle round.

Furthermore, time and time again it has proven itself in battle much more than the M-16.

Um... no. That must be why the Russians specifically developed the AK-74 and the 5.45x39 round after studying the effects the 5.56 and the M16 had against the Viet Cong and NVA during Vietnam. The M16 is a much more effective assault rifle, and the 5.56 is a much more effective assault rifle round.

I do wonder about the 5.45x39 the ex-Soviet block and current Sino block are currently toying with...

The Sino (Chinese) developed their own 5.8mm round. I don't even think they ever used the 5.45

Meanwhile... the only countries that still use the AK-47 and the 7.62x39 happen to be the poorest countries who can't afford to procure higher quality rifles, and can't afford to train soldiers to maintain a better assault rifle and exploit the advantages in accuracy that a round like the 5.56 gives over the 7.62x39.

were you intentionally baiting me?

[AdamRice]

Here's an interesting concept.

Why not use our the United States' budget on something other then financing weapons?

[cellardoor6]

At 6/9/07 12:50 AM, AdamRice wrote: Here's an interesting concept.

Why not use our the United States' budget on something other then financing weapons?

This is why.

[SolInvictus]

but when fighting not standard, zealous armies wouldn't killing be better?

[ReiperX]

I like the L82A2 and L85A1. I got to fire both of these in 29 Palms during a join training event with the British. We got to fire each other's weapons and talk, was pretty nifty.

The 85 felt awkward at first, but I liked firing it over the M-16A2. But I also only shot each one for about 10 or 15 minutes each, so not sure what it is like using it daily.

The M-4 is crap, and M-16A4 from what I hear is a nice upgrade, but I an hoping that the US replacing the M-16 family before too long.

[Karzand]

Well the Israelis are making their an assault rifle designed for urban combat. I'm not quite sure when it will replace their m-4s/16s. If we are going to fighting in urban warfare we might want to look into it. Here it ishttp://world.guns.ru/assault/as30-e.htm

[HighlyIllogical]

Ah, yes the Tavor. It pwns what we had coming up the pipeline, that's for sure.

We should purchase those.

[cellardoor6]

At 6/9/07 02:39 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Ah, yes the Tavor. It pwns what we had coming up the pipeline, that's for sure.

We should purchase those.

You know what, I'm going to agree with you there. Tavors are pretty awesome. But anyone would be hard pressed trying to persuade our military to adopt a bullpup-style rifle. The ergonomics are too wacky for the average American soldier to deal with. Mag changes are kind of awkward, and like the XM8, it is constructed from mostly plastics and polymers that are susceptible to melting, breaking etc..

I do think the Tavors are sweet rifles, but you have to understand the effect it would have on the military as a whole.