Army Looks For New Combat Rifle

[TxD]

Maybe this belongs in the political forum.

"After buying more than 700,000 Colt M4 carbines, the Defense Department has started a search for the rifle’s successor, giving Colt’s competitors the long-awaited chance to break the company’s grip on the market."

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2011/05 ... bat-rifle/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AEA]

308?

[CombatWombat]

I hope they go for the scars in 7.62, that would be great. I like the scar platform and hope that it's soon to venture out of the special operations community. They already decided that they wouldn't replace the m4 w/ a 5.56 scar b/c it wasn't beneficial enough for the cost, but man, 7.62 would be awesome

[CC Italian]

308, doubtful. As soon as the bean counters start adding numbers the 5.56 will hold. I don't think the 5.56 will change because ammo cost is much cheaper then the .308. We all know the benefits of the .308 but that aside the cost is what will determine the next rifle, sad but true.

[CC Italian]

It’s just like how people said they would never get rid of the .45acp as the official sidearm. The official sidearm is still the Beretta M9 last time I checked. This is what my friend who was a Master at Arms in the Navy carried. Capacity and cost is what they will choose if I had money on it.

[74novaman]

"started a search"? I could probably dig up at least 1 article a year since 2000 about the Army looking to replace the M-16 (and in later years the M-4). I think it is mostly journalists looking for something to write about. Seems they're always searching, but haven't found anything yet. I would predict we'll be seeing American troops carrying some form of M-16 for at least another 20 years.

[longhorn_92]

How about a photon laser rifle?...

[74novaman]

How about a photon laser rifle?...

maybe in the 40 watt range?

[OldCannon]

"started a search"? I could probably dig up at least 1 article a year since 2000 about the Army looking to replace the M-16 (and in later years the M-4). I think it is mostly journalists looking for something to write about. Seems they're always searching, but haven't found anything yet. I would predict we'll be seeing American troops carrying some form of M-16 for at least another 20 years.

Invariably, the whole "changing the platform" thing opens up the whole "changing the caliber" thing, then you have this pesky issue of convincing many other countries to follow suit for both issues.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

[74novaman]

Invariably, the whole "changing the platform" thing opens up the whole "changing the caliber" thing, then you have this pesky issue of convincing many other countries to follow suit for both issues.

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Especially since we already made them use a caliber they didn't want (.308) then 10 years later changed our minds.

The rest of NATO is still kinda whiny about that one.

[RocTrac]

But really who cares what NATO thinks. I would like to the the standard back to the 1911 or at least a 45 ACP and the SCAR in 7.62 would be nice.

[speedsix]

...I'd have a lot more confidence if they'd go 6.8...or even 7.62x39...in a platform as reliable as an AK...more punch than they have now, for sure...M14 for longer ranges...

[LeonCarr]

The 64,000 dollar question is what can the replacement do better than the one that is in service?

From what I have read, the various XM8s, SCARs, and others aren't that much better in terms of reliability and accuracy to spending millions of dollars replacing the M16s/M4s that are in service. Most of the better newer are LESS accurate than the M16/M4.

IMO they should just standardize the 77 grain BTHP MK 262 type ammunition for all the services, which would be the cheapest way to increase the "stopping power" and accuracy of an already accurate and reliable platform instead of spending taxpayer dollars on the latest and greatest that is really not superior.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[Purplehood]

The 64,000 dollar question is what can the replacement do better than the one that is in service?

From what I have read, the various XM8s, SCARs, and others aren't that much better in terms of reliability and accuracy to spending millions of dollars replacing the M16s/M4s that are in service. Most of the better newer are LESS accurate than the M16/M4.

IMO they should just standardize the 77 grain BTHP MK 262 type ammunition for all the services, which would be the cheapest way to increase the "stopping power" and accuracy of an already accurate and reliable platform instead of spending taxpayer dollars on the latest and greatest that is really not superior.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

From my reads of the SCAR-type AR's, they do appear to be more reliable in the field and more accurate. I am not sure what you are reading that says they are less accurate. I have absolutely no experience with the SCAR or the old M-14 (I was in one of the first Boot Camp Platoons that no longer trained with the M-14).
All I know is that the M-4 works and that every squad now has 1 or 2 M-14 "Battle Rifles" for shooting at long range.

[LeonCarr]

After shooting the AR-15 as a condition of employment since 1991 and also shooting them in training and competition, I have never had a malfunction with an AR-15 (Knocking on wood repeatedly). That includes using factory ammo and handloads. Now granted I only have limited experience with full auto or three shot burst, which are obviously included with any comparison test with the SCAR vs M4.With that said, and I have never been to Iraq or Afghanistan (If you have, thank you for your service), it seems like it would be hard to increase the reliability of the M4 with a different platform without spending millions of taxpayer dollars. As far as accuracy goes, I haven't heard of a SCAR winning at Camp Perry...yet :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr
P.S. I like the M-14/M1A...it is a beast :).