The 82nd Airborne recently took delivery of the first production batch of the new M320 grenade launcher developed by PEO Soldier.
Made by H&K, the M320 replaces the M203 which has been in service across the U.S. military since the 1960s. The coolest thing about the M320 is that it can be operated as a stand-alone 40mm grenade slinger as well as a component of the M4 and M16 rifle. I remember seeing a couple grunts (Marines) and some Joes in Iraq with old-school M79s slung over their shoulders. I never had the opportunity to ask where they got them, but it was clear that having the extra bit of Bang Bang as a separate system was easier to manage than the bulky M203 slung under an M16 barrel.
According to a PEO Soldier release, the M320 has a side-opening breach that can take 40mm projectiles that are a bit longer and pack more of a punch than the current M203 can. it has Picatinny rails that can accept optics and Laser/IR pointers, a collapsible stock and a "double action" trigger.
I'm still searching for some video of the M320 in action -- last year when I went out to Aberdeen to test out some of the Army's new armaments, I did get a chance to shoot it. The simple operation and updated ergonomics are a necessary update to an unglamorous weapon that can add a heck of a punch to a ground pounder where weight and mobility are key. And the siting system is pretty sweet as well, making the usual dead-reckoning lob technique a thing of the past.
The best part of the system, however, is the integrated electronic sighting system that comes with it. Developed by Insight Technology, the optic uses an iron sight reticule that's precision balanced. A soldier uses a hand-held range finder to determine the distance to a target, dials in the yardage in five-yard intervals on the XM320 sight and a handy green/red light and digital bar tells the shooter whether he's on target and shooting level. I hit the target at 150 yards on my first shot. The rifle-mounted laser illuminator can be used at night with the system to find a target even in darkness, making the new grenade launcher far more effective in all conditions, said Maj. Larry Dring, assistant product manager for individual weapons with PEO Soldier.
It's also interesting to note that although H&K got sidelined from the XM8 controversy, the components designed alongside that platform are finding their way into the hands of warfighters anyway -- the ultimate "spiraling out" as it were.
The Army plans to field nearly 72,000 M320s into the force over the next few years.
-- Christian
SCAR Getting in Operators' Hands
I just got official word from FN Herstal that the company has begun fielding the SoCom Combat Assault Rifle/Mk16 and Mk17 to commandos in April.
In a bland release from the company's PA shop, FN says fielding will continue through the winter of 2009. A source close to the program tells me so far the Rangers have gotten their new rifles, with Navy Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen and SEAL teams 1, 2 and 3 getting theirs through this month and the Army Special Forces operators slinging theirs "shortly."
So that brings us to point #2...if the SWCCs haven't gotten their SCARs fully fielded yet, then what gives on the photo I posted a couple days ago that supposedly shows two SWCCs with SCARs slung across their shoulders?
Well, that same source tells me based on his analysis of the fielding dates, location of the photo and date of the shoot, "it doesn't add up." He claims that a company called Independent Studio Services manufactures look-alike SCARs that the SOCOM buys for training purposes.
Kudos to DT reader Alan for spotting the chipped paint on one of the stocks. That's exactly what our informed source spotted as well before he gave me a call to set my post straight...which I caveated with a smidgen of doubt.
Anyway, officially operators are close to getting their new, high-speed rifle and hopefully that'll mean more sightings and maybe a couple more test shoots!
-- Christian
Sniper (i)Phone
I know most of you have already seen the Knight's Armament sniper application for the iPhone. I ran across it at SHOT Show just like everyone else but since the MSM latched onto it, I decided against posting it for fear my beloved readers would skewer me for being so late.
But our friends at Milspecmonkey went one step further, posting a video from the Knight's Armament booth with a company official describing new features to their popular Mk-11/SR-25/M-110 sniper rifle lineup.
-- Christian
Build your own Death Stick
Have fun with this one, folks.
Our friends over at Soldier Systems Daily blog found a cool feature on the web site for Brownells -- a leading manufacturer and customizer for ARs and other "black guns."
Click HERE and use their online application to build your own rifle. Trick it out like a freakin' commando brother and let's go kick in some doors!
I also spoke with Darren Mellors, vice president for business development from LWRC, about their losing bid on the Marine Corps Infantry Automatic Rifle competition.
He showed me their bid for the new gun contract, which is intended to replace the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon in rifle squads and light armored reconnaissance units. Colt won two contracts for two separate weapons, FNH-USA won another and H&K won a third limited contract for 10 test weapons from whom the Corps will decide a winner.
Basically, the LWRC IAR candidate can be fired in semi-or-full auto, fires its first shot from a closed bolt and then operates from an open bolt configuration to keep the action cool under full auto fire. It has a gas-piston operating system and a heavy barrel with a nickel Teflon finish to absorb all the abuse from thousands of rounds.
I asked Mellors about the limited capacity a 30 round mar gives an automatic rifleman with this kind of setup. First of all, he said they'd been in talks with Maul to develop a higher capacity "quad-stack" mar akin to an experimental AK-74 one that feeds four stacks of ammo through a single channel in one 55-round magazine. But the company was reluctant to pitch the new mar with its IAR for fear it would undercut their bid as being too risky.
He also said that concerns about the lack of firepower from the IAR are unfounded because as the Marine Corps sees it, with all the urban fighting that's been going on, the need has shifted to point suppression fire rather than area suppression.
"Most of the time, the automatic rifleman is focused on suppressing one window, rather than a large swath," Mellors said of the Corps' thought process. "Your not suppressing big enemy positions."
And he also reiterated the argument that the SAW is very heavy and virtually useless in a room-to-room fight. The IAR will give the automatic rifleman a lot more to do than simply helping cordon the building.
Rumor around many of the competitors' booths was that small companies like LWRC lost out on the IAR contract because the Corps was nervous about a company's ability to deliver enough product on time. Clearly the expertise is there to build an IAR, but can they ramp up to the quantities needed and deliver support if something goes wrong.
That question strikes at the heart of the oncoming debate over a potential replacement for the M4 (and for who might eventually win the USMC IAR contract). Colt had a booth at the SHOT show, but it was not in the law enforcement and military section, but embedded deeply within the hunting and sports area of the show.
I tried to talk with someone there about their IAR candidate (which Colt has declined repeated requests for information on) and was told they didn't have any of their military/LE goods on display. I asked why, despite the hundreds of vendors in that part of the show, Colt wasn't represented and was told "this is primarily a hunting and sporting venue"...
Try and tell that to the Berettas, FNHs, LWRCs, Magpuls and Smith and Wessons of the world. And does this also smack of over confidence?
We'll see. I'm still waiting to hear from Colt about the weapons they're pitching to the Corps.
-- Christian
The 6.8
Unfortunately, I'm not sure my schedule permits attending any of the "events" at Rachels this week while I'm here at SHOT, so sorry DC2.
But I did partially answer the mail on the whole 6.8 question. Though I'm not sure how much more light I can shed on the subject since it just seems to me a technical question of ballistics, range and penetration with a more macro question of where this round fits -- or could fit -- in the US (or international) arsenal.
I had a long conversation with Jeff Clemmer, a program manager with LWRC International. Reason I talked with Jeff is that his company's PSD Carbine is chambered for the 6.8mm SPC round and has become increasingly popular with the private security community and some government agencies.
Jeff gave the some gouge on the advantages of the 6.8mm round. He told me that during the congressional test shoot in July, staffers were amazed at the performance of the round at long ranges.
"When we fired the 5.56 to a steel target at 300 yards, rounds were just pinging off," Clemmer said. "But the 6.8 was knocking them flat."
I'm no expert, but 300 yards is a pretty good distance for a carbine...and they were shooting the 6.8 during the demo out of the PSD which has an 8-inch barrel.
Ballistic demonstrations with jelly showed better penetration at those ranges than the 5.56 as well, Clemmer said, and published reports confirm his field data.
I asked about the added weight. As you can see from the picture here, the round is only slightly fatter than the 5.56 and significantly smaller than the 7.62. He said a standard 30-round magazine holds 25 rounds and offers a negligible weight penalty.
But given all the positive press on the 6.8, there's one huge problem. It's a whole new round.
It's clear to the folks at LWRC how difficult it would ever be to convince the institutional Army or Marine Corps to make a hard right turn and change the standard-issued carbine to a 6.8mm one. So I asked him why they still make weapons chambered for 6.8 and he said the round was becoming increasingly popular in the private security community and, oddly enough, the hunting crowd which likes to use a military-esque round for plinking varmints and such.
I did ask him about the 6.5 Grendel round as well and he said that there just aren't that many weapons chambered in 6.5 (I don't know how accurate that is) and that the manufacturing base is small as well. He didn't have anything bad to say about the round, though, adding that the ballistics are only slightly different from the 6.8.
-- Christian
SHOT Show Floor Tour
-- Christian
SHOT Show Video Diary #1
-- Christian
Pistol Power
Sorry for the delayed post, folks. We had some technical problems yesterday company wide and I was unable to put up new stuff until this AM.
The demo day for this year's SHOT show was not as fun as I thought it would be. Of course, this is my first time to a SHOT show, but others I hung out with during the day were a bit disappointed too.
But that doesn't mean I didn't find some guns to shoot.
I had a good conversation with Beretta's Gabriele de Plano and shot some of their new pistols.
I was most impressed with their candidate for the Joint Combat Pistol. The PX4 Storm is a .45 ACP with some of the bells and whistles one would expect of a "combat pistol," including ambidextrous safety catch (for right and left handed shooters), a lower accessory rail and magazine bumper.
But it's also got a polymer lower receiver that, despite its light weight, made the PX4 Storm a really easy shooter -- even slinging fat .45s down range. The balance is great and it's pretty accurate for even a mediocre shooter like me.
Problem is, the JCP program is "on hold" (it was being run by the Air Force) and it's unclear when the search for a replacement of the unpopular M9 will restart. But Beretta's got a pretty good candidate as far as I can see.
Unrelated to any ongoing DoD programs, I also enjoyed shooting the Taurus line-up of .45s. My favorite was the PT845. Like the PX4, it too had a polymer frame, but it fit like a glove and was easy to control and keep on target -- even in "rapid fire" mode.
And, of course, I had to try their version of the 1911. There's just something satisfying about holding that much brute, cold steel. No polymer here, the P1911 is all iron and lead. And what a joy to shoot, though it did have plenty of kick and was difficult to hold on target during fast firing.
I'm no pistol expert, but from what I saw of the state of the art here at SHOT, things are getting lighter, more customizable and increasingly comfortable for even the average shooter.
-- Christian
The H&K IAR Revealed
I just got some information on the Heckler and Koch bid for the Marine Corps Infantry Automatic Rifle.
You can see the picture here and below, check out the stats:
To me, it basically looks like a 416 with a longer barrel and more robust butt stock. I will say that troops love the H&K box magazines for their lack of hangups in when feeding on burst fire.
Thing is, I hope the deck isn't stacked against FN and H&K because of Colt's submission of two weapons. I have absolutely nothing against Colt or its IAR variants (though for some reason they declined to provide me with any details of their weapons for DT or Military.com), I just for once want to see a free and fair competition for the Corps' new version of the BAR (though in 5.56, much to many's chagrin)...Without any ole boy networking or bias.
We'll see though, huh?
-- Christian
Corps Taps Three for IAR
The Marine Corps has awarded a limited contract to three rifle manufacturers for a weapon to replace its M249 Squad Automatic Rifle.
The contract awarded Dec. 19 calls for a minimum of 10 weapons from each company to conduct further evaluation for an eventual down-select to one weapon. The final manufacturer could garner nearly $27 million for 6,500 of the so-called Infantry Automatic Rifles.
Ashburn, Va.-based Heckler and Koch USA and FN Herstal of Belgium won two of the contracts, with West Hartford, Conn.-based Colt Defense winning two separate contracts for two different weapons they offered.
Representatives of the three companies were not available for comment.
The Corps plans to replace its entire inventory of FN Herstal-made M249 SAWs equipped to rifle squads and Light Armored Reconnaissance scout Marines with the 5.56mm IAR beginning in 2010.
"The IAR seeks to enhance the automatic rifleman's maneuverability and displacement speed while providing the warfighter the ability to suppress or destroy those targets of most immediate concern to the fire team," said a Marine Corps release announcing the award.
Unlike the belt-fed SAW, the IAR will pull its ammo from an attached magazine. Most of the 10 original candidate systems had a low-profile, M16-like appearance since the Corps wanted the IAR to be easier to maneuver "through constricted terrain" like houses and buildings.
The SAW weighs nearly 17 pounds without its 200-round ammunition box and has an overall length of 41 inches. An M-16A4 weighs about nine pounds and is 39 inches long.
The Corps also asked for IAR systems that could fire from both a closed and open bolt feed.
"The IAR shall provide accurate automatic or semi-automatic fires against point (550 meters) and area (800 meters) targets in all light, environmental, and terrain conditions," Marine Corps Systems Command told Military.com in October. "The IAR will be operated by a single Marine and employed from all doctrinal firing positions … [and] demonstrate improved portability, reliability and maneuverability through constricted terrain and conditions over the current M249 SAW."
The Corps hopes to take delivery of the first 10 weapons from each candidate by mid-March 2009 and conduct evaluations and operational testing -- including endurance and reliability testing at "government facilities" -- to decide a winner. The Corps hopes to have its first units equipped with IARs by 2010.
--Christian
New Lease on Life for the Beloved M-14
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated how critically important snipers are to a fight marked by urban canyons and high-mountain caves. Problem is, those highly-trained sharpshooters are in short supply, and the need for accurate, long-range fire has outpaced the services' ability to field one-shot killers.
So both the Army and Marine Corps began a program to seed infantry squads with so-called "designated marksmen" -- call them "snipers-lite."
The growing need to equip these new marksmen with accurized rifles prompted the Army to reconsider the role of the venerable M-14 rifle for the war on terror. Back in Desert Storm, armorers from the 10th Special Forces group took M-14s equipped with a match barrels and fitted a gas piston on them for optimal performance, re-designating it the M-25. They replaced the stock with a McMillan M1A fiberglass one, developed a scope mount and added a Bausch & Lomb 10x40mm fixed-power optic or a Leupold Mark 4.
The revamped M-14 provides the Army squad designated marksman with on-command direct fire support for his squad, a fire team or his platoon. The heavier-caliber sharpshooters provide cover when machine guns displace, counter-sniper fire in urban areas, and they help in overtaking valuable real estate.
Infrared targeting lasers such as the AN/PEQ-2 and PAQ-4C make the DM's job more like 24-hour shift work. Now that suppressors for the M-14-series of rifles are available, the night-vision capabilities coupled with sound mitigation makes the Soldier's ability to own the night even more secure.
Taking the M-14 modifications a step further, Crane Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center teamed up with Sage International to create an M-14/M1A package that is dubbed the "Enhanced Battle Rifle."
Using the M-14 barrel, receiver and trigger groups, the EBR chassis adds a retractable stock, a cheek piece that's adjustable for height and a floated Picatinny quad-rail fore-end made of high-strength aluminum. The EBR also adds a pistol grip for additional control and ergonomic sling points.
But the new rifle is heavier than the M-16 or M-4 which weighs nearly seven pounds, with each 30-round magazine adding another pound. The basic M-14, however, weighs nearly 10 pounds with an addition of almost two pounds for every 20 rounds of 7.62 the EBR fires.
A soldier's wisdom varies from one to another but many don't care about the weight. The confidence in the effective range and terminal ballistics of the M-14's 7.62mm round brings the argument back to the Vietnam-era rifle.
The EBR feels a little heavy at the fore end, but this helps the rifle address criticism that it is uncontrollable when firing on full-auto. The additional weight -- and the fact that the stock is in line and parallel with the barrel -- helps reduce muzzle climb.
The EBR chassis comes with a Picatinny rail that replaces the stripper-clip guide, helping Soldiers mount high-powered scopes that can extend the rifle's range. Unique to the EBR is an extended rail just forward of the receiver. For the followers of the Jeff Cooper doctrine on scout rifles, red dot optics work well in making this rifle an effective close quarter battle scout rifle. Regardless of scope height, the shooter can obtain proper cheek weld by adjusting the EBR's stock.
As the Army and Marines Corps continue to develop a semi-auto designated marksman rifle, many within the tactical community feel that the resurrection of the M-14 is just a stopgap. But praise from troops using the M-14's variants and moves made by the Navy suggest otherwise. In 2004, the Navy signed a contract to upgrade nearly 3,000 of their M-14s with the Sage EBR chassis.
What will remain, in any case, is the designated marksman. The smallest infantry unit includes a team leader, two riflemen and a gunner. One of these riflemen will be expected to fill the role of the designated marksman, using optics to distinguish combatants from non-combatants and minimizing collateral risk with precision fire in urban areas.
The book on small unit tactics has evolved to defeat a new kind of enemy, and the old standby Springfield Armory M-14 has evolved right along with it.
Judging from the comments there's quite a bit of interest -- and insider knowledge -- of the IAR competition.
I just want to set one thing straight: I wrote the earlier post mainly to get what I had out there and I caveated the whole deal with the fact that my reporting was incomplete.
Thanks to Krag who set me straight on whether the IAR was replacing all SAWs...it clearly is not but I didn't specify that in my post. And sorry Sven for getting the Singapore company wrong. My source said Ultimax and in my notes it looks like I wrote it as the name of the company, not the name of the gun.
What I decided to do was to go ahead and post the entire response on my questions about the program to SysCom (Marine Corps Systems Command). They would not grant me a phone interview, but that's not surprising given my long a sordid relationship with them (body armor recall). Maybe if they'd agreed to let me talk to a real person, there wouldn't have been this confusion (and delay).
Anyway, here's what Syscom told me:
The Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) marks the return of the automatic rifle to the Corps. It provides the Marine Fire Team and Rifle Squad the capability to achieve fire superiority through short term accurate, high volume, automatic fire to suppress targets and enable the remainder of the unit Fire Team to close with and destroy the enemy. Additionally, The IAR is the individual weapon of the Automatic Rifleman in the Fire Team and, as such, provides his means for offensive and defensive direct fire engagement. The IAR consists of an automatic rifle, designated optic, magazines, bipod, cleaning and maintenance equipment, and sling. The IAR includes attachment points for integration of the full range of currently available weapon accessories such as the Rifle Combat Optic (RCO), PEQ-2A, PAS-13, PVS-17, MWS Broomstick grip, and others.
The source documentation is the Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) for Infantry Automatic Rifle dated Jan. 21, 2005, that validates a requirement for an individual Marine operable, high volume of fire automatic rifle at the Infantry Fire Team level. The Approved Acquisition Objective is for 4,476 weapons to be fielded to the rifle squads within Marine Infantry Battalions and the scout teams within Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalions. There have been no weapons purchased and no contract(s) awarded during this phase.
The IAR will enhance the Automatic Rifleman's maneuverability and displacement speed, while providing him the ability to achieve fire superiority and suppress or destroy those targets of most immediate concern to the fire team. The IAR LAR shall provide accurate automatic or semi-automatic fires against point (550 meters) and area (800 meters) targets in all light, environmental, and terrain conditions. The IAR will be operated by a single Marine and employed from all doctrinal firing positions. Additionally, the IAR shall demonstrate improved portability, reliability, and maneuverability through constricted terrain and conditions over the current M249 SAW.
Analysis that pointed toward establishing this requirement is listed below:
a. Joint Service Small Arms Master Plan (JSSAMP), 2003. The JSSAMP provides the description of the Services' desire to evolve current small arms systems into the next generation of more capable and lighter weight systems.
b. U.S. Army Infantry Center LMG JCIDS Capabilities Base Assessment (CBA), Version 1.2, November 2004. Findings: There is a need to improve or replace the current M249 given the capability gaps that the current LMG displays.
c. The need for an Infantry Automatic Rifle was identified by experimentation conducted by 2d Battalion, 7th Marines, during August 2001.
d. The Ground Combat Element (GCE) Conference Report of Sept. 20, 2001 stated Phase I of the experiment was complete with results demonstrating the need for a more effective automatic rifle in the infantry squad.
e. US Army LWMG Analysis.
f. Joint Service Small Arms Individual Small Arms Analysis.
Hope that sheds some additional light on the IAR issue. I'll post more on this as the news comes in...
-- Christian
Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
For once it seems the Army is actually turning fiction into science.
After nearly a decade in the shadows -- with billions spent on earlier versions long since abandoned -- the Army is moving quickly to field a revolutionary new weapon to Joes a lot sooner than anyone had ever imagined.
It's a weapon that can take out a bad guy behind a wall, beyond a hill or below a trench, and do it more accurately and with less collateral damage than anything on the battlefield today, officials say. It's called the XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapon, and by next month the service will have three prototypes of the precision-guided 25mm rifle ready for testing.
"We've done a lot of testing with this, and what we're seeing is the estimated increase in effectiveness is six times what we'd be getting with a 5.56mm carbine or a grenade launcher," said Rich Audette, Army Deputy Project Manager for Soldier weapons.
"What we're talking about is a true 'leap ahead' in lethality, here. This is a huge step," Audette added during a phone interview with Military.com from his office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
Born of the much-maligned and highly-controversial Objective Individual Combat Weapon -- a 1990s program that sought a "leap ahead" battle rifle that combined a counter-defilade weapon with a carbine -- the XM25 only recently gained new momentum after the Army formalized a requirement and released a contract in June for a series of test weapons.
Current infantry weapons can shoot at or through an obstacle concealing enemy threats, but the Army has been trying for years to come up with a weapon for engaging targets behind barriers without resorting to mortars, rockets or grenades -- all of which risk greater collateral damage. After fits and starts using a 20mm rifle housed in a bulky, overweight, complicated shell, technology finally caught up to shave the XM25 from 21 pounds to a little more than 12 pounds.
If the XM25 does what its developers hope, it will be able to fire an air-bursting round at a target from 16 meters away out to 600 meters with a highly accurate, 360-degree explosive radius.
The XM25 is about as long as a collapsed M4, weighs about as much as an M16 with an M203 grenade launcher attached and has about as much kick as a 12-gauge shotgun, said Barb Muldowney, Army deputy program manager for infantry combat weapons.
The semi-auto XM25 comes with a four-round magazine, though testers are looking at whether to increase the capacity to as much as 10 rounds.
Brains are what really makes this Buck Rogers gun work -- it has them. The weapon combines a thermal optic, day-sight, laser range finder, compass and IR illuminator with a fire-control system that wirelessly transmits the exact range of the target into the 25mm round's fuse before firing.
A Soldier can aim the XM25 at a wall concealing a sniper, for example, but "dial in" or adjust the distance by an additional meter above the target. When fired, the Alliant Teksystems-built round will explode above the enemy's position, essentially going around the obstruction, Muldowney said.
"It's so accurate, that when I laze to that target I'm going to be able to explode that round close enough that I'm going to get it," Audette added.
The service hopes to field several types of 25mm rounds for the XM25 -- for breaching doors, piercing armor, even non-lethal air burst and impact rounds, and an anti-personnel round.
Testers at Picatinny plan to put the XM25 through its paces over the next several months, certifying it as safe for a Soldier to operate and tinkering with the weapon's effectiveness and durability.
The weapon costs about $25,000 each, but experts were quick to point out that a fully-loaded M4 for optics and pointers costs pretty close to $30,000. Each ATK-made 25mm round costs about $25.
As Heckler and Koch, makers of the weapon itself, and L3 Communications -- which makes the fire control system -- crank out more weapons, the Army plans to push them out to the field for testing beginning in March 2009. That could include the first use of such a weapon in combat, Cline said.
If all goes according to plan, Soldiers might have their first XM25s in hand by 2014, far sooner than the Army's small arms community had predicted even last year.
The program "came very close to ending," Audette explained. "But the Army took a look at all the work that was done -- and the testing that projected the kind of lethality increase that we could get -- and they said 'we've got to do this.' "
-- Christian
Read Ahead: Duck! It Won't Do You Any Good...
I know you guys are probably noticing that we've had a good amount of weapons content on DT for the last few months.
Part of the reason is because after reporting one gun story, you tend to get tidbits of information on another, then another from that, then another from that.
When I spoke with Rich Audette on the Army's search for a new carbine a couple weeks ago, he mentioned to me that the Army was ready to test shoot a new weapon that could revolutionize infantry combat as we know it (my words not his...but his were close).
I just wrapped up the story and put it to bed, and we're going to post it tomorrow morning at Military.com, but I wanted to give you all a head's up here.
Army to Test Air Burst Weapon for Joes
For once it seems the Army is actually turning fiction into science.
After nearly a decade in the shadows - with billions spent on earlier versions long since abandoned - the Army is hurtling along to field a revolutionary new weapon to Joes a lot sooner than anyone had ever imagined.
It's a weapon that can take out a bad guy behind a wall, beyond a hill or below a trench, more accurately and with less collateral damage than anything on the battlefield today, officials say. It's called the XM25 Individual Air Burst Weapon, and by next month the service will have three prototypes of the precision-guided 25mm rifle ready for testing.
"We've done a lot of testing with this and what we're seeing is the estimated increase in effectiveness is six times what we'd be getting with a 5.56mm carbine or a grenade launcher," said Rich Audette, Army Deputy Project Manager for Soldier weapons.
"What we're talking about is a true 'leap ahead' in lethality, here. This is a huge step," Audette added during a phone interview with Military.com from his office at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.
Born of the much-maligned and highly-controversial Objective Individual Combat Weapon - a 1990s program that sought a "leap ahead" battle rifle that combined a counter-defilade weapon with a carbine -- the XM25 has only recently gained new momentum after the Army formalized a requirement and released a contract in June for a series of test weapons.
-- Christian
The BTDTs on the SCAR
Well, the snake eaters have come out from their hides and begun to comment on yesterday's article about a test shoot I participated in with some SF Soldiers who demoed the SCAR.
Aside from the inevitable implication that somehow I was endorsing the weapon myself, the gist of the upcoming debate seems to be leaning toward the idea that the operators I interviewed haven't spent enough time with the weapon and don't know what they're talking about.
In all candor, I would agree. No one is going to make a definitive judgment on a weapon's capability from one day of firing. But first impressions are important -- especially if they're the impressions of Soldiers who will actually use the equipment -- and that's why I included them in an article for DT readers.
Here's an interesting response from "CDRODA396" on the Professional Soldiers web forum:
The SCAR was originally a SEAL requirement, specifically they wanted a weapon that would fire immediately upon breaking the surface of water, as stated above it can do.
The main impetus behind the SCAR has not been USASOC, which they have not helped, but the main push has been SOCOM all along. Specifically an Infantry COL who is the PM down at Tampa. More recently, the Dpty G8, USASOC (18A) has been pushing it, going so far as to making the statement, "We are ready to accept the SCAR right now, and turn in our M-4's to get it," at the last SOCOM Weapons Integrated Product Team (IPT) meeting.
This is NOT the position held at USASFC, which is more fix its problems, prove it works and then we'll move forward. MG Csrnko, CG, USASFC was briefed on the SCAR about two weeks ago. The VTC included all the Groups, USASFC, USASOC and USSOCOM, mainly represented by the O-6 PM.
At that meeting the recurring problems, like the butt-stock breaking, identified over three years ago as an issue, and again found most recently in April (I think it was April, maybe May) at the last User Assessment, were highlighted.
MG Csrnko asked some good questions, including, and probably most importantly, has the thing really been tested in anything other than a "sterile range" environment, which the answer was no.
So, it has been requested by USASFC that the current "issues" get addressed, for good, and it get tested in a FTX, CTC type environment, being used, "like we are going to use it." Until then, we are keeping the M-4A1.
And that's what I know about that.
Let's keep track of what these guys are saying. I'm interested to take a look at how others who've spent more time with the weapon feel about it. One commenter said: "start posting on this thread your issues with the wonderful SCAR that's about to be force fed to you in large doses...It's time to take the SCAR to task."
-- Christian
SCAR Demo Video
U.S. Swaps AKs for M16s for Afghan Army
In a sharp break for a military with long experience wielding the battle-tested AK-47, the Afghan national army is set to replace its entire inventory of Kalashnikov rifles with the American-made M-16.
By the end of the year, the U.S. military plans to ship about 55,000 used Marine Corps M-16A2 rifles to Afghanistan with the intent of outfitting every soldier in the Afghan army with one by the late spring of 2009. So far about 6,000 M16s, including Canadian C-7 variants, have been fielded to Afghan units and about 6,000 M-4 carbines have been in the hands of Afghan commandos since May 2007.
Officials in charge of the $44 million modernization effort recognize the difficultly in transitioning a largely illiterate force from a weapon designed for the third world to one that requires intensive maintenance and marksmanship. But the new, more accurate weapons are already proving their worth on the battlefield.
"When the commandos go into a fight against an enemy that's armed with AKs, it's not a fair fight. And even fire against 'spray and slay,' it's not a fair fight at all," said Army Col. Mike McMahon, who heads up the modernization program for the Afghan army.
"The competence you get [from the M-16] and the confidence is just incredible."
The effort to abandon decades of experience with the venerable Kalashnikov is in part an attempt by Kabul to make a symbolic break from its insurgent past, where genocidal battles with AK-47-toting Soviets and Taliban religious zealots weigh heavily on the memory of Afghanistan's post-September 11 government, McMahon said.
Similar efforts are in the works to supply the new Iraqi army with M-16s as well.
But the enhanced performance and increased assurance gained by wielding the M-16 and its variants come at a cost. Early efforts to train the Afghan army on the M-16 have been mixed, with some soldiers sticking to their trigger-happy ways -- firing triple the amount of ammunition that a typical U.S. trainee would -- and others using diesel fuel to lube the finely-tuned carbine as if it were an AK.
"The Afghans called this the 'Black Kalashnikov' -- it was nothing different than just a plastic weapon," McMahon explained. "They figured out very quickly -- after they went through zeroing -- that it was way different than the Kalashnikov, and you didn't fire all your rounds at the same time."
The M-16s do take some getting used to, McMahon said, and some long-standing habits have to be broken. For one, Afghan troops can't just pick up any M-16 and fire it with any hope of hitting what they're aiming at. Each soldier has his individual weapon zeroed to his particular shooting style and is accountable for that weapon's whereabouts.
And no more ripping off a 30-round magazine shooting from the hip, McMahon said. The M-16 is designed to be fired from the shoulder, so forget the "spray and slay" shooting style.
Initial training on the M-16 with the 205th Afghan Army Corps in January was mixed, mainly because there were too few instructors with deep enough range and marksmanship know-how to get the students up to speed. So a new program has been launched along the lines of the M-16 training regimen in Iraq to hire six teams of 12 civilian contract instructors who will teach Afghan non-commissioned officers how to use the new rifle.
In a classic "train the trainer" model, those NCOs will then be in charge of teaching Afghan grunts on the M-16, giving small unit leaders the added benefit of perfecting both their rifle and management skills.
"We see a huge secondary benefit in terms of development of the NCO corps by doing this; in teaching them how to train, how to run ranges and how to teach" other soldiers, McMahon said. "Also this gives them a system that will have a devastating impact on the enemy in terms of almost revolutionizing the army."
-- Christian
Colt Might Lose Rifle Monopoly
I guess it's not news unless AP or one of the majors reports it, but today's lead story on Military.com has an interesting advance on the M4 debate.
It seems that Colt's strangle hold on the Army's carbine buy might be slipping as M4 oponents on Capitol Hill look to the 2009 budget season as an opportunity to force a competition for a new carbine.
There's not a weapon out there that's significantly better than the M4," says Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat developments at the Army Infantry Center in Fort Benning, Ga. "To replace it with something that has essentially the same capabilities as we have today doesn't make good sense."
Colt's exclusive production agreement ends in June 2009. At that point, the Army, in its role as the military's principal buyer of firearms, may have other gunmakers compete along with Colt for continued M4 production. Or, it might begin looking for a totally new weapon.
"We haven't made up our mind yet," Radcliffe says.
As you already know from our reporting here, the gas system on the M4 has been criticized for being way too maintenance intensive. The AP story goes into all that and delivers a pretty good summary of the testing and debate so far.
It also advances the story a bit by injecting another senator into the "let's have a competition" camp, as well as former Army chief Jack Keane voicing agreement with Coburn.
In 2006, a non-profit research group surveyed 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan and found 89 percent were satisfied with the M4. While Colt and the Army have trumpeted that finding, detractors say the survey also revealed that 19 percent of these soldiers had their weapon jam during a firefight.
And the relationship between the Army and Colt has been frosty at times. Concerned over the steadily rising cost of the M4, the Army forced Colt to lower its prices two years ago by threatening to buy rifles from another supplier. Prior to the warning, Colt "had not demonstrated any incentive to consider a price reduction," then-Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, an Army acquisition official, wrote in a November 2006 report.
Coburn is the M4's harshest and most vocal critic. But his concern is shared by others, who point to the "SCAR," made by Belgian armorer FN Herstal, and the HK416, produced by Germany's Heckler & Koch, as possible contenders. Both weapons cost about the same as the M4, their manufacturers say.
The SCAR is being purchased by U.S. special operations forces, who have their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't.
Or won't.
"All I know is, we're not having the competition, and the technology that is out there is not in the hands of our troops," says Jack Keane, a former Army general who pushed unsuccessfully for an M4 replacement before retiring four years ago.
Again, I think it's important to give the troops the best technology out there. And if there's something that takes a beating better than the current system, let's field it.
The dispute over the M4 has been overshadowed by larger but not necessarily more important concerns. When the public's attention is focused on the annual defense budget, it tends to be captured by bigger-ticket items, like the Air Force's F-22 Raptors that cost $160 million each.
The Raptor, a radar-evading jet fighter, has never been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the troops who patrol Baghdad's still-dangerous neighborhoods or track insurgents along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, there's no piece of gear more critical than the rifles on their shoulders. They go everywhere with them, even to the bathroom and the chow hall.
Yet the military has a poor track record for getting high-quality firearms to warfighters. Since the Revolutionary War, mountains of red tape, oversize egos and never-ending arguments over bullet size and gunpowder have delayed or doomed promising efforts.
When the Supreme Court strikes down the DC handgun ban, this is the pistol I'm gonna buy to celebrate. I prefer a .45 anyway, and when I fired this baby a few years ago during a gun demo at Blackwater USA, I fell in love with it.
After a long search for a .45 ACP caliber 1911 duty pistol, in 2002 the LAPD's SWAT team adopted a special version of the Kimber Custom II. Equipped with a few custom features over and above what already comes standard on a Kimber 1911, the LAPD Kimbers were issued to all of L.A.'s SWAT cops and are still providing excellent service.
Taking note of the LAPD's Kimber acquisition, the United States Marine Corps' Det-1 had ample opportunities to see and shoot these pistols, as the LAPD SWAT Team frequently trained at Camp Pendleton and a number of the SWAT cops were also former Marines. Getting ready to become part of SOCOM, Det-1 wanted a suitable CQB 1911 pistol for its 87 Warfighters to deploy with in Iraq; so, like the LAPD, it selected a Kimber pistol. Also adopted by Det-1 was a special limited edition MCSOCOM Knife designed by Strider.
As with the LAPD Kimbers, Det-1 specified a number of special features, a few of which are listed here: Front and rear slide-cocking grooves Slide dovetailed front sight Flat mainspring housing Lanyard loop Standard recoil spring system Novak LoMount night sights Being fortunate to receive test samples of both the Kimber LAPD SWAT and Det-1 pistols, I test fired them over a period of several months and found them to perform to perfection. Because of their unique markings, neither of these pistols was produced for commercial sale; but Kimber does offer commercial pistols based on them.
Called the TLE (Tactical Law Enforcement) II, the commercial counterpart of the LAPD Kimber 1911 has virtually all of the features of the SWAT model, and can also be had with LaserGrips from Crimson Trace. However, as great as the TLE II is, Kimber's commercial counterpart to the Det-1 pistol has a lot more to talk about.
The Kimber Warrior
Following the Det-1 pistol and the demand it created, Kimber introduced what amounts to a commercial variant of that gun. Appropriately called the Warrior, this Kimber embodies many of the features found in the Det-1 gun, as well as a number of others inspired by it.
Featuring the same stainless steel match grade barrel, the Warrior also has identical internals to those in the Det-1. But unlike the USMC pistol, the Warrior comes with Kimber's firing-pin safety. On the outside, although early Warriors came with Novak Lo- Mount tritium night sights, a more or less look-alike set of Kimber Meprolight night sights later replaced them. Forward slidecocking grooves are present, as are all other features now standard on Kimber 1911 pistols.
In addition to the normal features found on Kimber 1911 pistols, the Warrior comes with a light rail that is integral with the dust cover portion forward of the trigger guard. Reinforced to last the life of the gun, this dust cover is made to true M1913 specifications in order to properly mount any tactical pistol light, such as those from Insight Technology, Laser Devices, SureFire, and others...
I've got to admit, I have a thing for Magpul. Young guys, totally unafraid of taking radical chances that blow the paradigm out of the water. And this one is no exception.
In a move sure to freak out every Brady Bill advocate and give NRA nuts a warm, fuzzy feeling inside, Magpul (makers of the Masada rifle) have come up with a new semi-auto submachine gun that folds up into an inconspicuous little book -- or wallet or flashlight...whatever.
Now, I live in a dicey part of DC and when it's dark at night, I like to have a little extra protection against the thugs that harass us gentrifiers (and trust me, it happens plenty in my 'hood). It's as if Magpul thought of me (or my wife) when they came up with this modern day Deringer.
P.S. -- I want to take some time to thank my boy Dave Woroner who sent this item my way. You'll remember Dave from the entry I posted a while back on his TacRail for Beretta M9s. Well, seems they've taken a bit of an interest in his little invention and (fingers crossed) looks like it might become an official accessory. So, if you have time, keep the karma breezes blowing his way and let's hope we've got a bit of a "David-Joins-Goliath" kinda scene here.
-- Christian
Iraqi Army Trading AKs for M-16s
Hard to believe, I know, but here's a story from today's headlines at Military.com that's sure to get some of you all riled up:
In a move that could be the most enduring imprint of U.S. influence in the Arab world, American military officials in Baghdad have begun a crash program to outfit the entire Iraqi army with M-16 rifles.
The initiative marks a sharp break for a culture steeped in the traditions of the Soviet-era M-16 is superior to the AK ... it's more durable," said Army Col. Stephen Scott, who's in charge of helping the Iraqi army get all the equipment it needs to outfit its forces.
"The Iraqis have embraced that ... and the fact that it is U.S. manufactured and supplied. They are very big on U.S.-produced [foreign military sales] materials," he said in an interview with military bloggers this month.
So far, the U.S. military has helped the Iraqi army purchase 43,000 rifles - a mix of full-stock M-16A2s and compact M-4 carbines. Another 50,000 rifles are currently on order, and the objective is to outfit the entire Iraqi army with 165,000 American rifles in a one-for-one replacement of the AK-47.
"Our goal is to give every Iraqi soldier an M-16A2 or an M-4," Scott said. "And as the Iraqi army grows, we will adjust."
Scott added the mass of AK-47s from various manufacturers floating through the Iraqi army's inventory could cause maintenance and reliability problems. Getting both U.S. and Iraqi forces on the same page when it comes to basic weaponry is part of the argument for M-16 outfitting.
"I'm also a fan of AKs," Scott said. "But keep in mind most of these AKs have been sitting around in bunkers or whatnot for 30 or 40 years [and] are in various stages of disrepair."
A variety of U.S. troops, including SEALs, Marines and Soldiers - and even civilian contractors - are training Iraqis on the M-16 and M-4 throughout the country. One civilian trainer told Military.com during a brief interview in Iraq that the Iraqi soldiers are a little behind the average American trooper when it comes to learning the various parts and breakdown of the M-16, but they're enthusiastic and quick learners on the range.
After seeing some of the firing range training himself, Scott added that he "asked the Iraqis how they liked the weapon and they said it was far superior, it was more accurate ... and more reliable."
"I think the transition is almost transparent from those older AKs," he said.
A system that registers each rifle with the individual who receives one that uses biometric data such as thumb prints and eye scans is meant to address concerns over U.S. weapons winding up in enemy hands. A July 2007 Government Accountability Office report concluded that as many as 190,000 weapons delivered to the Iraqi army were not accounted for and could've wound up in terrorist caches.
That's something Scott isn't going to allow on his watch.
"These Iraqi soldiers know that this weapon becomes part of their person," he said. "And they also know that they are responsible and accountable for that weapon."
And from the looks of it, Iraqi soldiers aren't willing to hand them over to the bad guys.
"Most of the soldiers think they will be just like the Americans, and that is making them very happy," said Capt. Rafaat Mejal Ahmed, the Iraqi 1st Division weapons and ammunition officer, in a Marine Corps release. "They think the modern technology will make them more powerful."
-- Christian
Another Perspective on the M4 Sand Test
SMSGT Mac, an oft commenting Defense Tech reader, has a detailed analysis on the recent Army "extreme dust test" of the M4, XM8, Mk16 and HK 416.
It's waaay more detailed than I could get into, and my hat's off to him for his input posted on his blog: Elements of Power. I would strongly suggest taking some time to parse his logic. He's much more cautious in his approach to the test results and seems to say they're not yet a "call to action" for a replacement. I'd agree to some extent: the MRAP debate taught us to carefully consider major equipment overhauls...especially when the justification is more emotional that tactical.
But I would say two things: One, the fact that soldiers aren't "complaining" about the M4 means something, but not much. What do that have to compare the M4 to? It's not like Soldiers get a chance to use an XM8 in combat. And the fact that SOCOM is going to the Mk16 and Mk17 says something, right? The highest trained operators on the planet don't want to have anything to do with the M4...and reliability in austere environments plays a big part of that decision.
Also, the argument about stoppages is not new. If there's a better operating system out there then why not use it? I mean, Colt even has a gas piston reciever they can start building M4s with tomorrow? Is there ANY evidence that system would be in any way WORSE?
Anyway, take some time to look at SMSGT Mac's dissection. And be sure to come back here and give me your $.02 on what he says.
-- Christian
Could This Be Your Next Carbine?
Guns, guns, guns...I know you all can't get enough! So I've decided to throw you a bone here and call your attention to a story we've just put up over at the Military.comWarfighter's Forum.
Now, I've written about the Magul Masada on these pages before, but our friends over at Soldier of Fortune had an opportunity to test fire one of these innovative rifles out in Colorado. They've been kind enough to let us cross-post it here and at Military.com.
A quick note: I actually met the folks from Magpul at the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Warrior show at Quantico last October. The young guns there are charged up about their new rifle and have launched a grass-roots effort to gather interest in the American-designed-and-built alternative to the M4. With the sandstorm test concluded and the debate on the cusp of heating back up on an M4 alternative, it's worth giving the Magpul Masada a second look.
Here's an excerpt of the "Masada Test Shoot" story. For more, check out the entire story at Military.com's Warfighter's Forum...
Just when most of us thought we'd seen it all, Magpul Industries Corp., of Boulder, Colorado, brought their new Masada tactical rifle to Orlando and literally stopped the 2007 SHOT Show. Immediately apparent was that this was not just another 5.56mm NATO rifle, not by a long shot. Blending the best materials with state-of-the-art production methods, the Masada also combined new ideas with long-standard operating principles to bring an advanced rifle to the 21st Century table.
The company began with a soft (rubbery) polymer device that resembles a jock strap for a magazine, and Richard Fitzpatrick became an "overnight" success with his Magpul from which his innovative company got its name. Not only does the Magpul make it infinitely easier to get your magazine out of its pouch, but is also protects it when it hits the pavement during a speed reload.
Next came Rich's first M16 stock. He and I laughed when I recounted introducing him to a huge firearms manufacturer a few SHOT Show's ago. To my horror, the marketing folks treated Rich like hammered dog s--t, telling him his product would never sell. Not only did it sell well -- to the U.S. military – but Magpul now has a rifle that could leave that other company's entry howling by the side of the road.
A group effort, the Masada is the creation of Magpul's founder, Richard Fitzpatrick, Mike Mayberry, Eric and Brian Nakyama and Drake Clark. The Masada is initially produced in 5.56x45mm NATO (.223 Rem.), and is operated by a conventional short-stroke gas piston.
However, the rifle will likely also be produced in several other calibers, to include 7.62x39mm (already produced), 5.45x39mm, 6.8x43mm SPC and 6.5mm Grendel.
Using a now-conventional rotating multilug bolt and carrier, the Masada also has many surprises. As such, it will be exciting news for American law enforcement, not to mention the U.S. military and those of friendly foreign countries. Make no mistake about the latter element, as Richard Fitzpatrick is a former U.S. Marine and damned proud of it. Recently I traveled 300 miles over "the mountain" to Denver for a first look and live fire test of the Masada and of Magpul.
Unless a designer is influenced by "something" other than history, he or she may come up with something that looks like it escaped from a science fiction movie, and firearms are no exception. We've all seen them come and go, and come and go again. Not so with the Masada: Oh, your eye will be captivated by the rifle at first glance, but it will be magnetic instead of the all too usual, "What the...?"
Somewhat suggestive of the M16 rifle, the Masada does have some things in common with that rifle. From the gas block forward, the barrel in either light or heavy configuration, is essentially M16, and will accept a SureFire Suppressor mount or those of virtually any other manufacturer.
-- Christian
Army M4 Response...
In the spirit of fairness, I'm posting the response to my M4 story by the Army's Paul Boyce. He posted this in the comments section of the story on Military.com.
Recently Army testing laboratories at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., subjected the M4 carbine and three other weapons to a severe environmental test called the "Carbine Extreme Dust Test." The lab environment allowed engineers to push the weapons beyond their technical limits to help us understand what is required of weapons on today's battlefield.
The weapons were exposed to "heavy dusting," harsh conditions similar to an intense and sustained dust storm, several times for 25 hours. There were ten weapons of each of the four different types of carbines. Each fired 6,000 rounds (60,000 rounds per type). The Army noted all the weapons in the test performed well: the number of stoppages all the carbines exhibited was roughly one percent or less of the total rounds fired by each, meaning the weapons had over a 98 percent reliability rate under these unique conditions. Though the M4 performed exceptionally well, it came in fourth compared to the other three carbines in this particular extreme single-environment (dust as the only condition) testing.
The Army is taking these test results seriously; our Soldiers require and deserve capable, quality weapons. These preliminary results revealed or confirmed several areas for potential materiel improvements to the M4 and the other weapon types in the test.
The M4 is a thoroughly tested and battle proven carbine that meets or exceeds the existing operational requirement. The M4 is one of the most improved pieces of Army equipment: there have been over 390 upgrades since it was introduced into the force. The M4/M4A1 is the only design that is qualified against the current requirements. In a survey by the independent Center for Naval Analysis in December 2006, 89 percent of Soldiers surveyed reported overall satisfaction with the M4. All soldiers surveyed had engaged in a firefight in Iraq in the previous 12 months. In the same survey, only 3 percent experienced a weapon stoppage that caused an inability to engage the
enemy for a significant portion or all of a firefight. Only 1 percent
indicated that the M4 should be replaced.
Lastly, 94 percent of M4 users were satisfied with accuracy; 92 percent with range; and 93 percent with rate of fire.
The Army will continue to evaluate the effectiveness of the equipment it provides its most valuable asset: our Soldiers. Soldiers in turn have shown confidence in the battle-proven M4.
-- Christian
...And Here's the Rest of the M4 Story...
The primary weapon carried by most soldiers into battle in Iraq and Afghanistan performed the worst in a recent series of tests designed to see how it stacked up against three other top carbines in sandy environments.
After firing 6,000 rounds through ten M4s in a dust chamber at the Army's Aberdeen test center in Maryland this fall, the weapons experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem. Stacked up against the M4 during the side-by-side tests were two other weapons popular with special operations forces, including the Heckler and Koch 416 and the FN USA Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, or Mk16.
Another carbine involved in the tests that had been rejected by the Army two years ago, the H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones. The Mk16 experienced a total of 226 stoppages, the 416 had 233.
The Army was quick to point out that even with 863 minor stoppages -- termed "class one" stoppages which require 10 seconds or less to clear and "class two" stoppages which require more than ten seconds to clear -- the M4 functioned well, with over 98 percent of the 60,000 total rounds firing without a problem.
"The M4 carbine is a world-class weapon," said Brig. Gen. Mark Brown, the Army's top equipment buyer, in a Dec. 17 briefing at the Pentagon. Soldiers "have high confidence in that weapon, and that high confidence level is justified, in our view, as a result of all test data and all investigations we have made."
Though Army testers and engineers are still evaluating the data, officials with the Army's Infantry Center based in Fort Benning, Ga., said they planned to issue new requirements for the standard-issue carbine in about 18 months that could include a wholesale replacement of the M4. But the Army has been resistant to replace the M4, which has been in the Army inventory for over 18 years, until there's enough of a performance leap to justify buying a new carbine.
"We know there are some pretty exciting things on the horizon with technology ... so maybe what we do is stick with the M4 for now and let technologies mature enough that we can spin them into a new carbine," said Col. Robert Radcliffe, director of combat development at the Army's Infantry Center. "It's just not ready yet. But it can be ready relatively rapidly."
That's not good enough for some on Capitol Hill who've pushed hard for the so-called "extreme dust test" since last spring. Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn placed a hold on the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren earlier this year to force the Army to take another look at the M4 and its reliability.
In an April 12 letter to the still unconfirmed Geren, Coburn wrote that "considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon." He insisted the Army conduct a side-by-side test to verify his contention that more reliable designs existed and could be fielded soon.
Despite the 98 percent reliability argument now being pushed by the Army, one congressional staffer familiar with the extreme dust tests is skeptical of the service's conclusions.
"This isn't brain surgery -- a rifle needs to do three things: shoot when you pull the trigger, put bullets where you aim them and deliver enough energy to stop what's attacking you," the staffer told Military.com in an email. "If the M4 can't be depended on to shoot then everything else is irrelevant."
The staffer offered a different perspective of how to view the Army's result. If you look at the numbers, he reasoned, the M4's 882 total stoppages averages out to a jam every 68 rounds. There are about 30 rounds per magazine in the M4.
By comparison, the XM8 jammed once every 472 rounds, the Mk16 every 265 rounds and the 416 every 257 rounds. Army officials contend soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.
"These results are stunning, and frankly they are significantly more dramatic than most weapons experts expected," the staffer said.
Army officials say the staffer's comparison is "misleading" since the extreme dust test did not represent a typical combat environment and did not include the regular weapons cleaning soldiers typically perform in the field.
So the Army is sticking by the M4 and has recently signed another contract with manufacturer Colt Defense to outfit several more brigade combat teams with the compact weapon. Service officials say feedback from the field on the M4 has been universally positive -- except for some grumbling about the stopping power of its 5.56mm round. And as long as soldiers take the time to clean their weapons properly, even the "extreme" dust testing showed the weapon performed as advertised.
"The force will tell you the weapon system is reliable, they're confident in it, they understand that the key to making that weapon system effective on the battlefield and killing the enemy is a solid maintenance program and, just as important, is a marksmanship program," said Sgt. Maj. Tom Coleman, sergeant major for PEO Soldier and the Natick Soldier Systems Center. "So, you can't start talking about a weapon system without bringing in all the other pieces that come into play."
That's not enough for some who say the technology is out there to field a better, more reliable rifle to troops in contact now.
"It's time to stop making excuses and just conduct a competition for a new weapon," the congressional staffer said.
-- Christian
When You Really Gotta Bust Down That Door
For the U.S. Army, kicking down doors will become blowing them down now that the service has ordered $52 million worth of Simon door-breaching rifle grenades from Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd of Israel.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Rafael says that the Simon, or GREM (grenade, rifle, entry munition) as it is known in the U.S., is a lightweight, rifle-launched grenade specially adapted to breaching steel or wooden doors from a stand-off distance. It may be fired from a variety of rifles using regular bullets.
Says Rafael: "The Simon (GREM) is designed to breach a door or to enable breaking an entry into a building or an enclosed area, while posing minimum collateral damage or risk to the gunner and to troops following him. The warhead has a special dome shape and its explosion generates a shock wave which blasts the door and causes it to yield."
The Simon (GREM) is a member of Rafael's family of shoulder-launched breaching munitions, together with the Matador family that has been developed and produced in conjunction with DND of Germany.
Aberdeen Outtakes: M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System
Here's another clip from Military.com's day at the Aberdeen range. As you can see, I'm getting a little better at this video thing, but there are still some hiccups, I know. I've got a few more on the editing deck, so stay tuned.
Here's a video I put together showing the Army's new M110 sniper rifle in action out at that test shoot at Aberdeen. I have several others I'll post as I edit them, so stay tuned.
And please excuse the rough-and-ready quality of the clip. I'm just getting used to this whole video editing and I promise each one will be better...as will my videography.
For those who believe a .45 caliber round is the best way to tell an enemy to stop - and fans of the .45's knock-down power are legion - the only thing better would be a chorus shouting "stop," almost in unison.
This is what weapons designer Transformational Defense Industries Inc. has been promising for several years with its development of a fully automatic .45 submachine gun - but without the recoil you'd expect from such a weapon.
Andrew Finn, senior vice president with Washington, D.C.-based TDI calls their Kriss Super V sub "the weapon of the future," and on Thursday company officials said that future could come as early as February - with worldwide military sales expected sometime in the first quarter of 2008.
During demonstration firings of the weapon here at Blackwater USA's training grounds, Military.com was invited to shoot up some targets using the Kriss and, for comparison, H&K's USC .45 carbine.
Though another submachine gun might have made for a better assessment, TDI obviously was comfortable with the H&K choice for the purpose of evaluating recoil. The Kriss certainly won out, though the H&K did not give a severe kick either, and TDI chief operating officer Chuck Kushell acknowledged his competitor made a fine weapon.
What was particularly positive about this latest version of the Kriss - now in its 8th generation of development - is that shooters seemed to have an easier time hitting the targets, with experienced shooters keeping many of their rounds in a small area, even when firing on fully automatic.
When an earlier version was tested two years ago, even experienced shooters had problems ventilating the targets. One shooter at the time wondered if it was the shortness of the barrel and maybe the hard trigger-pull.
Anyway, no one made any tight shot groups back then.
From our perspective, the light - relatively speaking - recoil of the Kriss in its semi-automatic, and even short-burst modes, could be deceptive.
One evaluator did fine with a few single shots and some bursts. But when she pulled the trigger on automatic, her first rounds hit the target and about a half-dozen more went into the berm behind it.
Basically, she was taken by surprise by the recoil, even though it was not as strong as you would have expected for a .45 caliber submachine gun.
"No weapon can yet do away with recoil," said Chris Costa, a TDI instructor. "It's just that the majority [of the recoil] is mitigated" with the Kriss.
TDI says the recoil is mitigated by diverting the spent gas from a fired round down and away from the gun's firing line. This "re-vectoring" also helps reduce the severe muzzle climb that comes with such high-caliber, high rate-of-fire weapons, helping shooters keep the rounds on target.
To demonstrate the low recoil in full-auto, two instructors pretended to come under fire from hostiles after their car broke down.
From the passenger seat, one instructor fired his Kriss with one hand on fully automatic, quickly laying down deadly cover fire while his driver took up a position outside the car, then covered for him as he got out.
Fired on automatic, the fusillade of .45 rounds not only hit the target but knocked it, the support pole and the target base to the ground.
Currently, the Army is putting the Kriss through environmental testing to ensure it can stand up to sand, cold and heat and still do the job, said Finn. TDI officials are also in discussions with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms about the standards it wants to permit the weapon to be sold commercially.
Obviously, one requirement for a commercial variant will be that it not be allowed to fire in bursts or on full automatic.
But in the hands of a military or law enforcement operator, the fully-auto Kriss .45 could be just the ticket when stopping a bad guy in his tracks is the goal.
-- Bryant Jordan
New Combat Rifle Enters the Fray
There’s been a lot of debate recently about the whole issue of small arms, particularly with the effectiveness of the Colt M4 carbine. The Army’s reliability study demonstrated that if well lubed, the M4 performs largely without fight-ending stoppage. But there’s continued argument over the knock-down power of the 5.56mm round, the reliability of the M4 if constant care isn’t possible and on the whole issue of whether or not there’s a better operating system out there.
The debate is just reaching a critical point, with the Army recently caving to pressure from Capitol Hill and agreeing to hold a “sandstorm test” between its M4 and a couple other carbines that fire on a different operating system many say is more reliable. With the end-strength increase in the Army and Marine Corps and the overall focus of budget attention on land forces, momentum may be building to issue a new infantry rifle as the Army and Marine Corps build new brigade combat teams and infantry battalions.
There’s no one in the DoD officially saying this yet, but a lot more people in high places are asking previously taboo questions on whether it’s time to throw the stoner design to the side.
We’ve already taken a look at three of the most popular competitors to the M4: the XM8, the H&K 416 and the FN SCAR - or Mk-17 and Mk-16. Well, a buddy passed along another interesting entrant into the “new carbine” world (that’s not to say there aren’t others out there, but this one’s the new kid on the block) which seems to meld all the best aspects of the previous three rifles into one.
Made by Longmont, Colorado-based Magpul Industries Corp., the Masada does have that “first person shooter” gamer nerd look to it. But look at the specs and it seems the Masada has some interesting aspects that would make operators give it a second look. One thing I noticed was the two interchangeable lowers – one for 5.56mm, the other for AK-47 7.62x39 ammo. So for shooters “going native” in the AO, this could be the ticket - of course, as long as you have a compatible barrel.
The rest of the specs look pretty standard, but it’d be interesting to get feedback from DT readers on some of the more deeply technical stuff. Take a look at the brochure and see what you think.
There are also a couple of cool videos of the weapon being test fired.
I dunno, has a new combat rifle entered the arena?
I was introduced to big bore anti-tank (anti-material) rifles back in the 80’s when I became an ardent follower of the board game Advanced Squad Leader (ASL was originally produced by the Avalon Hill Game Company, which was purchased by Hasbro, who discontinued production of the game. ASL is now published by MLB pitcher Curt Schilling and his Multi-Man Publishing company.) For those of you unfamiliar with the game, ASL was arguably the most accurate and detailed squad level tactical board game ever developed, with counters representing individual squads, leaders, tanks and support weapons.
Anyway, the one support weapon that caught my eye was the L-39 Lahti 20mm AT rifle. In game terms the Lahti was heavy (5 portage points) and it fired off of the AVF kill table under the “20L” column (the only squad portable weapon capable of doing so.) In real life terms the L-39 was heavy, (109 pounds, necessatating its transport by reindeer) and possessed such savage recoil (its cartridge, the 20 mm x 138 mm Solothurn Long, was the largest ever fired by a shoulder fired weapon in the war) that the Finns dubbed it the "Norsupyssy" ("Elephant Gun"), but it was also capable of reaching out 1,000m and penetrating 10mm of armor plate. Rendered obsolete by advanced Soviet tank designs by 1941, the incrediable accuracy of the L-39 enabled it to remain in service as a long range sniper rifle.
Seventy years later, the concept of the long range, big bore, anti-material rifle has come full circle. With .50 caliber (12.7mm) rifles a dime a dozen, my question now is, “who fields the new “Elephant Gun” of the 21st century?”
In terms of penetrating capability, the “Big Stick” designation would seem to go to the Austrian Styer IWS 2000. Firing a propriatary 15.2mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) mini tank round, the armor piercing ‘dart” will penetrate 40mm of test armor at 1,000m. Unfortunatly, the 40-pound IWS 2000 has yet to enter service with any military (it’s unique ammunition is a logistical turn-off to most nations.)
As for absolute caliber, the “biggest” rifle out there is the Barret XM-109 25mm payload rifle. Firing a low-velosity, scaled down version of the 30mm M789 HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose) ammunition used by the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the XM-109 is capable of penetrating just under 40mm of armor, and, when used with the Barrett Optical Ranging System (BORS) has an effective range of 2,500m. Yet, like the IWS 2000, the 33-pound XM-109 is still in a developmental status (currently the felt recoil of the XM-109 is outside maximum Army tolerances.)
But, if you’re looking for something you can take home tonight, the gun for you is the Croatian RT20 20mm rifle. Developed to shoot the thermal sights off of Serbian M-84 (T-72) tanks, the RT20 fires the 20x110mm Hispano-Suiza HS 404 cartridge which can trace its roots back to the 1930s. Marketed as a 20mm hand cannon, the RT20 fires the largest 20mm cartridge of any currently available anti-materiel rifle (most other 20mm rifles are chambered for the Russian 20x99mm R ShVAK round or the German 20x82mm WWII-era MG151 projectile.) To compensate for the round’s enormous kick, the 42-pound single-shot RT20 is equipped with a unique gas-operated recoil compensating blast tube. Operating along the same principles as a recoilless weapon system, this blast tube redirects propellant gasses to the rear of the firer, to reduce felt recoil. Unfortunately, this recoil method also presents a blast hazard for individuals behind the weapon, so care must be taken when firing the RT20 in enclosed spaces.
Of course, the hard part is going to be finding reindeer to pull it...
By now it is well known that the U.S. Army established a need to standardize a sniper rifle in 7.62x51mm NATO caliber. This was necessary in order to field one such rifle for precision sniping and to replace the literal myriad of sniper rifles currently in the system. For the record, these sniper rifles include the venerable M14 semi-automatic rifle and the M24 Remington bolt action rifle, the Mk 11 and others, which have been purchased by individual SOCOM units.
In the wake of 9/11 and America's entry into the Global War On Terrorism (G-WOT), most of the remaining 40,000 M14 rifles in the U.S. military's inventory (mostly the U.S. Navy) have been taken out of storage in order to be re-built as precision semi-automatic rifles for sniping use. Many of these rifles that weren't destroyed during the Clinton Era were given to "friendly" countries and there has also begun a move to "buy" some of them back.
The M14's popularity as a sniper rifle dates back to its development as a National Match competition rifle during the 1960's, its evolution into the M21 Sniper Rifle used in the Vietnam War, and its evolution into the XM25 Sniper Rifle by the U.S. Army and Navy in the years that followed. Properly fitted, the M14 is capable of extremely good accuracy and is highly reliable, but it has had less than optimum results from being used with a sound suppressor. Still, the M14 has made the transition into a 21st Century Sniper Rifle as the DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) by the United States Marine Corps and its more recent transformation by the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).
Being a highly modified Model 700 Remington bolt-action repeating rifle, the M24 is capable of great precision accuracy. However, lessons were relearned in Somalia and in target-rich environments encountered in the G-WOT that a self-loading rifle can be fired in succession 4 to 5 times faster than a bolt action rifle. Thus, the Army was determined to standardize a semi-automatic sniper rifle.
The third rifle mentioned is the Mk 11, a refined version of the SR- 25 (Stoner Rifle-25) rifle, which is made by Knight's Armament Company, of Titusville, Florida. Like the others, the Mk 11 is chambered for the 7.6x51mm NATO cartridge, but it contains modifications dictated by the U.S. Navy SEALS, which is a member of the SOCOM. However, using the Mk 11 identified issues that the Army found desirable in an AR10-style sniper rifle...
After months of heated debate, the Army will conduct a side-by-side test shoot next month with its standard-issued carbine to see how well it can withstand extreme dust and sand environments.
The tests, which will be conducted at the Army's Aberdeen Test Center in Maryland, will include three other rifles some say are better constructed to withstand the grueling environmental conditions often found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The service yielded to critics - particularly lawmakers in Congress - who recently ratcheted up the debate over whether the current M4 carbine, manufactured by Colt Defense, is more susceptible to jamming in dusty conditions than other weapons used by Soldiers and special operators.
"The Army agreed to conduct testing of four carbine designs in an extreme dust environment," said Lt. Col. Timothy Chyma, product manager for individual weapons with Program Executive Office Soldier, in an email to Military.com.
"The test results will inform the U.S. Army Infantry Center in the development of a potential new carbine requirement as part of their ongoing capabilities based assessment."
In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) insisted in a letter to then-acting Army Secretary Pete Geren that better weapons technology is available that can guard against stoppages stemming from dust and sand interfering with the firing mechanism of the M4.
The Army's carbine uses a gas system that evidence shows is susceptible to stoppages unless it is frequently cleaned.
The shoot off will test the capabilities of the M4/M16 operating system against three other rifles: the Heckler and Koch-built HK416, the FNH USA-designed Mk16 SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle and the previously-shelved, H&K-manufactured XM8 carbine.
All three competitors use a gas-piston operating system that requires less maintenance and has demonstrated in some tests that it can fire accurately even if completely fouled with sand, dust and mud.
"Considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon," Coburn wrote in April. "A number of manufacturers have researched, tested and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability."
A December 2005 Center for Naval Analyses study commissioned by the Army indicated the M4 - when properly cleaned - exhibited few stoppages. But 20 percent of those who had complications with their M4s said they experienced bad enough jams that they had to pull out of the fight.
Many special operations units favor the HK416, due in part to its increased reliability. This month, Special Operations Command began operational tests on the Mk16 and the heavier-caliber Mk17 to eventually replace its M4 and HK416 stocks.
The sand tests will include 10 samples of each weapon through which engineers will fire 6,000 rounds. Each weapon and loaded magazine will be exposed to "extreme dust" for 30 minutes then test fired with 120 rounds, Chyma said.
"Each weapon will be wiped down and lubricated every 600 rounds with a full cleaning every 1,200 rounds," Chyma added. "The firing, collection of data and analysis of data is expected to take approximately five months."
Coburn said in his April letter to Geren that even though the M4 works, better weapons exist. He was so insistent that the Army compete new M4 contracts to outfit its expanded brigade combat teams that he placed a hold on the Geren nomination to become Army secretary until the service relented, a Coburn staffer confirmed.
The Army's willingness to hold the limited "sandstorm shoot-off" released the nomination, and Geren was confirmed by the Senate July 13.
The side-by-side sand tests "will be part of the ongoing Army assessment and requirements process - with the ultimate goal of continuing to provide the best possible weapons and equipment to our Soldiers," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins.
FNH USA has gotten the go-ahead to move into Operational Test and Evaluation of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle (Heavy) and (Light), as well as the Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module.
From FNH:
FN Herstal announced today through FNH USA that the Special Operations
Forces (SOF) Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) program has received approval from the United States Government (USG) to enter into the Initial Operational Test & Evaluation (IOT&E) phase. Scheduled to commence in July and be complete by mid-December, the IOT&E will consist of select US Military operators testing the weapons in simulated “real-world” mission scenarios. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected, with the ultimate and desired outcome having the weapons being designated “Operationally Effective” and “Operationally Suitable” for fielding to US Forces.
This next step comes close on the heels of the SCAR and EGLM successfully passing their Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) acceptance testing conducted February through June of 2007. Going forward, as all timelines fall into place and the weapons test successfully, the SCAR and EGLM can be fielded, on a limited basis, to select US Military Forces by late fall of 2007. Plans to fully field the weapons are now developed and in place, with over $25M (procurement) budgeted in the FY2008 Presidential Budget and over $6M slated for FY2009.
From personal experience, I just gotta say these weapons rock. I fired the SCAR Heavy and Light at FNH’s range near Fredericksburg, Va., several months ago and fell particularly in love with the SCAR Heavy. The gas/piston system has a great “thunk-thunk” mechanical feel to it and the 7.62 caliber heavy packs a heck of a punch. The SCAR Light is easy to fire, very adjustable, and the barrels are easy to interchange - creating basically a whole new weapon for each variation.
Much to my chagrin, they wouldn’t let me test fire the EGLM (darn!).
With the new move to IOT&E, the SCAR earns a new designation: Mk-16 and Mk-17...
The SCAR system consists of two highly adaptable modular rifle platforms and a grenade launcher. Now US DoD type-designated as the MK 16 MOD 0 5.56mm Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle - Light (SCAR-L) and the MK 17 MOD 0 7.62mm Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle – Heavy (SCAR-H), both SCAR platforms are available with three different barrel lengths optimized for conducting operations in close-quarters combat, standard infantry and longer-range precision fire roles. All SCAR barrels can be easily interchanged by the operator in the field in just minutes to instantly meet the requirements of virtually any mission. The newly designated MK 13 MOD 0 40mm Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module (EGLM) quickly mounts to the underside of either SCAR platform, providing additional punch to the individual warfighter’s firepower and can be easily configured for use as a stand-alone weapon as well.
FNH says the Mk-16 and Mk-17 are the first assault rifles to be procured through a “full and open competition” since the M4/M16 carbines in the 1960s. Both FNH weapons are impressive and we’ll see how the operational tests and initial fielding go. I bet operators who get a chance to “test” them won’t want to give them up. I didn’t.
-- Christian
For the Minute Man in You
This may be a little bit outside the realm of Defense Tech, but a number of folk have referenced this in previous comments and I figured I’d throw this out not only to showcase the rifle, but also to put the spotlight on the CMP program and how you might secure a piece of history on the cheap.
The M1 Garand (United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1) was the first semi-automatic rifle to see issued service with the US military. The rifle was gas operated, and fired the same Springfield .30-06 (7.62mm x 63mm) cartridge from an internal 8-round clip that the bolt action Springfield 1903 rifle it replaced did. Issued in 1936, the Garand was so successful in combat during the Second World War (the Garand was the only semi-automatic service rifle to see near universal service with any army during the war) that General George S. Patton declared it “the greatest implement of battle ever devised.”
Over 5.4 million Garands were produced and the rifle was not completely withdrawn from service until 1965.
This is where CMP comes in. The Civilian marksmanship Program is a program initiated by Congress in 1996 to instruct civilians in proper weapon handling, safety, and marksmanship. Through CMP qualified individuals are eligible to purchase M1 rifles and parts. Quality and availability are sporadic at times (CPM refurbishes existing surplus rifles, it does not manufacture or distribute new weapons) but the prices are unbeatable; a “Field Grade” M1 will run you $495 through CMP as opposed to over $1,000 from a commercial manufacturer.
CMP does have some eligibility requirements, however, so check out their website before you submit your order. Also, don’t hold your breath when you do submit an order. Given the nature of how CMP operates, it could take as long as 6 months to a year to get your order filled. CMP refurbished rifles as they become available, and sells the rifles after that. Since there is no dedicated production line, sales are a feast or famine kind of thing.
I was mobilized for OIF III on Veteran’s Day (go figure), November 11th, 2004. Two days later I was at Ft. Bliss going through 30 days of accelerated training to prepare me for deployment. As part of that training program I was issued an M-16A2 from the unit to which I was going to be assigned (which was, at that time, embarking for Kuwait.) Upon inspection, I determined that the rifle’s front sight post was bent, and that the weapon was deadlined. I brought this to the attention of the Major distributing the weapons (out of the back of a black Suburban, no less) and asked if I might get a replacement.
“Sorry Sergeant, no can do. All these weapons are getting issued tonight, and there aren’t enough to go around. You’ll just have to make do.”
Fair enough, I said, and moved out smartly. The next day, out on the zero range, I explained the situation to the range safety who said, “No problem, we can fix that right now” and he whipped out his Gerber-tool and proceeded to straighten the bent post.
Ping -- There went the post, snapped in half.
“Oh well, nothing to be done about it now. You’ll have to get it fixed when you get to your unit in Kuwait."
Thirty days later I was stepping off the bus in Kuwait, armed with an un-zeroed and un-serviceable M-16, trying to find out my unit of assignment. Eventually I found my First Sergeant, who directed me to the Supply Sergeant, who told me everything had already gone north into Iraq, and I’d have to get the sight fixed there. In addition, all available ammunition had been issued and I would have to wait till I got to Iraq to draw my basic load.
Five days later I was stepping off a Chinook in the dead of night armed with five duffel bags and an un-zeroed, un-serviceable, and un-loaded M-16. Three days after that I found myself attached to the ING (Iraqi National Guard) training program.
Here’s where my luck finally took pity on me. While going through the supply room looking for things to steal for the ING, I saw a number of M-14s piled in a corner collecting dust. I asked the Supply Sgt. if I could sign one out, since it appeared to me that they weren’t doing much good there on the floor. He asked me if I’d ever qualified on one before, “oh sure, lots of times” (in a previous life maybe…) and then signed over one rifle, one scope, a scope mount, and one magazine.
“That’s all we have”, he said. No manuals, no parts, no nothing. I was going to have to figure everything out on my own.
The first issue was the incompatibility between the scope mount and the rings that came with the scope. The scope, a Leupold Mk IV 4.5 – 14 M1 LR/T using Leupold’s QRW detachable rings, was not resting properly on the supplied scope mount, a Springfield Armory Gen. III mount.
“It won’t work” was the reply I got via e-mail from Leupold on the subject. The SA mount is not to MIL-STD-1913 standard, they said. I needed to either get a standard picatinny mount, or get SA rings.
I opted to get a new mount. The mount I chose was the A.R.M.S. #18 M-21/M-14 scope mount. In addition, I purchased an A.R.M.S. #19 Throw lever QD mount (for the Leupold scope) and an A.R.M.S. #20 for an AN/PVS-4 night sight.
With my rifle-mount-scope issued resolved, my next task was to get ballistic data (dope) on the various bullets at my disposal, namely M80 Ball (146 gr FMJ), M852 (168 gr Match) M118 (173 gr Match) and M118LR (175 gr Match.) Searching the internet provided me with enough suspect information (what?!? doubt the internet?!? heratical, I know…) that I decided I needed an authoritative source for ballistic data.
Enter the Army’s Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) at Ft. Benning, GA. I e-mailed them regarding my needs, as well as describing the equipment I was using. Their response was thorough and quick. They not only gave me ballistic tables for all the ammunition I requested, but they broke it down by drop (in inches) and in “clicks”, for both the M1 series of scopes (.25 MOA adjustments) and the M3 scopes (1 MOA adjustments.) Their data was spot on and saved me hours of trial and error effort. I cannot say enough about the support they offered.
To round out my M-14 kit I ordered an additional 5 magazines (USGI original manufacture $30 each, new), an M-14 “dash ten” operators manual as well as the “dash twenty-three” parts manual, cartridge extractor, gas plug wrench, and an M-14 lube kit.
Finally, after a month or so of exchanging e-mails with companies all over the U.S. I had the mounts I needed, the rings I needed, the ballistic data I needed and the bullets I needed. I was officially in business.
Lessons learned
To get “my” M-14 operational required about $700 on my part and a month of e-mails and internet searches. Once I started taking the M-14 on missions, I began to make notes on where I could improve my original setup.
Stock: The rifle came with a standard wood stock. While this was all good and well, it was also bone dry, and in need of touching up. A search in-country poroduced no linseed oil (you’d be surprised how many folk have no idea what “boiled linseed oil” is) so I had to have my mother send me a quart. An alternative to wood, though, is getting a synthetic stock. While there are a number of stock manufacturers out there (I myself purchased an M3A stock from McMillan Brothers ) what you have to be aware of is wether the stock you buy is set up for an M-14 reciever or the Springfield Armory M1A reciever (M-14 recievers have a semi - full auto selector switch which has been deactivated, but still projects from the reciever, whereas the M1A reciever lacks this and mounts flush in the stock.) Either of the recievers will go into an “M-14” stock, but the M-14 reciever will not go into an M1A stock without carving out a notch for the defunkt selector switch.
Furthermore, stocks come in two basic styles; drop in, and bedded. Drop in stocks are ready as is. You drop in the reciever and you’re in business. Bedded stocks require the reciever be “bedded” to the stock, which generally involves a gunsmith drilling mounting holes in the reciever and fitting a pair of mounting pins. Bedding a rifle stock is most definitely not a do it yourself job. If you don’t know what your doing you can get yourself killed. If, however, you have the time, resources, and permission from your food chain to get your M-14 “bedded” it will be the better for it.
Scope mount: As I said, my original mount was the A.R.M.S. #18. While this mount did what I asked of it, the one issue I did have with it was occasional ejection failures (the spent casing would get hung up in the chamber because of the narrow opening between the chamber and the bottom of the scope mount.) Looking to correct this issue (jams are a bad thing, after all) I went looking for a different mount. What I settled on was the Smith Enterprise, Inc. M-14 mount. This mount can trace its liniage back to the original Brookfield Precision Tool mounts manufactured for the M-25 sniper rifle. Since going to the SEI mount I haven’t experienced a single jam. In addition, I also picked up an extended bolt stop release, which basically makes it easier to manipulate the bolt stop while wearing gloves.
Bullet drop compensators (BDC): While the data provided by the USAMU was spot on, it was still a lot of data to remember, and considering that I carried several types of ammunition on me at any given time, refering to index cards in a firefight wasn’t a viable option. My solution was to get a retractable ballistics chart (RBC) from Leupold. The RBC fits on the scope, where it's out of the way, and contains a self retracting tape upon which you can write down ballistic data. When in doubt, I need only pull out the tape and confirm my settings.
Another option recently offered by Leupold, is custom etched bullet drop compensators (BDC.) The BDC differs from the standard windage knobs in that they are custom built to your rifle and ammunition and are graduated by range. What this means is that with a BDC you don’t need to count “clicks” when applying windage, you just rotate the BDC windage knob to the appropriate range and you’re set. This is also a lifesaver when it comes to re-setting your scope after making several range adjustments. I haven’t gone this route yet, but if ever I get tapped for deployment again, I will probably have some built (just in case.)
Nearly 80 percent of Soldiers said in a recent survey they are satisfied with their weapons, though almost half recommended a replacement for the standard-issued M9 pistol or ammunition with more stopping power.
Additionally, nearly 30 percent of Soldiers in the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by the Center for Naval Analyses, said the M4 carbine should be replaced or more deadly ammunition fielded.
"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.
The study was commissioned by the Army's Project Manager for Soldier Weapons to address concerns raised by Soldiers returning from combat about the dependability and effectiveness of their small arms.
"This study assessed Soldier perspectives on the reliability and durability of their weapons systems in combat to aid in decisions regarding current and future small arms needs of the Army," said the study, which was obtained by Military.com.
CNA surveyors conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty, asking them a variety of questions about accessories, weapons training, maintenance and recommended changes to their small arms.
"The U.S. Army Infantry Center is conducting a study to refine the Army's Small Arms Strategy, which focuses on the employment of rifles, carbines, ammunition caliber, and future technologies," said Army spokesman, Lt. Col. William Wiggins, in a statement. "All Services are participating in this study, which is expected in the July/August 2007 timeframe."
The survey lends weight to Army claims that current-issued weapons are effective despite growing criticism from Soldiers and lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the service should re-assess the standard M4 - as well as the M9 pistol.
In April, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent a letter to acting Army secretary Pete Geren taking issue with the service's sole-source contract to buy about 500,000 M4 carbines despite evidence that new rifle technologies could provide more reliable weapons.
The study found the most stoppage problems with the M249 machine gun and M9 pistol, with an average of about 30 percent of respondents saying they experienced stoppages with each weapon in firefights. About four in ten Soldiers who said they experienced jams during combat with their pistols or machine guns claimed it took them out of the fight.
Though vocal critics of the M4 say it's prone to jamming in the talcum-like sand environments of Iraq and Afghanistan, only 19 percent of M4 users said they experienced stoppages in combat.
But of those with malfunctioning M4s, nearly 20 percent said they were "unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage," the report said.
Soldiers who attach accessories to their weapons experienced a disproportionate number of malfunctions, with M249 users nine times more likely to experience a stoppage "if accessories were attached via zip cord, four times more likely if attached with duct tape and three times more likely if attached with dummy cords or rails."
"Accessory attachments had a significant impact on reported stoppages," the report said. "Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached."
The CNA surveyors also asked Soldiers for their opinions on possible improvements to their small arms. The top request from Soldiers was for more knock-down power, reigniting the debate over America's small arms caliber choices.
"When speaking to experts and Soldiers on site, many commented on the limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying that those personnel targets who were shot multiple times were still able to continue pursuit," the report said.
A full 20 percent of M9 users said they wanted a new weapon, and "some were more specific and requested a return to the Colt .45 for standard issue pistols," including others who asked for hollow-point ammo.
Hollow point rounds have been deemed illegal for military use.
Additionally, M16 users were "consistent and adamant" in asking to be re-issued the more compact M4.
In the continuing debate over whether the current version of the M4 carbine should be replaced, some lawmakers are keeping pressure on the Army to take another look at their standard-issued rifle.
In a series of letters to top Army officials, Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican from Oklahoma who has no small arms makers in his state, asked a simple question to the new, acting Army secretary Pete Geren: “Is the M4 the best rifle in the world?”
The letter, written May 16, is the latest attempt by the first-term Senator to force the Army to look at new rifle technologies that could make life a lot easier for Soldiers and other troops who use the compact M4 as their primary weapon. Coburn does not sit on any armed service-related committees.
As most DT readers already know, the M4 in its current state uses a gas-operated system to eject a spent round and load another. That system – without going into the minute details – is said to be prone to malfunctions unless it is meticulously cleaned. That’s hard to do in harsh, talcum-sand environments like Iraq and Afghanistan and can be extremely time consuming.
New (at least in infantry weapons) gas-piston operating system designs are much less prone to fouling, operators say, and can be retrofitted to current weapons at relatively low cost.
The congressional pressure is mounting, a Senate source tells Defense Tech, to withhold funds in the 2008 Defense Authorization bill to buy $375 million in M4s for new Army Brigade Combat Teams from Colt Defense until the Army holds an evaluation of these new rifle systems. Candidate weapons include the FN-made SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, the HK 416 (which is popular with special operations forces) and Colt’s gas-piston version of the M4, appropriately dubbed the “M5.”
Competition-backers in the Senate aren’t optimistic that they can insert language into the budget markup, but are planning to take their argument to the floor of the Senate when the final bill comes up for a vote. The senate source said Air/Land forces subcommittee chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), is resisting the competition bill language.
Colt Defense is based in West Hartford, Conn.
The Army has also resisted changing course on the M4, saying back in late March that the carbine has “been improved numerous times and employs the most current technology available on any rifle/carbine in general use today.”
That seems to be at odds with what the Army’s most elite soldiers (and other special ops forces, for that matter) really want. But as the body armor debate heats back up again and lawmakers show a greater willingness to have the services explore – and pay for – new approaches to everyday equipment, we’ll see if the Army takes another look at the Soldier’s most important piece of equipment.
Our boy Eric Daniel who runs the Kit Up! section of Military.com posted a pretty cool entry the other day on a favorite little piece of war bootie he seized while on duty in Iraq.
I know everyone at Defense Tech seems to get a kick out of Soldiers using non-issued weaponry, so I figured I’d throw out some red meat into the ring for all you contraband lovers.
Eric writes…
One of the byproducts of conducting security operations in Iraq is you end up with a lot of confiscated weapons, and over the years, quite a respectable collection had been assembled by the various units rotating through the IA mission on our FOB. Naturally we had such staples as the AK-47, AKM, RPK, RPD, and PKM, but we also had some pretty cool specimens as well, like Dragunov SVD sniper rifles, a working DShK, RPGs, even such oldies but goodies as a couple of Mosin-Nagant M1891bolt action rifles and a PPSh-41 sub-machine gun (non-functional unfortunately, otherwise this thing would have been a blast.)
The piece d’resistance, though was a brand-new, never been fired, fully functional German MG3.
We came about this little gem after detaining a collection of Iraqi oil and pipeline security folk who were conducting illegal shakedown checkpoints out in the hinterlands. In the process of cataloguing their equipment the scribing NCO described the MG3 as some sort of Star Wars blaster rifle, and so it’s true nature went undiscovered until I happened to see it propped up against the wall in the supply room, whereupon I discerned the true nature of this fine piece of warmongery.
The machinegun itself was in a sorry state. It was bone dry (a blessing as it would turn out), packed with dust, and had never been fired. Since it had never been lubricated (that I could tell), cleaning it up was simply a matter of field stripping it, blowing the majority of the dust out and then giving it a good bath and scrub in solvent. Once clean, dry, lubricated, and reassembled, my MG3 and me went out to the range to convert some linked 7.62 NATO into heat and noise.
For those of you who have never had the opportunity to fire an MG3, it is quite possibly the finest, single barreled medium machinegun ever built. Based on the German MG42 of WWII fame, the MG3 is essentially the MG3 rechambered from 7.92mm Mauser to 7.62mm NATO. Its ROF is 1,200 rounds per minute and it is an absolute dream to shoot.
Had we simply found the weapon in a raid I would have ditched my M16 and hauled that sucker with me everywhere, but alas and alack, I had to give it back when we eventually released the Iraqis we had detained. I shudder to think now what state “my” MG3 is in, but for the week or so we were together, and the thousands of rounds we fired together, I was in absolute heaven.
I wanted to draw our readers’ attention to an article we posted this morning over at the main Military.com news site about a drive in the Senate to force the Army into a competition for a new standard-issue carbine.
I had a long conversation with a top aide to Sen. Tom Coburn who’s concerned over our – and Army Times’ – coverage of failings in the M4. It’s not so much that the M4 is a bad weapon … it’s just that there are better weapons out there that could be fielded just as easily.
Coburn - a medical doctor and relative newbie to the Senate - wrote a letter to the Army April 12 – faxing a copy to the office of Acting Secretary Pete Geren on April 17 – requesting that the service hold a competition for a new rifle. If the M4 wins out, the aide said, so be it. But it makes no sense to the first-term senator that HK416, SCAR and other qualified carbines (event he XM8) are just rejected out of hand.
Coburn has no weapons manufacturers in his state, so it’s not for parochial interests he’s insisting on the competition. It seems to be one of those rare occasions when a lawmaker is taking on an issue that just makes sense and helps the warfighter and isn't geared toward creating jobs in his state.
Here’s the full text of the letter to Sec. Geren:
The Honorable Mr. Peter Geren
Secretary of the Army
101 Army Pentagon
Washington, DC 20310-0101
Dear Mr. Secretary,
I am concerned with the Army’s plans to procure nearly half a million new rifles outside of any competitive procurement process.
I understand that the Army decided to procure M4 Carbines in the early 1990’s to fill the gap between the M16 and 9mm pistol. At that time the Army specifically framed the requirement as the “Required Operational Capability (ROC) for the M4 Carbine.” M4 is a trademark name owned by Colt. Is it standard practice in Army acquisition to tie a requirement to a trademarked product?
I am certain that we can all agree that America’s soldiers should have the best technology in their hands. There is nothing more important to a soldier than their rifle, and there is simply no excuse for not providing our soldiers the best weapon – not just a weapon that is “good enough.” Unfortunately, considering the long standing reliability and lethality problems with the M-16 design, of which the M4 is based, I am afraid that our troops in combat might not have the best weapon.
In the years following the Army’s last Requirements Document, a number of manufacturers have researched, tested, and fielded weapons which, by all accounts, appear to provide significantly improved reliability. To fail to allow a free and open competition of these operational weapons is unacceptable.
I would like to see the results of the surveys you have conducted in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please include our soldiers’ accounts of malfunctions, assessments of M4 reliability and how the Army is addressing those reliability concerns.
I believe the Army needs to rapidly revise its rifle and carbine requirements. Free and open competition will give our troops the best rifle in the world. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter, and I hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Tom Coburn
United States Senator
The Army has yet to respond to Coburn’s letter and has in the past been pretty dismissive of criticism about the M4. It’s understandable that the Army would shrug off negative stories from journalists and even some of its special operators who say the M4 isn’t the best weapon out there … they have big fish to fry with a war going on, including fleets of new armored vehicles, paying for the “surge” and Walter Reed-esque patient care issues. But when a senator gets involved – someone who has his hands on the purse strings – the Army might just take it a little more seriously.
We’ll be sure to update our readers on this issue as it develops.
Twenty years ago, the US Department of Defense decided to replace the .45-cal M1911 handgun with the 9mm M9 Beretta as the standard-issue sidearm.
To say this decision was controversial is an understatement.
You will find plenty of defenders of the M9, such as this one, but also many, many critics. The critics say the M9's 9mm bullet lacks the "knock-down" power to immediately disable a human being. If this human being is shooting at you, you'd also prefer a bullet that could make this person stop.
I give you the Air Force Future Handgun program, which has just entered the market survey phase. The air force says it "may specify" a .45-caliber round, which is larger than the 9mm and the same size used on the M1911 phased-out in the late-1980s.
The air force program comes several months after the army and Special Operations Command cancelled the Joint Combat Pistol program, which also sought to bring back the .45-calibre sidearm.
History may be repeating itself. Legendary Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay kept interest alive in the Colt M16 rifle while the army hopelessly pursued the Springfield M14. Will the air force now usher the .45-calibre sidearm back into the inventory, with the army again forced to play follow-the-leader?
Military.com contributor, Capt. Eric Coulson, who wrote a thought-provoking article on the failings of the ACU, has penned another story for us that calls into question the call by an increasing number of shooters that the M9 pistol is a dog...
Read his entire article below:
The biggest failing of the M9 Beretta pistol has always been that it was not the M1911 in .45 ACP. More than 20 years after the pistol’s adoption as the standard sidearm of the US Armed Forces, many devotees of the 1911 and the .45 caliber claim that was a better pistol. In fact the M9 has proven itself time and time again in combat with US Forces in Panama, Desert Storm, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
Although a combat proven pistol, I decided to put the M9 through its paces when I arrived in Iraq. There was nothing scientific about my testing. We do not have a fancy range to do precision shooting and make measurements. I wanted the subjective hard day-in-day-out test of the firearm with the dust and sand: Could I pull out the weapon and run through 15 rounds and make them all lethal shots at 25 meters?
I attempt to maintain my pistol on a daily basis, however I will not exaggerate and claim that it is always spotless. So when I realize we had a range and some 9mm ammunition available, I decided to forgo cleaning my M9 to see what the real consequences would be if my weapon was not clean.
On range day, I took my Beretta that had more than its fair share of dust and sand on it, four Checkmate magazines and 60 rounds of 9mm Full Metal Jacket ammunition to the range. Over a half-hour period I fired the pistol from kneeling and standing positions. I fired single shots and controlled pairs. I used the slide release and manually charged the weapon. In those 60 rounds, I had no failures to feed, no failures to eject, and no failures to fire. Had I needed the weapon that day to save my life, it was up to the task.
Shooting itself is a perishable skill, but I found that I had not lost a step after spending much of the last two years shooting my Glock 19 on private ranges back in the United States. I would not have won any competitions, but at 25 meters on a man-size target, I was able to place all of my shots in the torso or the head.
The biggest complaint from users during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom has been failures related to the Checkmate magazines. Evidently, the Department of Defense has worked with the manufacture to eliminate these problems.
I am curious if some of those problems might not be related to the amount of time the magazines remain loaded. Considering the pistol is used as a backup weapon in most instances, the magazines can remain loaded for weeks at a time if not longer. The lengthy compression of the springs can cause the springs to lose some of their strength. I rotate mine on a weekly basis to prevent excessive spring use. Users might consider this if they experience a problem.
There have been no significant developments in pistol design since the adoption of the M9 that would warrant the adoption of a new pistol. However, there are two things the Armed Forces should consider in equipping service members with pistol.
Laser sites: a pistol such as the M9 has fixed sights. The fixed site requires the shooter to focus on the blade of the front site, while aligning the rear site and the target, causing the latter two to be fuzzy. Laser sites when properly aligned allow the shooter to focus on the target, where the focus should be. There are two types of lasers on the market, external and internal lasers. The internal lasers replace the guide rod and as such replicate the path of the bullet most accurately. The next contract for pistols should include an internal laser requirement.
Night sites: even if the military adopts an internal laser, one should always have a back up. On this pistol this means relying on the iron sites. The current sites on the Beretta are three-dot plastic. The dots have worn off over the years on many of these weapons. Replacing these with high visibility tritium sites would make more sense.
The Beretta M9 is a good pistol with a proven combat capability. My own experience has increased my confidence in the weapon system. While one should always do their utmost to ensure their weapon is clean and in optimal firing condition, it is also good to know the weapon can save your life, if it has seen a few hard days moving around the battlefield. The Department of Defense has done well by this pistol selection.
If somebody wanted to really help the US Army, they would do something about those God awful M4 carbines that American troops are forced to endure.
This is a recurring theme in this blog, and I'm returning to it again because of yet more new information that sheds light on the problem with the Army's standard-issue weapon for close-in fighting -- which is exactly the kind of combat that is raging in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
In a routine acquisition notice (see this link), a US Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced that it is buying 84 barrels for the Heckler & Koch HK416 assault rifle.
The HK barrels will be used to replace the barrels on their own M4s.
Why? Here's what the notice says:
The 416 barrel "allows soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent. The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained. There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."
Translation: the M4 barrel is so unreliable that special operations forces units need to swap it out with a barrel from a different gun -- and one that actually works in real combat conditions.
One solution is to simply swap out the barrel.
But here's another good answer: trash the M4s and just buy HK416s!
Christian adds:
For an outstanding investigative report on this issue, check out my former colleague Matt Cox’s article on the bureaucratic engine that is still preventing soldiers from getting what the best soldiers in the world say is the best weapon for the fight.
-- Stephen Trimble
A report in today's Jane's Defence Weekly quotes Brigadier General Mark Brown, the head of the US Army's 'Programme Executive Office - Soldier' and commanding general of the Natick Soldier Centre in Massachusetts, as saying that the US Army is looking to acquire a new personal defence weapon: a compact, medium-powered firearm for issue to vehicle crews.
He stated that the new weapon will be "larger than a pistol and smaller than a carbine" and would be employed by personnel not primarily engaged in infantry combat. He said: "When you get all your soldiers geared up in an uparmoured Humvee, there's not a lot of room".
A formal requirement for the PDW is being developed by the Army's main infantry centre at Fort Benning. The small arms centre at Picatinny Arsenal would be tasked to oversee the procurement.
General Brown said that at this point the service has only a "generalised requirement" for a PDW. The report says it is too early to know whether the Army would prefer an off-the-shelf weapon or a developmental item.
Murdoc says "None of the above". This ain't gonna happen.
A major problem is that 9mm-based submachineguns aren't going to be effective against anyone with any armor, and .45 SMGs won't be a whole lot better. Two truly promising little weapons, the MP7 and the P90, use new oddball ammunition and are built across the pond.
I think this is going to wallow around for a while. Then they'll pick either the MP7, the P90, or a snub-barreled M4 and begin development. After a year or two, and a gazillion dollars (or two), the program will be canceled and they'll just issue everyone either a 9mm pistol or an M4. Which is what they're doing today.
Incidentally, the XM8 assault rifle had a nifty little PDW version. That program wallowed around for a while and then died quietly. As will this one.
Call me cynical (or even bitter), and I'm totally shooting from the hip on this one, but I will believe this has a chance when the order for the first 100,000 is issued.
UPDATE: A comment over on my site was too good to not post here:
A hundred years from now, when we are fighting battles on Mars, our troops will be carrying M16's and M9's and bitching that they jam in the Martian dust.
Think of how many new generations of fighters, naval combatants, and fighting vehicles have been deployed since the 1960s.
Contrast that record to the individual firearm -- the rifle, carbine or handgun carried and used by almost any one wearing a uniform. The same basic M16 rifle and M4 carbine first used in Vietnam -- with the same basic flaws still uncorrected -- remain the primary infantry weapons for the US military today.
Why?
Surely, a nation that can muster $250-$300 billion to develop and deliver the Joint Strike Fighter, $160 billion to build a new family of combat vehicles and $8 billion to develop and build a next-generation aircraft carrier can come up with some spare change to upgrade the infantry's arsenal of automatic weapons.
All the services are fond of promoting the concept of dominating any potential threat through superior technology. Yet the M16 and M4 remain matched -- if not inferior -- to the firepower provided by the weapon of choice for insurgents/terrorists/pirates worldwide: the even older AK-47 design and its antecedents.
A new generation of superior guns are available for purchase today, offering improved firepower and less of the reliability problems of the older generation. Examples include the Heckler & Koch 416 enhanced carbine and the FN Herstal Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR).
Giving the Army more cash may not be the answer. Part of the problem is the way the Army manages small arms. Back in the 1950s, the Army was so loathe to develop an automatic rifle to compete with the AK-47 that some think it sabotaged tests on the M16. It fell upon Air Force General Curtis LeMay to rescue the M16 program and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to compel the Army to buy it. Even then, the Army sabotaged the M16 by initially filling the cartridge with the wrong gunpowder. (Read more here.)
More recently, the Army aborted its plan to replace the M16 with the XM29, which was cancelled in 2005 after a $100 million investment.
The good news is that the commercial marketplace has already solved the Army's problem. The question is whether the Army is willing to bring itself to make the change.
In our quest for the latest and most sophisticated weaponry we sometimes tend to overlook a major success in low-tech arms. But there's a lot we can learn from them – especially the AK-47 assault rifle.
The AK-47 is the world's most popular military weapon. At last count, there may be as many as 100 million of these uncomplicated but deadly rifles in use. That's one AK for every 60 people. It is used by about 50 legitimate armies as well as terrorists – Osama Bin Laden calls it the terrorist's most important weapon – insurgents, drug cartels, paramilitary groups and guerrillas.
The rifle, first produced in 1947 – hence the name AK-47 for Automatic Kalashnikov 1947 – has undergone very few changes since it was first produced by Soviet soldier Mikhail Kalashnikov. The furniture has been replaced with low weight plastics, and a few other mods here and there depending upon which of the 19 countries produced it, but it is essentially the same weapon it was 60 years ago.
What accounts for its success? Quite simply: it works. Despite its low price (as little as $10 and as much as $300) and often shoddy workmanship, this rifle rarely jams, is almost indestructible, and is easy to fire with no training. Overnight, it can transform paramilitary forces, thugs and street gangs into formidable armies.
It is not very accurate but can fire about 700 rounds per minute. Many western military experts consider it a piece of junk, but it's perfect for poorly-trained soldiers because they can 'spray and pray.' And indeed, it is a piece of junk compared to the M-16A2 now used in Iraq or the shorter barreled version M-4. These rifles are well built, accurate and engineered to close tolerances. They are technological things of beauty. The AK, on the other hand has loose tolerances, feels like it will shake apart (but doesn't) and won't make any friends at the marksmen club. These loose tolerances are the open secret to the AK's almost jam-free history. It's also why you can drag it through mud, leave it buried in the sand and take it out a year later, kick it with your boot, and it will fire like it was cleaned that morning. Again, because of its imprecision, the AK can fire poorly produced ammunition as well as ammo that has been sitting and deteriorating in the jungle or desert.
When the Defense Department offered M-16s to the Iraqi police and army, they refused. They wanted AKs which had to be bought from Jordan (the weapons actually were made in Germany). Indeed, like their brethren in Vietnam, many US soldiers are using AKs in Iraq despite official sanctions against the practice.
As the Pentagon planers ponder what's next for infantry firearms, they need to think in terms of simple instead of complex and practical instead of sophisticated. There's no reason why soldiers should be using M-4s that overheat or place condoms over their gun barrels to keep out the desert sands.
The solution has not come for lack of trying. From the late 1990s to the early 2000s, the Army was developing a new assault rifle known as the XM8 project an outgrowth of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon program, which was to produce a new type of battle rifle. The main goal of the XM8 program was to find a replacement for the M-16 and M4.
However, by late 2005, the XM8 was scrapped partially because of politics; Congress was reluctant to spend billions to outfit soldiers with new rifles while the Iraq war was draining the treasury.
The real problem may be that as the program progressed, military planners kept adding bells and whistles to the rifle system -- even including an electronic bullet counter -- and it became too complex, heavy and unwieldy. Designers would have done better to simply aim for a new infantry rifle that works as well as the AK-47 and be just as simple.
The AK may not be the best rifle for the US but designers can learn from Kalashnikov's experience in building the AK-47. He often found himself guided by the words of arms designer Georgy Shpagin, who developed the successful PPSh41 submachine gun: "Complexity is easy; simplicity is difficult."
Who knew? A few weeks back, we mentioned that Chicago was setting up a series of listening posts, to keep an ear out for gunshots. Well, it turns out that the system, called SENTRI, is based on the way peoples' neurons fire.
SENTRI is an acronym for "Smart Sensor Enabled Neural Threat Recognition and Identification." The "neural" in the title refers directly to [USC Center for Neural Engineering director Theodore] Berger's work, which was based on analysis of the "language" nerve cells, or neurons, use to convey information, and specifically on his modeling of the way the brain forms memories of sounds.
The neurons' only way of distinguishing signals is to fire repeatedly, either faster or slower, in different temporal patterns. "It is the time difference between pulses that carries the information," Berger said. "This is a coding completely unlike that used by computers, which are collections of ones and zeros, changing to the beat of a constant clock."
Working with computer specialists, however, Berger has created neural-like computer systems that can model the neural time coding and make distinctions the way nerves do.
Four years ago, he and a colleague used the technique to demonstrate the first speech recognition system that could pick words out of ambient noise as well as humans can. While work continues on speech-recognition applications, the systems need training to learn individual signals. For language, this is very time consuming because the system has to learn each individual word.
"But for alarm signals," Berger said, "you start with a relatively small number of sounds you have to distinguish with high accuracy - gunshots, for example, or diesel engines for border patrol crossings or oil pipeline thieves, or chainsaws to listen for outlaw loggers. This vocabulary is quite manageable."
(thanks RC for the tip)
CHICAGO LISTENS UP FOR GUNS
"Gang members in Chicago who fire off a few rounds at their rivals [could] find cops on the scene in minutes, thanks to new gunshot-detection devices being installed in 80 locations around the city before the end of the year," Wired News reports.
The devices, mounted on telephone poles in specific neighborhoods, listen for the distinctive sound of a gunshot and immediately alert a police dispatcher when one is detected. A video camera in the device allows the dispatcher to keep an eye on the scene until officers arrive.
The system is similar to those being used to decrease gunshot-related injuries and deaths in a half dozen other cities in the United States, including Redwood City, California; Glendale, Arizona; and Charleston, South Carolina.
Here's how the systems work: Police mount the detection devices, which include microphones and sound-analysis hardware, on telephone poles and other locations in neighborhoods where gunfire is a problem. The devices are connected to a control center where dispatchers wait to receive alerts via their computers.
Chicago authorities have been getting increasingly worked up about using distributed technology to keep tabs on their less-than-friendly residents. In September, Mayor Daley announced a proposal to network together 2,000 surveillance cameras around the city.
Chicago's gunshot detectors sound a whole lot like Darpa's "Boomerang," sniper-finder system, which G.I.s have been mounting on their Humvees since early in the year. More info on the project's next stage --designed to fight off RPG attacks, as well -- is here.
NET HUNTING TAKES AIM
Ah, progress. A Texas company, Live-Shot , is planning to let hunters use a webcam and an Internet-controlled rifle to shoot down deer, mouflon sheep, antelopes and wild pigs as they roam a 54-acre ranch, according to the BBC.
John Underwood got the idea a year ago when he was watching deer via a webcam on another net site, "We were looking at a beautiful white-tail buck and my friend said 'If you just had a gun for that'. A little light bulb went off in my head..."
Each remote hunting session will cost $150 with additional fees for meat processing and taxidermy work.
Already the Live-Shot site lets people shoot 10 rounds at paper and silhouette targets for $5.95 for each 20-minute shooting session. For further fees, users can get the target they shot and a DVD recording of their session.
Handlers oversee each shooting session and can stop the gun being fired if it is being aimed off-range or at something it should not be...
Mike Berger, wildlife director of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, said current hunting statutes did not cover net or remote hunting. Besides, the law only covers "regulated animals" and there's thus nothing to stop Mr Underwood letting people hunt "unregulated" imported animals. (via The Near Near Future).
CONCEALED WEAPONS
Camouflage doesn't do you a whole lot of good, if your gun sticks out like a Rabbi at a yacht club. MilitaryPhotos.net has a slew of guns, painted to blend in.
The object of his liquid affection: the Army's new XM8 rifle, which is winning rave reviews at Ft. Bragg and from the Army Times.
"With attachments, it can go from a compact rifle with a 9-inch barrel for close combat shooting to a sharpshooter rifle with a 20-inch barrel for 600-meter range," the Fayetteville Observer notes. "It costs less than an M-4, is lighter and is capable of firing 20,000 rounds without malfunctions."
It also won't jam if it's clogged full of dirt. "Jose Gordon of Heckler & Koch USA, the gun's maker, demonstrated this last fact when he buried an XM-8 in Fort Bragg's red dust and then fired it."
XM8's PDW model
The 
Who knew? A few weeks back, we mentioned that Chicago was setting up a series of listening posts, to 
"Gang members in Chicago who fire off a few rounds at their rivals [could] find cops on the scene in minutes, thanks to new 
Ah, progress. A Texas company, 
"You will have to excuse me for a moment whilst I 
