It seems like you all are talking alot about the Magpul/Bushmaster ACR, so I dug up this YouTube video from Future Weapons (I want that guy's job) and decided to post it here.
As more of you make convincing pitches for M4 replacements, I'll dig up whatever video I can find and feature it here...
Army (might) Abandon "Leap" for M4 Replacement
In a move that could reverse years of Army small arms policy, the service is asking industry to send in ideas for a new combat rifle that could replace the M4 carbine.
In late August, the Army issued a solicitation to the arms industry asking companies to submit proposals that would demonstrate "improvements in individual weapon performance in the areas of accuracy and dispersion ... reliability and durability in all environments, modularity and terminal performance."
And in a dramatic gesture that could throw the door wide open to a totally new carbine, the service did not constrain ideas to the current 5.56mm round used in the M4.
"We're at the point now where we're going to go out and compete," said Richard Audette, project manager for Soldier weapons at the Army's Picatinny Arsenal.
"We're looking for anyone that has a world-class carbine," Audette told Military.com in a Sept 15 interview. "We're interested in any new technologies out there."
Audette couldn't remember an Army weapons program that opened up the competition to ideas so diverse; he cited the M240 request in the 1990s and M9 solicitation in the 1980s as examples of broad requests, but they stuck with specific caliber ammunition.
The Army's abrupt change in direction -- after long stating it would stick with the M4 until there was a "leap" in technology that would far surpass current carbine performance -- comes after nearly two years of pressure on the service to re-examine the M4 and entertain a nearer-term replacement.
Some in Congress have called for the Army to hold a "shoot-off" with several other carbine designs alongside the Colt-built M4 to demonstrate the state of the art in today's military arms market. Sen. Tom Coburn (R - Okla.) briefly held up the nomination of Army Secretary Pete Geren in mid-2007 to force the service into side-by-side comparisons of M4 competitors in extreme dust conditions.
Many argue the M4 is more susceptible to fouling due to its gas-operated design, and say other systems are less maintenance intensive.
The move to broaden the competition is also calendar-driven: the so-called "technical data package" of the M4 -- essentially the blueprints for the design -- are up for release in June of next year. That means the Army can rebid the M4 to any company that can make it, potentially driving down costs and boosting production capacity.
And as if that wasn't enough, the Army is also in the midst of re-writing its carbine requirements document, which will spell out specifically what the service needs for its primary weapon. Audette said the ideas sent in as a result of his solicitation will help inform officials at Training and Doctrine Command as they update the Army's carbine plan.
"If there's some new technology out there, they want to be able to write a requirement that will not limit the Army to something they could possibly have," Audette said.
The Army is leaving itself open to carbine ideas that could stray from the nearly 40-year policy of using 5.56mm ammunition for its rifles. Recent developments in ammunition calibers have bolstered critics who contend the 5.56 round has too little "stopping power" and passes through its target without incapacitating him.
Army officials have repeatedly stated that knockdown has as much to do with marksmanship as ballistics, arguing that if you shoot more accurately, you'll drop your target on the first shot.
But several "boutique" rounds have been making inroads with weapons developers both in and outside the government. The 6.8mm and 6.5mm round are increasingly popular, as is the old-school 7.62mm round -- which Special Operations Command plans to incorporate into its new carbine program.
"We want to know about everything that's out there, regardless of caliber," Audette said. "If you've got a 6.8, we're interested in that and seeing what that brings to the table."
"We don't want to spend 20 years producing 1,000 carbines per month," Audette said. "If we choose a new carbine we want to have a production capacity in place so that we can ramp up and get a lot of these out the door."
Industry sources say the Army solicitation isn't just smoke and mirrors to satisfy critics of the M4. They say a competition will likely occur next summer between different weapons and the best gun will win.
If that does happen, Soldiers -- and potentially their counterparts in the other services -- won't likely see their new carbines until 2012, after all the testing and evaluation is done. The Army currently has a requirement for 450,000 M4s, though that number could climb if the service decides to replace all M-16s with the smaller M4, Audette said.
-- Christian
Operators Test New Commando Rifle
It's a rifle designed specifically for the special operations community. Modular barrels, ambidextrous controls, a gas-piston operating system, a host of adjustment options -- but you already know that.
So with all the slick marketing language and eye-popping specifications of the SOCOM Combat Assault Rifle, it's a given that operators will embrace the thing wholeheartedly, right?
Well, let's ask them.
"This rifle is awesome," said one Special Forces operator who, like the rest of the Green Berets in this interview, declined to be named for security reasons. "It's spot on."
Now you get an idea of how the men who'll use the weapon in combat felt about it, not just some six-figure marketing guru spewing crafty catch-phrases. But what's most interesting is why they liked the rifle so much.
In an exclusive, Military.com joined a group of about a dozen special operations Soldiers from around the country who traveled to Northern Virginia this summer to test fire the SCAR before their upcoming deployment to the Middle East. Ground rules agreed to between the special operators, the rifle manufacturer and Military.com precluded naming the unit, its members or its deployment destination.
The SCAR, which comes in a 5.56mm version and a 7.62mm one, is nearing the end of its field user assessment phase -- the final stage before full-rate production and fielding to units under U.S. Special Operations Command, including SEALs, Green Berets and Air Force Special Tactics units.
The entry of the SCAR into the spec ops community comes as the services, Congress and the Pentagon scuffle over whether or not to replace the current M4 rifle and address persistent complaints over the standard-issued carbine's reported lack of "stopping power" and its need for constant maintenance and cleaning to avoid jams.
But ask the special operations troops firing both the Mk-16 (the 5.56mm version of the SCAR) and the Mk-17, its 7.62mm brethren, and you'll get a completely different response on the rifles' advantages over the venerable M4.
To these hardened commandos, the issue wasn't the new carbine's gas-piston system that many experts agree causes fewer stoppages than the all-gas operated M4 -- they keep their weapons in tip top shape. Instead, some operators appreciated how well the SCAR felt with lead pouring from its muzzle.
"I like it a lot better than the M4," one special operator said after firing a magazine full of 5.56mm through the Mk-16. "There's a lot less recoil."
One Special Forces Soldier applauded the weapon's controls, with safety latches located on both sides of the receiver and situated much closer to the weapon's handle.
"This works better with my stumpy hands," the stocky operator joked.
But by far the feature that most impressed these operators was the SCAR's ability to change from something as small as a submachine gun to a weapon with the reach of a sniper rifle.
Like many competitors to the M4, both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 can be outfitted with barrels ranging from 10 inches for close-quarters battle operations to 18-inch designated marksman barrels.
"That's the best part of this weapon," explained one Special Forces Soldier. "When we deploy, we usually go with just our M4s. But if we're on an operation where we need an overwatch or we're observing at a distance, the M4 doesn't do us much good until it's too late."
With the SCAR, the NCO said, the team could have both the reach and protection of a long gun and the maneuverability and portability of an assault rifle -- all in one.
Both the Mk-17 and Mk-16 have a fully adjustable stock that can be folded to the side to shrink the carbine into the length of a submachine gun. Some of the operators at the test shoot gave the stumpy rifle a try in this configuration, but marksmanship was mixed.
"I'm not sure I'd ever want to fire it like this," one operator said after shooting the Mk-17 with its stock folded. "But it'd sure be nice to fold it up like this for transporting in a vehicle or something."
Officials with FN-USA say that U.S. Special Operations Command has ordered about 18,000 SCAR variants for commandos and a limited run of about 1,200 rifles has already begun.
It's unclear still whether these Special Forces Soldiers will be slinging lead down range with a SCAR pinned to their shoulder on their next deployment, but judging by the pile of spent casings littering the ground during their demo shoot, some of them wouldn't complain if the new rifle wound up in their armory.
-- Christian
Hill Aides to Test M4 Alternatives
In a move that could ruffle the feathers of an Army command that views the Colt Defense-built M4 as the best carbine in the world, a select group of top senate staffers is gathering today to look at what could be the future of the military's standard assault rifle.
About 30 legislative aides have signed up to attend a July 11 demonstration at Marine Corps Base Quantico, just outside Washington, D.C., that will feature weapons from various manufacturers vying to end the reign of the M16 and M4 as the U.S. military's most fielded personal weapon.
The range day is intended to help familiarize key lawmakers with possible alternatives to the M16 and M4 once the exclusive contract with Colt Defense of West Hartford, Conn., ends in the summer of 2009, a senior senate aide told Defense Tech.
"When you re-compete the M4 it shouldn't just be for the same thing we've been building for the last 20 to 30 years," said the senior senate staffer who requested anonymity because the issue is so sensitive with the Army.
Over the past year the Army has taken fire from M4 critics who say there are better options available to troops, weapons that require less intensive maintenance and fire more lethal rounds. While the Army -- which is responsible for procuring small arms for all the services -- continues to stand by the M4 and M16, a small group of tenacious senators, including Oklahoma Republican James Coburn, have pressed the issue, forcing the service to subject the M4 to rigorous environmental tests and pushing for side-by-side competitions with several M4 alternatives.
"There's no urgent need to improve the M4, it's clearly working better than the M16," the senior senate aide said. "Our concern is that, urgent or not, we really ought to be improving it on par with technological improvements [and] not be wedded to an older weapon just because that's the way we've always been doing it."
While the aide declined to list all the companies participating in the demo, congressional and industry sources say the shoot will feature the standard 5.56mm M4 carbine, the FNH USA-build Mk-17 -- which fires a 7.62mm round -- and a modified "M4-style" rifle that fires a new 6.8mm special purpose cartridge round, among others.
The 6.8mm SPC round was born of a 6-month program launched by the interagency Technical Support Working Group which looked into how an M4 or M16 could be easily modified to fire a round that had better ballistic characteristics than the current arsenal when fired from a short barrel.
According to the TSWG, the so-called "modified upper receiver group" that accommodates the 6.8mm round "can be installed on [government-issued] M4 carbine lower receivers by operators in the field quickly and without tools for an immediate, considerable increase in projectile weight, surface area, and on-target terminal performance."
"The 6.8mm MURG offers improved combat capability and user survivability over comparable 5.56mm platforms," a TSWG statement said.
A consistent criticism of the M4 has been the 5.56 round's perceived lack of stopping power. A 2006 Center for Naval Analyses report conducted for the Army showed 30 percent of Soldiers surveyed wanted a rifle with a more deadly round.
"Across weapons, Soldiers have requested weapons and ammunition with more stopping power/lethality," the report said.
And one special operations Soldier who spoke to Defense Tech couldn't agree more.
"I know that when I'm shooting at someone I want to be confident that when I hit him, he's going to go down," the Special Forces operator said during a recent interview. "That's why I like the AK and its 7.62 round. It'll drop whatever you're aiming at."
The Army brushes off such criticism, saying lethality is closely tied to marksmanship. If you hit a target in the right place, you'll stop him, Army leaders argue.
The point of the July 11 test shoot is to allow manufacturers to showcase their M4 alternatives before an audience that's becoming more influential on small arms procurement decisions. The senate group tried to hold a similar demo last year, but the Army abruptly pulled out when news reports of the event leaked out, senate sources said.
Participants will have the opportunity to observe the effects of different caliber rounds in ballistic jelly, be shown how to fire each weapon and, of course, there will be some hands-on time as well.
Colorado Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar is heavily involved in the M4 alternative push and wants a competitive process that rewards the kind of innovation that leads to a host of choices when the M4 is re-bid in June of next year.
"Senator Salazar's concern is that the process itself could stifle industry innovation, it can result in lower weapons reliability and it can increase costs," said Salazar spokesman, Matt Lee-Ashley.
"He's going to work through the Army and the Armed Services Committee to make sure that when [the M4] is re-competed next June the process is open, that it's based on performance-based requirements and that it encourages industry innovation."
-- Christian
One Good Case for Earmarks: HK416
[EDITOR: From a DT friend (who prefers to remain anonymous) on his chop of the AWG's fight for their HK-416s]
The AWG folks are a special US Army task force to deal with IED threats that has turned into a semi-covert group of trigger pulling "trouble shooters." They got the HK416 because of their semi-official/semi-covert status and then got them taken away when Sen. Coburn both noticed this and embarrassed the Army small arms procurement brass by pointing it out.
To be fair to the Brass, they are in a no-win situation because small arms are a religious faith where true believers will not be swayed by real data.
In the realm of hard "non-religious data," there seem to be two major knocks against the M4: fouling after lots of firing, and excessive jamming in sandy conditions. Controlled tests in sandstorm-of-the-century conditions indicate the M4 is worse than the HK416 and FN SCAR, but all are in the 99-percentile reliability range.
To quote something a friend of mine sent on the issue:
"Excessive fouling depends on how many major firefights you get into before you can pull maintenance. All three systems use some sort of cylinder-and-piston arrangement to manage the gases. In the M16-type system, it's in the bolt carrier itself, while the other two restrict it to a small area near the gas port. They all have to be cleaned, eventually. The competition community has developed some M16 gas system tweaks that might interest serious trigger-pullers.
As a professional, your weapon's health comes first, just like your horse would if you were cavalry. If someone gave me one of each of these weapons, and several thousand rounds of ammo, I might develop a clear favorite. I doubt highly that I would find one totally unfit for my uses."
I have also been told that a number of M-16 jam problems would disappear if the H&K M16 magazine were adopted as standard issue. It is "...the absolute best out there. Built, and priced, like a BMW.
In the particular case of the HK416 and the AWG, Sen. Coburn would have done better by the troops by earmarking money for HK416.
Since Coburn is a Republican "Small Federal Government"/anti-earmark true believer, this was the result.
From the military procurement point of view, earmarks actually play a very important role in defense readiness in non-glamorous things like transport ships, trucks, and planes.
Rep Les Aspin’s 1980’s earmarks of extra 10-ton HEMET trucks gave the US Army the truck transport to pull off the famous left hook in the 1991 Gulf War.
Sen Trent Lott’s earmarks of amphibious ships have given the USMC 20% of its current amphibious fleet.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s earmarks of extra C-130’s and Rep Dana Rohrabacher’s earmarks of extra C-17’s are the wings resupplying troops in Afghanistan.
Outside of those non-glamorous areas, DoD earmarks are rightly seen as pernicious.
