Remington will Make Army’s New Carbines

The Army awarded Remington Arms Company an April 20 contract to make tens of thousands of M4A1 carbines. By outbidding Colt Defense — the original maker of the M4 — Remington may end up being the only winner in what many gun makers have labeled as the Army’s well-intentioned but doomed effort to arm soldiers with a better carbine.

On the upside, the award means that more soldiers will go into combat with the M4A1, a SOF version of the carbine that features a more durable barrel and a full-auto capability. The Army’s decision to dump the  three-round burst setting will give soldiers a more consistent trigger and better accuracy.   

It’s part of the service’s dual-path strategy to improve the individual carbine. Army weapons officials recently completed phase one of the service’s Improved Carbine Competition and will soon announce which companies proved they have the infrastructure and production capacity to turn out thousands of new weapons. Gun makers that advance to  the second and third phases of the competition will have hundreds of thousands of test rounds fired through their prototypes before the Army announces one winner.

Many small-arms firms believe the endeavor is a waste of time since the Army has shown no interest in new calibers or features that would increase modularity. In the end, the winner of the competition will likely lose when the Army conducts a business-case analysis comparing it to the new-and-improved carbine that emerges from the parallel effort known as the M4 Product Improvement Program.

Questions have already started to surface over just how successful the PIP will be since the Army recently canceled a search for an improved bolt and bolt-carrier assembly. Companies such as LWRC International, Remington and Smith & Wesson that competed for the bolt and bolt-carrier assembly portion of the PIP were notified by the Army April 10 that none of the submissions offered enough improvement over the M4’s existing bolt and bolt-carrier assembly. It will be interesting to see if similar efforts to improve components such as the selector-switch assembly and the forward-rail assembly suffer the same fate.

For now though, congratulations to Remington for winning a contract to make 24,000 M4A1s. More orders are likely to follow since last summer’s pre-solicitation detailed a requirement for 70,000-100,000 M4A1s. This has been a long, tedious road since the Army launched its improved carbine effort in late 2008, but Kit Up!, is going to follow it all the way to the bitter end.

About the Author

Matthew Cox
Matthew Cox has been a defense reporter since 1998 and is an associate editor for Military.com. He traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times from 2002 to 2008, covering infantry units in combat. Matthew was an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division.

85 Comments on "Remington will Make Army’s New Carbines"

  1. All the way this is the better idea since there is no rifle on the market that w/o modular caliber and quick barrel change (which nullifies the ACR's advantage) allowed will be better than a standard M-4A1. The Fact the USMC and Navy said NO to any ICC winner anyway making this a army only program doomed this program last year. Over all the new Remington M-4A1s will address alot of issues they had with older M-4s in service. The addition of a free floating rail system will be the BIGGEST improvement. the USMC's M-27 IAR has ineradicable accuracy due to its FF system so adding it to M-4s and M-16s is only logical. Overall the cancellation of the new bolt/carrier isn't a lose since it was only the bolt lugs that had issues with shorter gas systems. A FF is the beast improvement to the design is made light enough.

    Overall Colt wont lose as much as some think though the US Army own the rights to Colt's M-4 any companies who makes them for the Army still has to pay royalties to Colt to produce the weapons and the fact Colt makes SAWs and M-240s for the DoD now ensures they do fine. Im glad to see other US companies making money US military carbines. Remington quality is just as good if not better than Colt is anyway. Im sure that they be graet new M-4 in the future.

  2. Good for Remington.

    They sill have huge hurdles to jump over to keep the contract, if they prove they cannot they will lose the TPD and have to destroy all information about it.

    Colt still owns the TDP and the Army is just licensing it out to Remigton, im all for it though cheaper M4A1's hopefully means more will get new rifles.
    As far as the IC? Its not going to go anywhere, it never was. No rifle to date does anything better than the M4, at most they are slight incremental upgrades, like auto capability, free floated barrels and cold hammer forged barrels, all of this can be had on current M4A1's.

    They in no way fire the 5.56 any better than the M4 and they do not give any realistic reliabilty upgrade. I have never seen an M4 have issues that was not related to user error.

    The money is better spent on new M4A1's and better training, clean you M4 when your at base(if in field do a quick wipe down daily), use lubrication(dry sand is harsh, wet sand is slick) and use good magazines and youll never have problems.

    As for the BCG I can see why they stopped it, I have mever seen a performance upgrade that can actually be proven by a fancy expensive BCG when compared to one with current Crane spring upgrades.

    Now a foreend can be proven to offer better performance, theres a reason our top SF groups use the DD RIS II

  3. Official Army Position: We are very interested in improving all aspects of the current M4 carbine, as long as said improvements don't involve actually changing anything about it.

    Why don't they just come out and say it? :)

  4. Isn't it about time to designate new M4s as M4A2/M16A5s, and i think full auto will only shorten the life of the barrels inner workings and wear them down faster. Plus having a fully automatic firing carbine or rifles will cause a "kick up" in the fore/rear sights thus screwing up the accuracy.

  5. This one dude named | April 22, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Reply

    Nobody said anything about full-auto only, the weapons probably will only ever be fired on semi-auto anyways. The benefits of a full-auto mechanism is more consistent trigger pull and therefore increased accuracy on semi-auto, AS STATED IN THE ARTICLE. Also, the new carbines aren't different weapons, they're just being manufactured by Remington as opposed to Colt (they're still M4A1s). I don't want to sound rude, but please actually take time to read the article before you comment.

  6. I would much rather see our soldiers getting SCARS, they work better than the m4s and don't jam from sand or mud, And the barrels can be changed out to fit the job. They are a much better rifle system than the m4 or m16

  7. Why not just get any new rifle. Do what was done with m14

  8. And what's wrong with a bullpup design

  9. What about the HK416?

  10. The Tavor in great in test but doesn't have that much combat experience yet, to tell if its one of the better designs. Maybe when the next war comes with the new Islamic Egypt we can see how it dose.

  11. Actually, the HK 416 does offer some advantages over the M4A1.
    1. It stays cooler for higher sustained rates of fire. There by needing less lubrication.
    2. The gas system will not blow up if the is water in it. If water gets into the gas tube of a M4A1 and you fire it, it will rupture dramatically.
    3. Less heat/gas/carbon fouling in the receiver, means longer service life and easier to keep clean.

  12. the unit cost for a M4 and HK416 is actually pretty similar. Research the HK website. its about what you want to do with your money actually (speaking from the perspective of a nation's military).

    The 416 has many measurable advantages over the M4, though, in my opinion, there are better weapons out there than the 416.

  13. Great now the soldiers have another spray and pray weapon to burn up ammo and rifle barrells.

    AND it still fires a round that is basically worthless as a man stopper, especially when they have been smoking opium. Speaking of which thats probably what the army leadership was doing when they decided to stay with M-16 design.

  14. Ok what about the acr or scar xm8

  15. Great for Israel and their conscript Army, it still doesnt mean a bullpup is that great of a rifle, when the SOF groups of countries issuing bullpups choose an AR pattern rifle that should tell you something.

    Nothing against Israel but their army is just that, a conscript army.

  16. The SCAR 16 is not a very good weapon, little after market support and spotty help from the folks at FN, the 17 is a 7.62 battle rifle unlike other so it has a huge use as a support or spotter weapon.
    Glad the army decided to keep the M4 and gave Remington a contract. FF hand guard full auto capability, outstanding. I've used the M16 series on 3 Iraq trips and in RC south Afgahnistan….I've noticed a lot of critics of the system……but none from veterans of current operations, the system is proven…the system works.

    The new brownells brown follower mags were great over there.

  17. The Troy TRX is relatively inexpensive, robust, light, and can be customised. Ther are also other options out there. You don't HAVE to spend $500 on a freefloat quad rail juggernaut boat anchor anymore.
    Oh, and gas tubes are about as close as you can get to a true "free float" as you can get without going recoil operated, roller locked delayed blow back, or some other system. Theoretically you should be able to successfully freefloat a gas piston, but as i stated above, unless its an LMG, you don't really NEED a piston.

  18. Why not have a M4/A1 with Semi, Burst, and Full Auto?

  19. "The Fact the USMC and Navy said NO to any ICC winner anyway making this a army only program doomed this program last year."

    Why would the USMC and Navy saying no to an Army program doom it? DUH!!! Ever heard of the XM25? What about the M1 Garand? Yes! The Navy/Marines actually said "no" to the M1 Garand that the Army adopted and the Marines backtracked on two years later. The ICC will probably fail. It has nothing to do with the other branches buying in. That's just hubris talking.

  20. Why spend millions if not billions for a slight incremental improvement? The only reason the Army is even doing this competition is so they have data to counter the Congressman lobbying for a change because his district happens to have a small arms factory. Anyone who looks at the last 100 years can see we don't change the primary rifle unless there's a SIGNIFICANT improvement to lethality, reliability or accuracy (M1903, M1, M14, M16). It's that simple and those focused on the latest sales literature don't get it.

  21. Dan – might want to follow your advice. Greg said "i think full auto will only shorten…" not "full auto only".

  22. Agree with you Josh

  23. Great and thoughtful comments so far!

  24. RE the barrel swap, there have been plenty of times I wished I could remove the barrel of my M4 simply to get easier access to the star chamber for cleaning lol Other than that, there really isn't a practical reason for a carbine to have a quick change barrel

  25. there's no reason to re-learn and re-train for bullpups when we have been using the conventional layout M16 since the 60's.

  26. It is my opinion that the SCAR "does work better", though its hard justifying re-equipping the whole army (though I like the idea). You are still limiting the platform to the 5.56mm cartridge and using AR15 magazines, so the effectiveness of the SCAR is limited by those factors. I also believe the 5.56 and 7.62mm's capabilities overlap and the army will stick with the 5.56, especially using improved cartridges.

    The "H" variant is better than the M14, though walnut and steel purists will burn you at the stake LOL ;) The H variant and Mk 20 will become more popular. I like the M14, though I believe the SCAR H is measurably better than the M14, G3, and FAL.

  27. Perhaps a rock might be better to reach out and touch someone!

    Somewhere there has to be acompromise on ammo basic load, range of rifle, weight of weapon, stopping power. Not at all sure the carbine is an answer other than fiscal solution, cheap to make.

  28. Bullpups for people who dont see much combat?? Bloody cheek!

  29. The reason why SF use M4 variants is usually the weight (SUSAT mounted L85A2, is 2kg heavier than an M4) of the issue L85A2. Its a more accurate weapon with a longer barrel but a shorter overall length. The L85 suffers somewhat from balance issues as being very short, it has a higher centre of gravity. Bullpups are unlikley to make an entry into the US arsenal as they are non traditional, at least that seems to be the rationale. Bullpups had a bad reputation which the A1 did nothing to disprove, but the A2 is a world beating weapon, The M4 and its upgrades and variants, fit the bill for a much larger army, like the US.

  30. I'm not a big bullpup fan. I have fired an L85 A2 when I was in Germany during some joint training with the Brits.

    I didnt see any issues with it, I liked the SUSAT reticle a lot I have heard the horror stories about the L85A1 the stories sound a lot like the M16 s teething problems.

    Funny that the L85 is based on the AR18 designed by stoner after he left armalite.

  31. No Maj rod there was some doubt about the semi-auto rifle and the Marines waited a bit to see how it dose in combat. Glad it worked and the USMC in the end adopted it and had pride in using it to defeat Japan. This debate has NOTHING to do with the fact the M-4 is staying in service much longer than just some predicted.

    Main fact is the Army and Marines will have very different structure uniforms and weapons from now on.

  32. I agree with this.

    If we ever go to war with a state of the art military our small arms wont win it.

    A true war is won or lost by your ships, planes, tanks, etc these are the things to focus on.

    When you already have an excellent small arms platform like the M16FOW, money is better spent havig the cuttig edge vehicles vs a new rifle that offers maybe a .5% increase.

  33. You can argue it all you want but the proof is right there in front of you.

    No SOF groups use bullpups, but 90% of them use the M4 or an AR-15 pattern rifle.

    The P90 is the only exception but its not a combat rifle, its a PDW completely different thing.

  34. Hum im more worried about the full auto feature then anything else. I have read and heard the stories during vietnam of troops going full auto, and not hitting a **** thing, and quickly running out of ammo. Substain fire will do wonders, but i can see troops fliping the switch over to full auto, and wasting a whole mag and still only hitting the target once or twice.

  35. SCARS is not well liked by all. It overheats the handguards and its parts commonality is non-existent. FN made an improvement on the M4, but not by much. And at 4 times the cost of an M4, Congress isn't going to jump on that grenade anytime soon…

  36. One word, ergonomics. Try to do a 3 second magazine swap on a bullpup and not take your eyes off target. Easy as pie on an M4, we practiced all the time. Can't be done with a bullpup, you have to unshoulder it to get access to the mag release.

  37. I hauled a wounded Honduran in '88 that had a .50 wound in his chest from a skirmish with Nicaragua. He lived for 5 hours, died when a blood clot entered his heart. .50's are bad, but they aren't railguns either. The human body can take amazing punishment and keep moving. Head/spine are the only gaurantees…

  38. Correct! The seperate sears for the 3 round burst are all different surfaces, therefore 3 different trigger pulls! This equates to trying to qualify with 3 different rifles…Not a great system, as you never knew where in the 3 round cycle you were when you wanted a 3 round burst. But it was a compromise over a complex mechanical system that would have surely been more prone to failure. Colt noted this when the M16A2 was being tested, and one of the main reasons the other branches stayed full auto.

  39. we already have more than the cutting edge!

    The M1 Abrams, and its Rheinmetall 120mm gun, cannot be matched by anything on the planet! In fact, Rheinmetall has designs for a 140mm but there is no existing armor than can defeat the existing 120mm. Technology even exists that will provide another giant leap in gun technology: electrothermal-chemical technology and it is being casually researched because existing threats cannot defeat or outmatch what is already in service (and has been in service since the 80s).

    Our air force and naval air elements are the most numerically superior and technologically advanced, even while flying jets that have been in service for 20-30 years! There is no threat that can match a F15E, F16, F/A18E Superhornet. These are the reasons why research and development as well as standardization of the F35 and F22 are being questioned, because existing designs already eclipse the threats that are out there.

    The military is focusing on improved communications (FCS) and true full spectrum control of battlefield units. Disingeniously, they are neglecting investment in airborne forces, which are essential for force projection (strategic response forces). The technology and equipment is there to have the finest strategic response forces in the world (and we have that not based on our existing merit, but because of the deficiencies of our competition), though they are still lacking in capability.

    I wont even get into the Navy, which is also vastly technologically and numerically superior than the US competitors. Research into "stealth destroyers" like the Zumwalt are also being questioned because there is no threat the existing ships cannot destroy.

    I think its time to update the rifle of the infantryman. Perhaps the military is counting on LSAT to provide the cutting edge and they are keeping it quiet. Small arms is equally important since 4th generation warfare and MOUT will become more commonplace, not less so; battlefields of tomorrow will be fought with infantrymen more than ever.

  40. better terminal effectiveness? there is the Mk 262 and the Mk318. It is more conducive for nations to invest in better cartridges than entirely new rifle concepts (like bullpup).

  41. Brits HATE the L85! Even after HK rebuilt them as SA-80 series, at a cost per rifle of more than the original cost-I learned this from some Highlanders in '03 Iraq- they still are susceptible to breakage and jam.
    The FAMAS is reliable, but complex. And the French I worked with like our M4 better.
    The Russians designed a bullpup AK. It aint on the battlefield…
    Now, the Israelis have a new one, the Tayvor, and its supposed to be rockin'. But its not combat tested-it has seen skirmishes recently- and therefore unproven in battle.
    Oh, yes! The Chinese have the QBZ-95. It might work too, but as yet, it hasn't been proven.
    So, there you have it! Not much combat for the bullpup design.

  42. Sorry but ive got war documentaries and pictures of solders having 03's in the PTO in 42 and 43. Not all Army units had M-1s my uncle can tell you that too pal.

  43. I hope we don't have to go to war with Lance writing the orders. What the heck does this mean?

    "In which in a world of Mauser rifle was obsolete before it was adopted in 1893 so in small arms terms the military industrial complex is off, and in the world of cutted budgets and sequestration the army is looking to save much bigger and more important projects like JLTV and Armed Scout helicopter than this waste of time that was brought on by politics not solders in the field."

  44. Okay, seeing as the interwebs ate my last comment, I will keep this short. Do about 5 minutes research and you will see quite a few militaries use bullpups like the F2000, including special operations groups like Speznaz [the Groza] and the Polish GROM units [the aforementioned F2000].
    Also, for they guy that mentioned fast mag changes, I can easily do 3 seconds on my FS2000…less if I skip retention.
    Just because someone claims that the traditional layout is "superior" or that the bullpup is "inferior" doesn't make it so. The best rifles don't win wars or else the russians would have lost to the Germans in WWII. And frankly dissing Israel's army just because they are conscripts is junk.
    I've said my piece. Belive what you want. I'm out.

  45. Either you were never in the service, or you're a POG, because its those types, or older veterans who were also POGs, complaining about "man stoppers". The same type who cringe at the praise for any rifle but the M14 and any pistol but the "greatest pistol ever made" the 1911. It is the hits that count, and those who blame the tools are usually those with the least accuracy.

  46. This one dude named | April 25, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Reply

    Well I'll be. Good catch, Sir. The rest of Greg's comment does indicate that he believes our trigger-pullers commonly keep their selector switches on settings other than Safe and Semi, so at least the rest of my reply remains perfectly valid.

    My apologies, Greg. Disregard the first part of that first sentence.

  47. The M16's reputation for unreliability had nothing to do with McNamara.

    The direct-gas design makes the rifle more sensitive to changes in powder, and the original cartridge spec used a very clean-burning (but more expensive) powder to minimize fouling. To save money, the Ordnance folks mandated a switch to a less expensive powder which left more residue and had a significantly different pressure curve which increased the cyclic rate by roughly 30 percent. Add in the "wonder weapon" reputation which had folks who should have known better touting it as a self-cleaning design (so the Army issued a lot of rifles without cleaning kits) and you've already got the ingredients for lots of weapons breakage.

    Topping it all off was a not-terribly thick chrome plating in the barrel, which proved inadequate at preventing corrosion in the SE Asian humidity. That, in turn, highlighted one of the weaknesses of the 5.56mm cartridge design: it's designed to increase the chances for a failure to extract (little tiny rim plus a higher-than-average chamber pressure), so even a little corrosion in the chamber (like you might get from keeping a round chambered for a week or two in your "self-cleaning" rifle) would be enough to overwhelm that tiny extractor and leave you with the fired casing stuck in the chamber.

    It's ironic that one of the "reliability" improvements of the M16A1 actually increases the chances of an extraction failure. After all, when a dented round requires enough extra force to chamber that you have to use the forward assist, what do you think the odds are that it's going to extract any easier?

  48. The Polish GROM units use F2000s.
    The Croatians are designing a native bullpup based off the AK And IIRC, they use the F2000 for their spec ops units.
    Speznaz uses the Groza bullpup and the "dual medium" underwater rifle is a forward ejecting AK based bullpup.

    You might dis the Israelies as an "all conscript" army, but considering they are a small nation, constantly under seige by the surrounding muzzie extremests, can you blame them? Also, a bullpup makes sense for them as a mostly mechanized army. They found the flaw with conventional, long weapons through hard experience [FAL].
    Only complaint I would have about the Tavor is the mag release, and thats cause I like the F2000 release better [easier to manipulate under stress and get a fast mag change]

  49. so, if remington makes these in its new york facilities – will they have the new york "micro stamp?"

  50. Didnt the Brits have to return all of their HK's 4 times to the manufacturer before they would work properly and then again in Sept 2001 when during a field exercise with the Americans in Kuwait Brit soldiers could not fire even one round because of malfunctions.

  51. Theoretically the 5.56 kills by hydrostatic shock out to 50 meters. From 50 to 100 meters the round is supposed to fragment. Beyond 100 meters lit lacks velcity and mass to be more than a flying ice pick. I have also seen pictures of the weird effects of a close in shot that hit bones and bounced around inside a VC but the vast majority of shot tended to go right through the guys body. Hit them enough time and sooner or later they die.

    The SS109 bullet used in the A2-M4 has a tongston core in it for penetration which effectively ended any fragmentation and thats why the new composit round was invented.

  52. Sigh…here we go again
    The SS109 does not have a "Tongsten" core. The SS109 in the M855 has a STEEL TIP about the same size as a pellet gun pellet, backed by a lead base. The M855 "lead free" has a tungsten tip with a steel core. The M855A1 [another lead free "Green" round] has a bigger steel tip, with a solid copper core. The M995 is the one with a solid AP core that does not fragment.
    In addtion, the 855A1 has been having teething problems, and spikes the chamber pressure to get better MV from the M4 length barrel. This WILL wear out the rifles faster as its closer to proof load pressures, not standard "safe" pressures.
    The thing that ruined fragmentation was the shortening of the barrel and the tightening of the twist from 20" tp 14.5" and from 1-12 to 1-7" respectively. This basically overstabilized the bullets and dropped the MV, reducing the effective range of the tumbling effect that allows it to split along the cannelature, weather it was an 855 or a 193 round.

  53. I never made fun of israel, they are a great country.

    Look at it like this an army of people who are forced to be there will never be as good as an army of people who want to be there.

  54. Except that Colt does not make M249s and M240s, or if they do it is a very small number. FN Herstal makes the majority of both of them as well as M2s and Mk19s.

  55. Cool you need to chill. The 109 was designed to have a Tungsten "steel" core. Lazy writers frequently omit the tungsten reference. The round was designed to penetrate fictional body armor our intel guys said was going to be fielded to all russian soviet troops. Bottom line is the .223/5.56 is a varmint round which is not a reliable man killer.

    BTW almost all of the worlds tungsten comes from China. The army has announced that all future AT Sabot rounds will have a tungsten penetrator. We officially cannot fight a war without china's ok.

  56. Cool you’re excused for being snippy. I have been around for a long time and I remember when the SS109 round came out. I even remember reading the little pamphlet that came with the AT-4 that in large letters "Not intended for use against Tanks".
    As for bullets/guns, pick one you'd prefer to be shot with. Some are much more reliable man stoppers than others and which does what best changes with situation and even the weather. Example back in the early 90's cops in Baltimore shot a guy 17 times with Hydroshocks at about 10 feet. He lived. So did the cop the guy had shot in the back of the head at less than 18 inches. All pistols involved were 9mm's. If any of those shot had been from a .45 there would have been little chance of survival. Army went away from the .38 and 44. Special because they didnt do the job so well.
    In the late 50's and early 60's the Euro armies were looking at 6.5 – 6.8's to fit the niche of big enough round to reliable kill the enemy but small enough to be controllable in fully auto weapons. They had all decided to arm their armies with full auto capable rifles because of the AK-47. The US was forced to accept the 5.56 rifle round by politics so the NATO armies were forced to slowly convert to 5.56 because they knew we would be supplying them with all of their ammo in any war.
    The so called pucker wound picture you are referring to sounds suspiciously like a picture taken in Afghanistan 30 years ago showing the effects of a 5.54 round fired by an AK-74. The Russians decided against arming all of their soldiers with the AK-74 when they saw how poorly the 5.54 round performed overall. Remember that pucker wound will only happen (if it does) at less than 50 meters and is supposed to be caused by hydrostatic shock.
    Bottom line is if you don’t hit the target you aint going to kill it. I’d rather take my chances with something that causes gross trauma anywhere it hits. Saying that the M-16 platform does allow you to put a lot of well aimed shots down range quickly. To bad so few soldiers actually aim when the situation allows for them to do it. Historically only 1 in 10 or so they taught us in IOBC years ago.

    The aurguent on best rifle/round will go on forever until we get star Trek Phasers then it will be another aurgument.

  57. Er and being a serving Brit, I can assure you the L85A2 is not hated! Requires the correct maintenance like all weapons, and it has its own peculiarites, but we've had it for over 20 years now, we are used to it, what is really required is a new sight, which is slowly being introduced. The SUSAT is a reasonable sight, but reduces your peripheral field of view when aiming and correspondingly your situational awareness and new target aquisition.

  58. Cool, Give me a little time and I'm sure I'll be asking for a man sized slice of crow pie. Dont forget the coffee for me to wash it down with.
    A friend of mine just asked me for my opinion on what pistol to buy. After a dissertation on the pros and cons of several I basically told him find one from a reputable company that fits well in your hand and is reliable. What works is what you can actually hit the target with.
    When I was going through all of my training we were advised to stay away from forward ejecting weapons as the ejected shell casings have a habit of marking your concealed position. On the flip side I have a very nice burn scar on my neck from a hot 7.62 case being ejected into my shirt collar. That took some real talent on my part to get that to happen!

  59. The M60 that got me was really hot so it was heating the brass up really nicely for me.

    Thanks for the education on the newer "forward" ejecting weapons. M-2's bottom ejection can be a pain so I can see the benifit.

    BTW I got thinking of our previous posts. Lots of old stuff never made it to the internet but the info I was given years ago about the tungsten penetrators may have been based on the army going to that core but decided to go to steel as a cost saving move. Wouldnt be the first time.

  60. Actually, Big Green's parent company, Freedom Group, owns DPMS and Bushmaster. These companies make Remington's AR series rifles. They will be making most if not all of these rifles.

  61. Gentlemen, bullets DO NOT tumble. Some yaw after impact, or in flight if not spun at a fast enough speed(gyroscopic stabilization), but none commit the so-called buzz saw tumble. Sanow and Marshall, along with the Small Arms Board that accepted the 5.56×45 round in 1960 noted "yawing" of the bullet in the target. This means the bullet turned PARTIALLY, but not continuously inside the target. It was tested on pigs, and can be easily verified by a search. However, several hacks have posted their own version, with various adjectives used to describe what they don't understand about ballistics.
    Reference:Wound Ballistics: Basics and Applications
    By Robin M Coupland, Beat P. Kneubuehl, Markus A Rothschild, Michael J Thali

  62. More than some, not as much as some…However, I have used the SA-80 and its horrible. The 3 second magazine change is a real life under stress magazine change done by Army standard, not civilian style. Every mag change occurs with your buddy's knowledge, and hopefully your team leader. That requires a delay of acknowledgement. Example:
    Shooter: I'm black! Changing mag!
    Buddy: Roger, covering.
    mag change occurs, then…
    Shooter: I'm up!
    Buddy: Roger!
    Do it your way all you want, I teach kids to survive as a team on the battlefield.

  63. The parts commonality I referred to is less than the 100 percent on the M4 series, as compared to the ones I saw in use with NSW in Ramadi. They spoke highly of its accuracy, but disliked the fore grip's tendency to overheat( one had several layers of personally applied tan duct tape on it, another extra Knight quad rail plugs) and parts issues between different platforms. I would trust the end user before an FN sales brochure.
    83 percent isn't much if your unit armorer has to carry all the extra stuff in his ruck to convert/repair your team's gear.

  64. The yawing effect during flight increases lethality of small calibar bullets such as the 5.56 and thats why the new composite rounds for the M-4 yaw. Many people still believe the M-4 bullets tumble in flight and thats where a lot of confusion comes from.

  65. crackedlenses | May 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm | Reply

    Ironically, small (5-6 mm.) caliber assault rifles have been proven to work. No major country uses the older 7.62 mm. battle rifle any more (although they aren't afraid to pull them out when the situation calls for it), and countries like China and Russia have been developing their own renditions of the 5.56 mm and steadily replacing their 7.62×39 mm. weapons. Like the early hand-cannons and matchlocks, 5.56 was barely adequate when it first came out. However, time has given it lethality, enough to make it totally acceptable as a combat chambering.

    At the end of the day, however, much of this debate is a matter of personal preference. If the Army really wanted to get the best bang for it's buck, they would phase in a modular system like the SCAR that can use both 5.56 and 7.62 mm. with high parts commonality. Just my 0.02 as a civilian enthusiast…..

  66. crackedlenses | May 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Reply

    I think you under rate their knowledge of good weapons. They have long been accustomed to building their own and improving everyone else's. I highly doubt they switched from an AK-type (the Galil), to the M16, to the Tavor just because someone thought it looked cool. After all, the stakes they put on their weapons are much higher than most countries'. I'm betting that their decisions concerning weapons procurement are more utility-based than most…..

  67. crackedlenses | May 7, 2012 at 11:28 am | Reply

    @Buzz;

    I still say the debate is a matter of preference at the end of the day. Go look at the last "Is the M16 still viable" post and the AK-12 post. Many soldiers are perfectly happy with their 5.56 mm. weapons, and apparently believe they work just fine for killing the enemy. That is why I advocate for a modular system that can accomodate both ends of the spectrum.

    Something else interesting to look in to is the debate that must have raged in Germany when the StuG-44 entered service. What I've read doesn't seem to indicate a problem with lack of lethality or range…..

  68. Snakebymistake | May 7, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply

    The Army Brass has always taken a design by compromise even all the way back to the Rev War when the Safety Committee Musket was designed, which for all intensive purposes was a mix of British and French parts they had laying arround. **** the Navy wanted the YF-17 because the YF-16 couldn't operate off of a carrier, later we got the F-18. I worked on the marketing of the V-22, now there was a cluster fXXk and goat ropeing contest all rolled up in one!

  69. operators want to get rid of the SCAR? sorry, thats a load of ********. You said the parts commonality is terrible, which is 100% false. You didn't pay attention to my point. The SCAR L, H, and Mk 20 have more parts commonality than the M4, M14, and SR25.

  70. Old Soldier | May 7, 2012 at 4:03 pm | Reply

    Buzz, read the whole first sentence.

    If you miss the target, your lethality heads towards zero fast.

    Yaw during flight decreases accuracy, although the effect is greatest when it is the result of instability at the base of the bullet rather than the nose. A European arms manufacturer did some really simple but effective research on the effects of bullet instability on accuracy back in the 1980s, and did a nice write-up of it in International Defense Review circa 1982. By the way, they also disproved the whole "brush-busting" myth — anything substantial enough to deflect a 5.56mm bullet would also deflect a 7.62mm bullet.

  71. Old Soldier | May 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm | Reply

    Bryson, under certain conditions, bullets most certainly do tumble.

    Way back once upon a time, in the legendary land of Graf, I was with some cav scouts doing some plinking with M60s. We were shooting at silhouettes on wooden stakes we had stuck in the ground about 200 meters out. There were lots of large puddles of water in the grass, so it was very entertaining to see the rounds splashing all around the targets. When we retrieved the targets after umpteen hundred rounds, about half of the bullet holes were made by keyholing bullets (presumably after bouncing off the water, but some of those barrels were a bit on the worn-out side even before we started).

  72. xcal you have your facts confused.
    The AK-74 is 5.54 and not 7.62. The AKM is the mass production of the AK-47 which has not been manufactured since 1953. The AKM is the same design but instead of using the time consuming process of milling the reciever out of a block of steel, it is made from stamped sheetmetal. Early AK-47s also had solid wood foregrips and stocks which were changed to lamenant wood for the AKM. This process eneabled the soviets to crank out a lot of weapons very quickly and cheaply.

  73. **** the Navy wanted the YF-17 because the YF-16 couldn't operate off of a carrier, later we got the F-18.

    Snake, The F-18 we got was so underpowered that it couldnt take off with a full fuel load if it was armed. They had to take off and then do an in flight refueling. Thats why the nay built the Superhornet.

    I do believe that the F-111 they tried to make a Navy bird out of it too.

  74. Cracked, you’re right about the debate being a matter of preference. However, through my many years of being associated with the military I have heard more soldiers (including special ops guys) complain about the lack of lethality and especially at long range. In the old days they used to say if it won’t reliably take down a White Tail deer with one shot it won’t reliably take down a man. I don’t think any state allows deer hunting with a 5.56 weapon.
    Few soldiers now days have ever fired anything other than the 5.56 so they have nothing to compare it to. The M-16 family of weapons are light and don't kick the crap out of you every time you fired it. Try firing an old M-240 (pre army adoption) and you'll find they were brutal.
    The AR-15/M-16 was (besides the political reason) adopted because the soviets had the AK. It was also lighter then the M-1/M-14 and a soldier could carry a lot more ammo. Because engagement ranges in Vietnam were usually extremely close, the high velocity of the round was supposed to mitigate the rounds lack of mass. Heard lots of complaints about how effective that was from many of my soldiers who served in Vietnam. As the army became more mechanized the shorter carbine type weapons were also a plus as it made getting in and out of vehicles easier.
    In IOBC years ago they told us that soldiers in WW2 had the highest rate of aiming to kill at 1 per 10. 9 of 10 pointed their weapon toward the enemy and pulled the trigger. Has something to do with being able to rationalize to themselves that they did not intentionally take another mans life. If he hit someone it was by accident. I’m sure you’ve heard the term spray and pray. Artillery is called the King of Battle for a reason. It inflicts the most injuries of every war. Modern Artillery crewman should never see the enemy. Its just another boom to them.

  75. Coolhand,
    Finally got an oppertunity to look at that leg wound picture. Pretty nasty but the gunman got really lucky and the round hit the femur causing it to explode. Didnt see any bullet fragments so it probably "yawed" and exited making the wound worse.

    The 5.54 leg wound I mentioned was a soft tissue only hit. It was a perfect example of a wound caused by hydrostatic shock. Didnt look as nasty as the wound you mentioned though

  76. "operators want to get rid of the SCAR? sorry, thats a load of ********."

    NSW that I worked with my last tour ('09-10) only liked the sniper version, preferred M4 with navy MK262 or 318 ammo. Say what you will, I'll take their expert opinion over any other. That would be Seal Team 3, Ramadi Iraq. Check their history, you can verify my timeline.
    "You said the parts commonality is terrible, which is 100% false. You didn’t pay attention to my point. The SCAR L, H, and Mk 20 have more parts commonality than the M4, M14, and SR25." – Yes, I did. You fail to realize most of these are MIL-SPEC weapons, made under contract and have a large degree of commonality. Not all parts will, but they weren't built to like the SCAR. However, all M4s- which have only been built by Colt Defense- are COMPLETELY interchangeable with FN, Bushmaster and a host of other supplier's M-16 variants. While the M4 has been modified to make it more reliable, if needed an M16A2 lower CAN be used reliably on an M4 upper. This is THE point for whether or not to even discuss whether the SCAR creates an advantage over the current rifle/carbine. At 3 times the cost of an M4, and no real improvement in performance according to the Army's own tests, the SCAR comes up wanting.

  77. The word Yaw is being used to describe the arcing tragectory of s bullets flight path.

    The act of a bullet wobbling in flight is gyroscopic rotation, or precession.
    Yaw refers to the rotation of the nose of the bullet away from the line of flight, usually only measurable after impact.
    Here's a primer you may want to read… http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS

  78. IF a bullet could/would tumble after firing, and had not impacted/glanced off/penetrated a material along its flight path, it would not be accurate and would have a VERY short range as velocity would drop off dramatically. Obviously, all of the impacts above can impart yawing, but no known bullet is designed to yaw in flight BEFORE impact.

  79. If, indeed, Remington is going to be making the M4A1 for our troops I hope they do a better job than they did with the POS police patrol rifle they foisted off on civilian law enforcement a few years ago.
    If not,
    GOD HELP OUR TROOPS!!!!

    Trainers take note:
    Devote a huge amount of training time to clearing malfunctions.

  80. Remington is a subsidiary of Colt any way so colt wins either way

  81. The Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police use the M-16A1 with the 55gr bullets. And we still find that round to be a killer. Some use the M-14 because of the extended range and it can penetrate a coconut palm's trunk, negating cover.

  82. Lance you are so illiterate. Please learn to type and read what you type before you enter it. Thank you. Plus you are wrong.

  83. I'm not suprised Remington got the contract. Remington was bought out by a company called Freedom Group which falls under Cerberus Capital. Guess who owns Cerberus?? George Soros, Obama's boss.

  84. Sand, mud, dirt, grimy, filth, slimy ooze, sludge, marsh, swamp, quicksand, sandstorm, blizzard, darkness. Tired, confused, scared, worn out, injured, wounded, deaf by loud , night vision lost? Then your best friend jams!

    Black Weapons are making manufactures flush. Politian's flush. Over 50 years of flush. How many of you would like to sit on a hillside and exchange rounds across a valley in poor conditions at about 500 yards with your enemy, he is equipped with a 7.65 round. While your black weapon is a 5.56 round. Don't drop it. Good Luck

  85. Patrick, you have obviously not been there or done that. I have. An M4 is a CARBINE, not a rifle, and should be employed as such. Since Argentina went 7.62, no one uses a 7.65 in a rifle. Several pistols do, its called 32ACP here.
    If I want to reach out, across a valley, we carry weapons for that too. I don't expect my M4 to.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*