PARIS – Heidi Shyu, the Army’s acting chief acquisitions official, said today that she met with Sen. Tom Coburn last week to discuss the hold he recently placed on her nomination to become the assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology.

Shyu acknowledged at Eurosatory 12 that the service needs to be clearer on its plans for improving the carbine soldiers take into battle.  

“I’d say we haven’t been doing a very good job explaining what we are doing, and it was a great opportunity for me to say this is what we do. … It was a very good dialogue last week. I sort of explained to him what we’re doing.”

Coburn continues to be the lone voice in Congress that questions the Army’s sluggish pace at deciding whether to replace the M4 carbine or update its design. In a May 29 letter to Sen. Mitch McConnell, Coburn said:

“I remain concerned with the Army’s plans for the improvement of its small arms weapons while our soldiers are at war. For example, I have not seen the Army make sufficient progress on the directive by then Secretary of the Army Pete Geren to conduct a competition to replace its individual carbine rifle no later than the end of FY2009.”

Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican who is known for fighting wasteful Washington spending, has been a critic of the Army’s M4 carbine since 2007. He placed a hold on Geren’s nomination to Secretary of the Army until the service took steps to consider the possibility of replacing the M4.

Geren directed the Army to hold an improved carbine competition in 2008 after the M4 finished last in an Army reliability test against three carbines made by Heckler & Koch and FNH USA. Geren has said in the past that his direction on the carbine competition was the right thing to do.

I am currently working with Coburn’s office to schedule an interview with the senator about this issue.

Coburn’s office told me that he wants the Army to lay out a more precise timeline explaining when soldiers will see a new carbine or an improved version of the M4.

The Army launched the Improved Carbine competition last summer and recently completed the first of effort’s three phases. Weapons officials will soon start shooting hundreds of thousands of rounds through prototypes made by Adcor Defense Inc., Colt Defense LLC, FNH USA, Heckler & Koch and Reminton Arms Company.

Shyu said she is planning to meet with Coburn again soon to discuss the issue further.

“This week we’ll probably give him the small arms modernization strategy; lay it out for him,” she said. “We have to do a better job articulating our message.”

– Military.com Associate Editor Michael Hoffman contributed to this post.

{ 181 comments… read them below or add one }

Jay June 12, 2012 at 3:40 am

This "competition" is the latest silly joke in a long history of silly jokes. Nothing will change. They'll just milk the government and sell the same old junk for an "improved" price. The army procurment guys are in Colt's pocket. They'll make sure nothing new can replace the M4 and the army will keep getting weapons made by a company that never designed a single succesful assault rifle or machine gun.

Reply

hikerguy June 12, 2012 at 4:19 am

I agree. It seems a charade from day one, and three of the prototypes are similar to the Stoner design, only with a piston system instead of a DI one. No matter what happens, my wish the is that the carbine will be effective, rugged, and dependable. Our fighting men and women deserve it.

Reply

Jay June 12, 2012 at 4:40 am

You know you got screwed, when it's [B]2012[/B] and the latest succesful military design of the company that builds youe rifle is the [B]Colt 1911[/B].

Reply

Stormcharger June 12, 2012 at 6:27 am

Heidi Shyu-
“I’d say we haven’t been doing a very good job explaining what we are doing, and it was a great opportunity for me to say this is what we do. … It was a very good dialogue last week. I sort of explained to him what we’re doing.”

Really? It's the explanation that's at fault and not the total and complete lack of anything resembling progress? Really? Perhaps she should sort of not be paid until she gets the explanation right.

Reply

FormerSFMedic June 12, 2012 at 7:10 am

The real problem in acquisitions is that the people that run acquisitions don't know Jack about the equipment they are trying to replace. How much time does Shyu have on an M4 in combat? How much time does Shyu have with any of the weapon systems in the ICE? This has been the problem with conventional military acquisitions. Why can't we ever put someone in charge of stuff they understand? Ridiculous!

Reply

Jim Scrummy June 12, 2012 at 7:24 am

That would make too much sense. How dare you talk common sense, "you don't have the expertise of me, a political lackey who knows more about everything than you do." Yep, that's the common theme with too many people in DC (bureaucrats and pol lackeys), they think they know more than the "man on the ground", that is going utilize the weapon system.

Reply

the truth June 12, 2012 at 11:20 am

and what time does Sen. Tom Coburn have on the M4?

NONE!

Tom Coburn wouldn't know what our soldiers needed if it bit him in the ***, he has never served, he has no military background, all he knows is media stories like Wanat but never hears all the battles the M4 has won like Keating.

sorry Tom Coburn is a ******

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 11:25 am

World up on that!

The only people who supported him are SCAR lovers. Fact is the rest of the services IE USMC and USAF said NO they will not replace the AR design and SOCOM while approving the effective Mk-17 ditched the Mk-16 since most Operative stayed with M-4A1s anyway.

He is currently having a temper tantrum now.

Reply

Jay June 12, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Nothing will replace the m4. Colt bought all decision makers. They are all suckers to the least inovating firearm company on the planet. The only things Colt did in the last 100 years was change grips and paint on 1911's and paid politicians and generals.
good luck going forward.

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 6:22 pm

right because god forbid you have a assault rifle, battle rifle, and precision rifle with a high degree of parts commonality between them. the same cannot be said for the M4, M14, and M110. Adopting the SCAR, or FNAC, would make too much sense for a army that spends most of its budget operating rube goldberg, sacred cow Abrams tanks, Bradley IFVs, and Strykers, while wearing a grey digital velcro uniform, carrying 300 lbs of gear up and down mountains in the graveyard of empires. anything truly innovative and battle conducive will be founded and used by SOCOM, specifically the Navy SOCOM personnel.

No 5.56mm rifle is going to replace the M4 because the assault rifle world is limited by the cartridge itself. nothing will be deemed measurable enough. it is a illogical impossibility to even claim a weapon is "measurable" enough to warrant the replacement of the M4/M16 rifles in the US military's entire inventory.

Reply

SFC YOUNG June 12, 2012 at 7:12 am

Do not worry, they are from the government and are here to help. Why is the process taking so long?

Reply

John Sullivan June 12, 2012 at 7:45 am

Oh that we could cork Congress – sorry, forgot they're already corked, and cork the bureaucracy. Then select five accomplished servicemen with CIBs, from each each service, from enlisted rank PVT to CSM, and from each commissioned rank LT to MAJ. Give them all the prototypes and let THEM test fire'em downrange at Benning, Bragg, Twenty-Nine Palms, Lewis, in ice-rain-jungle-mud-desert-sand-hot-cold-dry-wet conditions. Let them play with these rifles for as long as they wish. Bet they will compare notes, and by majority vote select the new rifle within a few months, tops. Then fund it, build it, issue it, and monitor it in the field. Within a year I believe we could have a sturdy, accurate, reliable, lightweight, harsh-condition-ready rifle. Oh that we could.

Reply

majrod June 12, 2012 at 9:20 am

We have a "sturdy, accurate, reliable, lightweight, harsh-condition-ready rifle." It's called the M4. Don't disagree that door kickers should be in on the selection (many are) but don't get sucked into a controversy that doesn't exist.

If you look at the Army's evolution from the 1903 Springfield to the M16 family you can see MAJOR improvements in lethality, accuracy, reliability or weight in EVERY case. Technology just hasn't delivered a major improvement, yet.

The ICC is a relatively cheap carrot to get industry to find new solutions and a vehicle to provide answers to the next congressman who wants a weapon change because a new small arms factory opened in his district. Too many folks want change for changes sake or because they have a BFF rifle featured in some gun magazine. Others write stories about the need to change because they have to earn a living (not talking about the writers here which seem to be a pretty thoughtful bunch).

BTW, only the Army awards the CIB but I get where you were going.

Reply

oscar June 12, 2012 at 5:33 pm

majrod. It seems to me that the only people complaining about the M-4/ M-16 are the ones who haven't seen combat, REMFs, and gun magazine commandos. No matter how one tries to educate them, they still believe that they have the answer. Take 5.56 for instance. It gets the job done. Some are clamoring for a switch to 7.62, but heck, if groundpounders can't master the 5.56 which is a smaller round, what more if it's a 7.62?

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 6:27 pm

well thats rather disingenuous. if a soldier used the M4 his whole career, then obviously he would approve of the M4. If I drove a jaguar my entire life, of course i would think a jaguar is the best.

The M4 is a great weapon but given our 1.6 trillion dollar annual defense budget, we can certainly do better. will the decision be made? no.

Reply

FormerSFMedic June 12, 2012 at 6:37 pm

John, the problem with plucking soldiers off the battlefield to conduct weapons testing is that many soldiers don't know what they need. Most soldiers are not shooters and most soldiers don't understand the needs of other soldiers outside their roles. There in lies the problem. We don't want designers conducting testing because they're not soldiers. We don't want soldiers conducting testing because they're not designers. We don't want shooters conducting testing because again, they're not soldiers. So, what's the answer? There is none. These weapons competitions are flawed for these very reasons. In all honesty, we've just gotten lucky most of the time. One thing is for sure,Senators and procurement officers should NOT be allowed to make choices for the soldier.

Reply

sam June 12, 2012 at 8:56 am

i hate it when these senitors and congress men some of who have never shot a gun get to determine equipment that is used by the people whith there life on the line.

Reply

The Ugly Truth June 12, 2012 at 10:25 am

Back when they were trying to replace the M14 the Army did everything it could to sabotage the Ar15. It took Defense Secretary McNamara bypassing the requirement for an open competition before the adoption of a new service rifle to get the M16 in service.

Today the situation is even worse. The M16 has been in service much longer than the M14 and now there is a large civilian defense industry that supplies accessories, clones and support for the platform. The relationship between the military and the civilian sector has become so close that movements like Former Army Chief Casey moving in with Colt is not a rare occurrence in reality.

This is why the FN SCAR surprised me. I never expected a non-AR design to have made it this far in such a hostile environment. Then I looked harder at the SCAR competition and realized that the corruption is still very much there.

You know of the HK XM8-R and Robinson XCR because they were disqualified, but there were 9 companies with 12 designs entered. We know at least Diemaco, Cobb, Knight's Armament, LMT and Colt were some of the companies that competed with Colt having 3 entries. The reason we never hear about the other competitors is because they don't have the disqualification excuse to explain why they lost. It is also no surprise that all of these companies specialize in the manufacture of the AR platform and why all of this is hushed up so they don't look bad.

I expect the SCAR to be killed off, the competition to be cancelled or some other decision will be reached that ends up with us being stuck with the AR for another 20 years. But I would not cry if someone high up told them to adopt the SCAR immediately, unchanged across all branches like a certain Defense Secretary did a very long time ago for the AR15.

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 6:31 pm

why would the SCAR be killed off? the M110 already has issues and SOCOM is purchasing mk 20's, which are largely compatible with the SCAR H. the SCAR H has replaced the aging and obsolete M14s and Navy SOCOM bought mk 16s.

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 11:08 am

This whole competition is a waste and was made by Tom Colburn he has been getting money from FNH for his campaign for years and he is corrupt as ever on this uses. Overall the new Purchases of Remington M-4s already shows this competition is dying if not dead already. Time to tell Sen Colburn to move on.

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 6:15 pm

yeah the large evil corporation known as FN Herstal. Dude, the entire mother ******* congress is bought by major defense contractors that dwarf FN. hypocrisy.

Reply

Jay June 12, 2012 at 6:35 pm

Uter ********. FN sesigns and builds successful military weapons foe over 100 years. What did Colt do in the last 100 years? Duck bancrupcy with government handouts. Last I check it was Colt that bought even the joint chief of stuff to stay in bussines. That's why their "improved" m4 isn't competing directly against the competition.

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 6:58 pm

Jay I know your a SCAR lover but none of the SCAR family is that much better period to the AR family. Not worth the billions not just in guns but in parts mags manuals slings training. Colt has done some very successful weapons in years. M-1911A1 M-16A1-4 and M-4 family. Some cool experimental weapons like the Colt ACCM and Improved M-4 and there entry to the US pistol competition which gave us the M-9 where all great designs, Just Colt never won a US contract so NO they where not used. FN made weapons for every third world nation South America so they had some success because Banana Republics would buy anything cheapest. US companies always much more expensive than European ones in the late 50-70s. Xcalbre I think we can agree that ICC is a flop, we can disagree on SCAR vs M-4 but we agree politics killed this like politics started this.

Yes many companies have lobbied for a product but FN has been giving Colburn money for years to push for a monopoly on all US weapons. Strange the only weapon he talks about is the FN fact is the M-4, HK 416, and ACCM all did just as good if not better than it in military and commercial test only Colburn wants FN, see the money trail.

Reply

FormerSFMedic June 12, 2012 at 7:59 pm

Thats what we're saying Lance. You just argued your own point! The M16 wasn't even Colt's design. They just got lucky. The 1911 is a great pistol, but the question is "what has Colt done in the last 100 years?". In fact, I don't give them credit for anything other than developing the 1911 because they sure didn't do anything innovative with it since. Everything "innovative" to any degree that has been done by Colt in 100 years has been on an AR15 platform which is again, not their design.

FN on the other hand has built so many successful designs, it's hard to even think of them all. A large percentage of those designs have been widely used and adopted by the US Military as well as dozens of other countries around the world. The FAL, FNC, MINIMI, M249,MK46,MK48,MK16,MK17,MK20,MK13EGLM,P35,FNP,FNX, and the list continues beyond that. Need I say more?

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm

I do agree that much of Colts R&D went to the dud pile. However I can say Remington Springfield and new comers like Magpul have shown new designs and are made in US by US companies.

As for some of the SCAR lovers. I say the Mk-17 and its long range cousin the Mk-20 have had some success. However to this day most Operatives have M-14s and AR-10 based weapons in there arsenals and seen pics of many weapons currently being used. The Mk-16 has not really taken off while the SEALs mad a few purchases of some most are not being used by Operatives. Most SEAL, or Ranger or Marine Recon I read and pic watch carry a M-4A1 or Mk-18 CQB rifle in 5.56mm, In the 7.62mm range I see tons of various weapons from M-14s to M-110 to Mk-17s to various bolt action rifles used. no one can say the SCAR killed all guns in SOCOM armory and they so perfect. Many ways the H filled the role SOCOM wanted the the Mk-16 fizzled because there isn't a real reason to have one when M-4A1s are available.

Lance June 12, 2012 at 11:15 am

Hay Joshua your email isn't working

Whats your take looks like Senator Colburn is having tissy fits over
lack of Army support to replace the M-4 whats your take? Looks like the
Senator is a dying breed of nay Sayers. Think still the M-4 is here to
stay?? I dont think Colburn will get his wish think he is having a fit over losing??

Reply

Joshua June 12, 2012 at 11:31 am

yeah my email's got hacked so I had to shut them down.

only thing I can say is its Sen. Tom Coburn.

this is the man that held a dust test that had brand new, hand picked, overgassed examples of the HK416, XM8, and FN MK16.

At the same time the dust test also had used 3-4yr old M4's that were running at around 600RPM(100 RPM below the required minimum).

the main reason the other rifles did so well in this test is they were pushing 900-1000RPM's and had incredibly heavy springs(around 8.5lbs…M4's have 5.5lb springs), the overgassing of the rifles is why every single rifle exceeded headspace limit's by 6,000 rounds, it also shows that brand new rifles actually had more catastrophic failures than 3-4yr old M4's( HK416-3 case head separation, MK16-7 case head separations, XM8-10 case head separations……the best part is the 3-4yr old M4's only had 1 case head separation.)

I hate to say it but Tom Coburn sponsored a rigged test and the results show that it was rigged.

I'm sorry Tom, but your a D-Bag who has no military experience and has no clue *** your talking about or what rifle our military needs….

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 11:36 am

Good to hear your ok. when you get your email back up email me or reply here is you need my email again.

Reply

majrod June 12, 2012 at 11:57 am

Joshua – You have any documentation of what you said about the dust test? Specifically the rigged weapons and Coburn's involvement?

Got into it on another thread and those nuggets would have been good to have to share with an "HK416 for all" fan. http://kitup.military.com/2012/06/big-army-soldie

Reply

Joshua June 12, 2012 at 12:15 pm

hey marjod.

the dust test .ppt is out there on the web.

also in talking with a few people who were there they shared their thoughts on the subject. you can actually find these people talking about it online as well.

don't know if i can use their names or not but one said had the M4 been over gassed with a 9lb action spring avg'ing 950RPM's like the other rifles it would have had the same amount of stoppages as the other rifles. the same person said the way you win an extreme dust test is you overgass the rifles. in his testing for his company they found it to greatly increase reliability but also greatly reduce weapons life.

Colt said when they received the rifles back(they requested them to see what was wrong) that 6 out of the 10 rifles were below 700RPM minimum, they had also seen a good bit of usage in the Army before the testing, the other 4 rifles actually had very few stoppages compared to the previous 6. they still suffered more than the rest due to their RPM.

the evidence is out there if you look and know who to talk to.

I also saw where E.Ronc said there is no way the HK416 costs $2000 but it does. one person who had to purchase rifles to replace their G3's(think 8,000+ rifles for the military) said they paid around $2000 a piece.

look at it like this, the HK416 has a much greater service life than 6,000 rounds, yet every 416 in the test had to have a new bolt and barrel at 6,000 rounds. same goes for the other rifles in thest, the fact is the hand picked rifles were overgassed, they knew there was a dust test and they planned for it.

I dont have all the links on hand with me right not sadly, it really gets old all these dust tests, and the people that believe them without questioning them.

Reply

David Reeder June 12, 2012 at 4:22 pm

I'm not one to censor or edit others' comments. However, I think perhaps we can agree to have discussions that get our points across without overdoing the name-calling and accusations unless you can support and document whatever you say. Make no mistake, if a test was falsified or stupidity was involved (well, more than the usual stupidity) I want to know about it…but let's post more than anecdotal information so we don't sound like a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Lance June 12, 2012 at 5:19 pm

Id ask whats your opinion Mr. Reeder. I try to stay away from insults (I admit I dislike Tom Colbern since he know nothing about small arms and never shot a M-16 or M-4 little lone carried one). Overall he is complaining since ICC is dying and no one but SCAR lovers wanted it in the first place.

The truth June 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm

David, I have to agree with Joshua about Tom Coburn.

It has always struck me in a wierd way that someone with no military background can seemingly know just what the soldier needs. Also the dust test was demanded by Coburn after Wanat, the issues at Wanat also was not the M4's fault.

Yes there was M4 failuers at Wanat but the media horribly blew it out of proportion, M4's used as LMG's are bound to fail. If you look at Keating it lasted longer and more ammo was expended than Wanat. At Keating there was not one weapon failure, and one documented case of a soldier using 40 mags alone in his M4. Dvids has the interviews posted as does another website that is evading my mind right now.

Of course Coburn would never mention that since he clearly knows the M4 is a horrible weapon, and admitting there were no failures and more ammo expended at keating would be detrimental to his argument.

As far as his dust test claims I have seem the same mentioned on a few online forums were some very very in the know people hang out, it was also those in the know people who made the same claims. That makes me lead to believe whoever he knows is probably correct.

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 6:38 pm

im about documentation. forums are not credible. i have heard of the supposed conspiracy by the contenders to rig the dust chamber test but no evidence.

and why should people get bent out of shape over a irrelevant senator? they're all bought out and the ICC is a tiny portion of the waste and corruption in government. its fascinating that the american people continue to be hoodwinked to stake out hundreds of billions of their taxpayers dollars chasing phantoms and wet dreams.

the truth June 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Xcaliber, I looked up the dust test .ppt, just good extreme dust test ppt.

that said there was one very interesting slide in it that showed the summer results vs the fall results.

the summer results were just the M4 and it actually only had 148 class 1&2 weapon stoppages and 11 class 3 stoppages, that actually puts it perfectly in line with every other rifle in the test.

that is important because it shows that something was off in the dust test, what I dont know first hand just what is on line but I do know how tests work.

if you cannot replicate a test to the same standards then something is usually off in the subsequent tests that follow the original.

Jay June 12, 2012 at 6:41 pm

Anyone with more than two brain cells knows that you don't make a rifle more reliable by going over the rated rate of fire. Just for your information the scar works at 625 rounds per minute. Lower rate of fire means lower heat generation and more time for the pressure to drop.all you wrote up here makes no sense.

Reply

the truth June 12, 2012 at 7:01 pm

Jay, I completely get what your saying.

you have to take what Joshua wrote and look at it, in a way overgassing a rifle can make it more reliable in certain situations, that is one of the main reason some piston guns actually have an adverse(overgassed) setting.

when things get really sandy and your rifle starts to go from its normal 750-800RPM(M4) down to a low 650RPM overgassing it will keep it going.

now in normal situations I agree it does not make a rifle more reliable, but it does make a rifle more reliable in one certain set of circumstances.

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 7:05 pm

Yeah both the reason me and many other despise the whole ICC and GCV is that they both dont offer anything and both are just a push to use European companies and designs only to monopolize US weapons. Sorry it should be made in the US by US men and money given to US companies FN, HK, and Styre have no place in the military here. They can make guns for there own nations armies just fine.

And sorry the HK 416, FNAC, and XM-8 offered no real improvement over any M-4 and M-16 weapon they are all 5.56mm weapons with all similar capabilities. This is waste and FN and Colburn have had there hands in this since 07. GCV is the same the M-2/3 can do anything a BMP or Swedish APC can do and the M-113 can do base work just fine. There is no point in this days of small defense budgets to waste money on buying foreign junk when American weapons are doing just fine.

As for any new weapon Let LSAT or a 6.5mm ACR run then the fact is if you want a new weapon get a new caliber other wish the M-4 is just as good as your Eurogun.

Reply

FormerSFMedic June 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm

@David Reeder @Jay – 1) The famous dust tests are WIDELY KNOWN to have been flawed. This has been common knowledge for years now and actual documentation does exist and has been passed around. The flawed tests are not anecdotal or conspiracy.

2) Increasing the gas pressure and rate of fire on a semiauto gas operated rifle increases the reliability of that rifle in adverse and dirty conditions. It's just simple physics. The guns from HK and FN were all ordered from said companies right before the testing began which allowed those companies to "setup" there guns for success by increasing the gas settings. All M4 examples were pulled from racks and unknown round counts at the time of the testing.

Reply

David Reeder June 12, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Make no mistake, I'm not questioning you or doubting the veracity of your assertion. I'm asking where I or others can find that information (to my chagrin I had not heard it). I'm just saying in the future perhaps we could post links to whatever relates to the issue in question (if that makes sense). They are only widely known to those in the know, if that makes sense.

Greg June 12, 2012 at 11:23 am

The little black rifle/carbine is not going anywhere.

Reply

Walter Pautsch June 12, 2012 at 1:28 pm

It dosen't matter what platform they choose, the 5.56 is not up to the task for knockdown power. We need a 6.5 or 6.8mm. If course there is the 7.62 as well. Ask the troops how many rounds it takes to put a Taliban down for good.

Reply

the truth June 12, 2012 at 2:37 pm

knock down power….you do realize that is not a real term? its a term made up by people who dont understand terminal ballistics.

is there better than 5.56? sure, but it is more than enough, you claim 6.5 and 6.8mm but yet all testing has shown that it does no better than 5.56 out past 400m.

the 5.56 with proper bullet design will get the job done, brown tip 5.56, marines MK318 SOST both are very good rounds.

i would also like to point that that alot of the insurgents our military faces overseas are doped up on PCP type substances(mixtures of adreneline and other drugs they get from hospitals).

there are numerous cases of insurgets being shot by 3-4 rounds of 7.62 and still being alive, unless you hit the brain or spinal cord there is a huge chance you wont kill an insurgent, even with a shot to the heart there is enough blood to live for another 30-60 seconds.

Reply

David Reeder June 12, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Let's try to debate without being adversarial. Epithets and profane names have their place, but only judiciously and not without real cause. I fixed this one, I'd rather not have to do it again. Thanks.

Reply

The truth June 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm

Roger, sorry about that. It just gets old seeig terms like knock down power, and stopping power, etc get thrown around.

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm

Strange with 55gr ammo that used to be used. tumbling rate 5.56mm ammo was giving really good remarks in killing power.

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm

the M855A1, mk 262 mod 1 & 0, and mk 318 do plenty of damage to the human body. the 5.56 is fine. at least they don't burn out barrels like the 6.5-6.8 cartridges.

Reply

shotbag June 12, 2012 at 4:09 pm

We don't need any new GDF weapons! What we need is to turn the Dogs lose & kill the GDF enemy.

Reply

crackedlenses June 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm

Asking the troops what they want would only reveal the fact that the preferred weapon and chambering is usually a matter of preference. Everyone has an opinion, usually different from the person next to him. Everyone has favorite weapons; does that mean the military should just let people buy their own guns from here on out? It sounds as though the people in charge are picking an arbitrary weapon and sticking to it; if I were in their shoes I would hesitate to simply take a poll on whether a weapon should be replaced…..

Reply

FormerSFMedic June 12, 2012 at 8:14 pm

Asking the troops would also reveal their lack of knowledge and training on the current weapons systems. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the average soldier doesn't know what he needs or wants when it comes to a fighting rifle. If the Army really wanted to do something truly revolutionary, they would reevaluate and improve weapons training across the entire board and bring training up to postmodern standards. If they created more shooters and weapons masters, they might find they don't need to improve or replace much of anything!

Reply

the truth June 12, 2012 at 9:04 pm

on that point, if the military would do away with the whole "scrape it till its white glove clean" the rifles would probably do better.

those fancy coatings aren't just there to look pretty, they serve a purpose and scraping off the coating because the military is **** about a little carbon does more harm than good.

then there is also the lubrication issue that comes up alot, lets face it alot of people just go on what they have heard and alot say to use very little lube or…….dry lubes…gasp!!!

I had a buddy who came home after a tour in Afghanistan who went shooting with me and he was talking about how much he hated the M4, well when we met at the range(desert of Arizona :) ) he saw me lubing up my M4 clone and commented on how that will attract to much sand and will cause my rifle to run like crap….needless to say at the end of the day I proved everything he had been taught on how to keep the M4 running in a sandy environment cause at the end of the day I had a whole lot of sand and a whole lot of rounds through the rifle.

Reply

David June 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm

The military deserves the finest weapon available. I am retired from the Army and I
think the military should get input from military. They know what weapon works
well and what does not. I carried various varients of M16 series weapons but would
have prefered a higher caliber weapon.

Reply

the truth June 12, 2012 at 9:56 pm

while colt may not have created the M16FOW they have made some very good designs based off of it when someone asked for them.

there was the Colt 703 back when the army wanted to test a piston rifle against the M16.

there was the Colt Type C-LE1020 that was a piston operated monolithic rifle that was made for the SCAR trials when SOCOM asked them to enter a rifle.

now we have the CM901.

while none of their inventions are revolutionary they have made pretty much every type of AR-15 variant popular today. they invented the original piston AR-15 and even the Type C performed very well in the SCAR trials.

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 10:58 pm

"As for some of the SCAR lovers. I say the Mk-17 and its long range cousin the Mk-20 have had some success. However to this day most Operatives have M-14s and AR-10 based weapons in there arsenals and seen pics of many weapons currently being used."

Some success? *******, they were only recently unveiled in 2007 (SCAR) and last summer (in the case of the mk 20). The are replacing the M14s and AR10s because those weapons are less reliable, heavier, and more expensive in the long run.

Give it a decade or two, then judge success. You cannot judge a weapon's success when it was only released a couple years ago.

SEAL Teams, Force Recon, SF, and Pararescue use M4's and mk 18's because they are the most popular weapon in US military inventory. Ease of access to spare parts, less expensive, etc. Myself and my unit used the SCAR and had very few criticisms. I hope FN addresses these few issues with the AC.

Nobody is saying the SCAR is killing all guns. The SCAR is replacing aging the aging and less reliable M14s and SR25s as the years go on. Weapons wear out and designs evolve. You cannot keep M14s forever just like the M1 Garand wasn't kept forever.

You sure have a axe to grind with the SCAR. I think the FNAC is better than the other contenders for ICC and I would like to see the men and women of the armed forces equipped with the best rifle possible. Of course, apologists say the M4 is good enough and cling to their love for "bigger, more important" projects than the bloody infantry. Any and all advantages should be pursued for the battlefield.

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 11:18 pm

FN sold weapons to first world, NATO nations, and following post-colonial era, many found their way into the hands of terrorists, guerrillas, and third world nations. There was a reason why the FAL was nicknamed the "right arm of the free world".

The countries that wanted the cheapest arms just had to buy chinese or soviet, where many organizations received AKs free of charge. The US also had a propensity for giving away M14s since nobody wanted them ;)

I don't understand how glaringly political the ICC competition is. It is no more political than any other acquisition or trial by the army. It seems to me the only ones that ***** about politics are the ones that have their positions threatened. Colt is feeling slightly threatened. Given the junkie addiction they have on government contracts, they have every reason to be afraid (or perhaps not if the cronyism link is strong enough). Colt's own corruption in the ICC competition reminds me of the Stryker debacle.

I wouldn't give colt a god damned bit of credit with the 1911. That was John Moses Browning's baby. the only credit i give colt is with the peacemaker…back in samuel colt's day. I view them in the same light as S&W.

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 12:36 am

I tried to agree on some points but I also know of SOCOM and Army operatives who DO NOT USE MK-16s anymore they tried them and didnt want them. Yes some M-14s are worn out but there still alot in use too im not saying there be in use forever but the fact is M-110s are in regular army service and parts are more easy to find than SCAR parts than Mk-17 is a good weapon but its not dooming the M-110 or even M-14s since most SOCOM ops dont use standard issue and use what the operative wants. Strange Yes the FAL had export success but the M14 was sold to Taiwan, South Korea, Israel, Columbia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Philippines while not the same as the FAL it had export customers. And I know many solders who swear by them and keep them in there units, even many who shot other rifle like your SCAR. Everyone has there own taste. And solder got more individualized over the last decade than in the past.

As for ICC Colt isn't threaten its really American small arms since you want all small arms made in Europe now. The FNAC and MK-16 offer no repeat no advantage over a M-4 or M-16, you can argue over EBR SASS and SCAR H but SCAR Hs are NOT regular army weapons and I doubt they will be. M-110 i around for long time and is possibly being updated thought I doubt funds will allow that.

Now im trying to be polite and gentlemen like here but you have to agree to disagree. I know your a SCAR lover and you must be a Tom Colburn champion. But the facts show that ICC is a BIG freaken failure and the most experts even some I disagree at times say the same.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 9:09 am

I don't think im a champion for any senator (if you havent seen my hundreds of posts bashing the army and government for ******* over soldiers).

I think if ICC's problem is corruption and it should be cancelled because of that, then other programs should be cut as well. There is no program or system adopted that is not rife with corruption and kickbacks (*cough* stryker, bradley).

Reply

xcalbr June 12, 2012 at 11:36 pm

"Yeah both the reason me and many other despise the whole ICC and GCV is that they both dont offer anything and both are just a push to use European companies and designs only to monopolize US weapons."

nope. monopolize US weapons? the US military industrial complex is the largest arms exporter on the planet. Europe combined isn't even as large as we are. GCV is a laughable joke that makes the new family of APCs even heavier and vulnerable on the battlefield. The German Puma is a contender because it is the most superior IFV in the world.

"Sorry it should be made in the US by US men and money given to US companies FN, HK, and Styre have no place in the military here. They can make guns for there own nations armies just fine."

A overwhelming majority of small arms used by the military are produced by US companies and manufactured by the men and women of the defense industry. Like I said before, worlds largest arms exporter 'Merica! :D

"GCV is the same the M-2/3 can do anything a BMP or Swedish APC can do and the M-113 can do base work just fine. There is no point in this days of small defense budgets to waste money on buying foreign junk when American weapons are doing just fine."

Dude, the BMP3 (even the BM1 with its 73mm) can kick the **** out of a bradley. 100mm anti-tank gun with a 30mm coax? the bradley has notoriously thin armor. The BMP is also lighter, more robust, and truly amphibious. It is one of the most popular combat vehicles sold worldwide. The bradley is not popular at all (for a damned good reason). The German Puma and Swedish CV90 are also better all around vehicles.

I agree with the M113 part. It can perform the Bradley and Stryker's job with better protection, superior mobility, less expensive cost, lighter chassis and less maintenance intensive mechanics…and that is not considering the "A4" MTLV variant. Many countries have adopted it with a 25mm turret or the BMP3 turret! a marvelous machine.

"As for any new weapon Let LSAT or a 6.5mm ACR run then the fact is if you want a new weapon get a new caliber other wish the M-4 is just as good as your Eurogun."

Well the LSAT is truly something. I cannot wait to hear more.

Reply

oscar June 13, 2012 at 12:05 am

xcalbr. you have a point. But FormerSFMedic hit the nail on the head. Modernize weapons training, maintenance and marksmanship. The way the Army white gloves it's rifles and pistols is a joke. Lubrication and lots of it will make the M-4/M-16 run reliably. Unless somebody in the chain of command acknowledges this, there won't be any significant improvement and it will be another wasteful expenditure of taxpayer's money trying to select a replacement rifle or carbine.

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 12:37 am

Ohh and M-2s are 100% better than a crappy BMP larger has better AT weapons and fact is M-2/3s can do the job just fine. I bet some here think we will be in A-stain forever, but there mistaken.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 9:21 am

The M2 is armed with a 25mm gun and TOW missile, is so heavy it cannot follow infantry off road, prohibitively expensive, and paradoxically has thick side armor and weak front armor. The TOW is worthless in wooded terrain and over a body of water. The BMP is lighter, faster, amphibious, and better armed (with a 100mm gun ((AT10 Sapper ATGM compatible) and 30mm coax ((which fires 400 rpm versus 180 rpm for the bradley with a smaller gun). Objectively, the M2/M3 conduct the IFV, Recce, Scout jobs the worst out of any class of combat vehicles.

Reply

crackedlenses June 13, 2012 at 10:14 am

@xcalbr

And if you go over and read the entry on Army Technology, you suddenly get the impression that the BMP-3 traded quite a bit of armor to cram all that firepower on. I'd hate to get popped with an RPG while in one of those. I'm not debating the merits of the M2/M3, but I think you are overrating the BMP-3….

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 10:56 am

Fact is in Afghanistan a old RPG-7 could destroy a BMP-1/2 easily. M-2/3s can get hit by RPGs and make it home.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm

The BMP-3 is resistant to 12.7mm rounds and has the option of applique explosive reactive armor. While it is inferior to a tank and western ceramic armor, its firepower is nothing to scoff at. I think the US, in its profound ignorance, is underestimating the BMP3 and even the BMP-1. With the additional weight of armor, western IFVs have skipped over the idea of having the capability of crossing streams and rivers, which I believe gives it a unique strategic advantage.

I would also hate to get popped by a RPG in a Bradley. In many cases, Bradley's were utterly destroyed by the RPG-7 during OIF. http://saberdefenseusa.com/images/SABER_RPG_Repor

majrod June 13, 2012 at 11:45 am

The Bradley is too heavy to follow Infantry? Weak front armor? TOW worthless over water? Where do you get this stuff? Not following the Infantry is ridiculous. Frontal armor is equivalent the BMP3 and better on the flanks. Tow firing over water planning… https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog/view/100.ATSC/

Scout job? Check out the Battle of 73 Easting.

Prohibitively expensive? Maybe. That's why they make BMP's. You get what you pay for.

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm

I dont know why you like the BMP and some of its European knock offs. I take all combat data from Afghanistan and Chechnya and the BMP is just as if not more vulnerable than a M-113 and Bradly. Like Western APC Soviet solders had to sit on top of BMPs on patrol since mine detonations on such a small crew space killed everyone in a BMP. The BMP can only shoot 1 ATGM at a time while the Bradly and some M-113 can shoot 2-4 TOWs that's a BIG advantage. Crew set up in a Bradly beats the awkward BMP set up any day.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 6:21 pm

Maybe you don’t know I commanded a Bradley company. Trust me, no problem getting stuck. Narrow track? Bradley track is wider than Puma’s track. Would you characterize the Puma as having narrow track?

Shooting TOWs over water… You do realize 1000m is over half a mile? What do you expect the Bradley to do? Sink the Navy? Served in Europe. Not may rivers over 1000m wide.

I brought up 73 Easting in ref to your unsupported allegation that it is the worst of any clas of scout vehicle. Bradley’s identified the enemy first (just like my BN’s experience in desert storm with our Bradley SCOUT plt). This is a critical scout function.

Speaking of Bradley against BMPs. My BN (Mech IN) engaged in three days of combat with the Tawalkana. P L E N T Y of BMPs were defeated by Bradleys and they had the very nasty habit of exploding since the turret rings were lined with 73mm rounds and the rear hatches were gas tanks. Having captured, drove BMP I & II I can tell you it’s a robust simple vehicle. It’s no match against a Bradley.

Soldier and leader performance are extremely important but I'm sharing first hand my observations on enemy equipment which I respect. It will kill you. You seem to have a propensity to believe everything you read though with no thought of questioning the source or seeking other views. Great way to fall victim to group think.

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 8:41 pm

First of all, Lance, I like vehicles that don't cost tens of billions and fulfill the requirements of a infantry fighting vehicle. Second, the BMP-3 is one example and if you are implying that the Puma and CV90 are "european knockoffs" you are sorely mistaken. The BMP is certainly not perfect; especially in counter-insurgency where IFV's are characteristically more vulnerable than tanks. The conditions encountered in Grozny would have spelled doom for any armored vehicle of its class, even western ones; insurgents in buildings with various RPG models are tough nuts to crack.

Like I said before three times, the BMP-3 has a 100mm gun, which certainly helps counter its lack of missiles…on the earlier models. The newer variants have a nasty collection of ATGMs as well to match the TOW. There hasn't been a "fair" (god forbid) fight between the Bradley and BMPs…certainly not with the BMP-3 with a well-trained and well-equipped crew. Hopefully we will continue arguing like this over theoretical scenarios versus real life ones.

"Maybe you don’t know I commanded a Bradley company. Trust me, no problem getting stuck. Narrow track? Bradley track is wider than Puma’s track. Would you characterize the Puma as having narrow track?"

I have plenty of close friends that were 19K and 19D that went over to the airborne infantry and "other" side, that is where my opinions come from; I never had anything to do with armor and that is something Im not ashamed of. I remember Bradley's hating the mud around the Euphrates and farmlands enough to warrant a recovery. Not a experience id like to repeat; of course, im sure it does fine with momentum.

"I brought up 73 Easting in ref to your unsupported allegation that it is the worst of any clas of scout vehicle. Bradley’s identified the enemy first (just like my BN’s experience in desert storm with our Bradley SCOUT plt). This is a critical scout function."

Well, here's the million dollar question…do you think the Bradley is the only IFV/CFV that would have identified the enemy first in that situation? that is a moot point.

"Speaking of Bradley against BMPs. My BN (Mech IN) engaged in three days of combat with the Tawalkana. P L E N T Y of BMPs were defeated by Bradleys and they had the very nasty habit of exploding since the turret rings were lined with 73mm rounds and the rear hatches were gas tanks. Having captured, drove BMP I & II I can tell you it’s a robust simple vehicle. It’s no match against a Bradley."

And you also had Iraq "monkey" models, which were given to the Iraqis because the Soviets didn't trust them. The fact of the matter is this:

1.) The US has not gone up against a respectable army since the NVA
2.) The US has not fought a respectable armored enemy since WWII (or korea if you count the chaffe's floundering against the T34).
3.) Overwhelming advantages in air and digital prowess gives US forces on the ground the edge. Especially with surprise. BMPs or any other vehicle that day would have been massacred before they were ever in a position to inflict casualties.
4.) The US has not faced a army since World War II with state-of-the-art, true counterparts to its equipment (i.e. Russia).

thank goodness

"Soldier and leader performance are extremely important but I’m sharing first hand my observations on enemy equipment which I respect. It will kill you. You seem to have a propensity to believe everything you read though with no thought of questioning the source or seeking other views. Great way to fall victim to group think."

That is rather in contrast to the main picture because my points challenge the mythology behind the idea that the US has the best and we are unparalleled. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Undeniably, the US military is effective…no doubt about it. But we can do so much ******* better…

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 2:30 pm

Yes, the newest variant of Bradley, weighing 33 tons, with thin tracks, has a higher ground PSI rating, which increases of odds of the vehicle getting stuck in harsh terrain that infantry are most likely to travel over. In many cases in Iraq, Bradleys were confined to roads, which increases the possibility of ambush and IED attack.

The Bradley's add on armor, paradoxically, protects the sides, though fails to measurably improve frontal armor since only a portion is covered. The Bradley long gave up its amphibious capability, and again, with a higher ground PSI, is largely impeded by crossing rivers and streams. I suppose that wasn't a issue in Desert Storm/OIF but would have been a issue in Europe.

If you read the link you posted, "Firing across bodies of water wider than 1,100 meters can reduce the range of the TOW. Signals being sent through the command-link wires are shorted out when a large amount of wire is submerged in water. Maximum and limited range firing over water varies according to missile type. If the range is less than 1,100 meters, the missile’s range is not affected. A TOW position should be as high above and as far back from the water as the tactical situation allows. The squad or section leader should analyze his sector as soon as the position is occupied to determine if water will affect the employment of the TOW."

A lot of variables may i admit myself. Thats not even getting into the subject of powerlines…

Its interesting you bring up the battle of 73 easting. It demonstrated the effectiveness of the TOW missile against T72s but was not a measurable demonstrator of a BMP vs Bradley fight, except when one Bradley was destroyed by a BMP-1's 73mm gun. 73 easting demonstrated the effectiveness of the M1 against downgraded "T72s" and BMPs…a predictable outcome (though not a objective comparison of the M1 vs a true, modernized T72 and BMP-1 versus bradley). Thats not getting into the significant use of air power in the battle.

Of course, this is predictable when one questions the "wisdom" of the US Army. Training and superior tactical planning of individual soldiers should not be mistaken for a perceived unparalleled superiority in a weapon system.

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 8:52 pm

You have to agree to disagree. Fact is the CV-90 or BMP do not offer any advantage and doesn't add up to replacing current US APCs sorry they dont.

Bevin June 13, 2012 at 12:40 am

Why not provide every front line grunt an allowance and let him purchase whatever weapon he thinks will save his *** when the S hits the F?

The only limitation would be the ability to digest standardized ammo.

Sort of a quasi-free market solution to the procurement process. Like school vouchers.

I'm kidding of course. Nip sweetheart deals between the br*** hats and arms contractors? Fuggedaboudit!

Reply

mitchell June 13, 2012 at 5:46 am

No surprise. Every mothr's son knows that Senator Coburn is a conservative buffoon. Call his office in Washington DC if you don't believe. Staffed by 18 and 19 year old kids that think this is a big joke (I wonder where they got that idea). His office is out of control and his political philosophy is to do whatever is expedient to get him elected. By the way, don't call him Senator Coburn. He insists on being called DOCTOR Doburn – as if being a SEnator was not enough. This chump is self-absorbed and an exmple that our country (at lest on the right) is being led by mesquite bushes rather than Redwood trees.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 9:12 am

if he's a senator or congressman, i address them as "**** head". "why don't you go register as a *** offender? because you keep raping me against my will"

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 9:06 am

i concur mr. oscar.

Why stop at weapons training, maintenance, and marksmanship? youll have to modernize the army's entire paradigm to get anything done :D

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 10:40 am

Sorry xcalbr, seems you have a special ops prejudice. No kidding the Army spends more on Abrams, Bradleys and Strykers. I bet you spend more on your car than your clothes and tool box. Brilliant!

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 10:46 am

xcalbr – addressing LEADERSHIP (which is why training, maint and marksmanship isn't the best) WILL address the Army's entire paradigm and pay husge benefits in other areas. Mastering the basics is the mark of a real professional vs. focusing on equipment, the refuge of the dilletente.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 10:47 am

THAT was well said!

The answer is a good mix and someone with a great deal of common sense in charge with the moral spine to do the right thing.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 11:16 am

xcalbr – How EXACTLY is the Puma superior?

Bradley has notoriously thin armor? Based on what?

Bradley not popular for what "damn good reason"? The most popular APC out there is the M113 and BMP1 due almost exclusively to cost.

Finally the M113 has less protection than a Stryker and cannont do the Bradley mission. Its only advantage is carrying a nine man squad which is questionable today because of body armor.

You need to do a lot more study of vehicles to come close to your weapons expertise.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 11:21 am

SFMedic – Your repeating that the dust tests were flawed goes a LONG way (I consider you a very credible source even when we don't agree). I'd also like some background and reference data. MANY that don't think for themselves just repeat what they read which is often written by graduates of the new journalistic tradition that emphasizes controversy over substance.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 11:25 am

SFMecdic – BINGO!!!! The focus needs to be on training FIRST.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 11:47 am

Thanks for staying engaged David. Makes for a better forum.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 1:29 pm

no need to apologize. I unapologetically have a bias towards common sense and things that work. Unfortunately the army doesnt :'(

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 1:31 pm

its a chicken and egg argument. you cannot reform the army's leadership, anymore you can reform the country's leadership, unless to get rid of the incentive to be influenced by the military industrial complex.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 1:47 pm

So the military industrial complex dictates leadership? Novel idea.

I would point to the 70's vs. the 80's Army to show Army leadership can be reformed. The introduction of M16A2 did not result in the renewed empahsis on NCOES, the revamping of officer courses, the addition of the Commander's intent to the op order, the AAR process etc. Read up on Gen DePuy and Vouno when you get a chance.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm

"xcalbr – How EXACTLY is the Puma superior?"

ahhh, the questions i have been waiting for.

For starters, the Puma has superior multi-layer, nano-ceramic armor that is more likely to defeat RPGs than the spaced steel and aluminum armor like the bradley has. It has a stand-alone, remote-operated (with manual override) turret while keeping the crew in the hull. superior protection for crewmembers.

Its 30mm Rheinmetall automatic cannon has a longer range and more kinetic energy than the Bradley's Bushmaster 25mm. It is also armed with a Spike ATGM, which is arguably one of the most sophisticated anti-tank missiles in the world.

It is also equipped with a softkill, anti-RPG system. The Puma is so advanced that it is a contender for the Ground Combat Vehicles program because no existing IFV is built to its standards. http://www.psm-spz.com/index.php?id=news&L=1#

"Bradley has notoriously thin armor? Based on what?"

The Bradley is supposedly protective against 14.5mm Russian rounds and 30mm armor for the A2 variants, though it does not have external fuel tanks or external missile stowage. For more information about the Bradley's supposed "superior protection" read "The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard" by Colonel James Burton.

"Bradley not popular for what “damn good reason”? The most popular APC out there is the M113 and BMP1 due almost exclusively to cost."

Name another country besides the US that has purchased the Bradley. Not Saudi Arabia…since they were given Bradley's (and are purchasing BMP3s currently!).

The Bradley is not popular because of its gargantuan individual cost (3 million average for each unit, not counting refurbished/modernized upgrades) compared to other IFVs with similar, or in many cases, better performance.

"Finally the M113 has less protection than a Stryker and cannont do the Bradley mission. Its only advantage is carrying a nine man squad which is questionable today because of body armor."

The M113A3 base model is resistant to 12.7mm and the inexpensive applique armor resistant to 14.5, 23mm, and 30mm rounds. The bar armor cage has successfully defeated every chemical energy charge warhead employed by enemy forces in Iraq.

Egypt employs the M113 with a Bradley turret and turkey uses the BMP3 turret. It sure can do the bradley's job because of its lower height, lower weight, and superior mobility. The M113 can do anything the Bradley can do and certainly more than the Stryker can.

"You need to do a lot more study of vehicles to come close to your weapons expertise."

I think you are buying into the mythology of the M113 and the propaganda that the US military has the best vehicles it can purchase. It clearly does not. There is well-detailed documentation that the Bradley is inadequate, the Stryker does not fulfill the prerequisites required for its adoption in the first place, and the M1 Abrams is not as good as people would like to think it is.

Reply

The truth June 13, 2012 at 3:38 pm

I actually hope they do pick a new rifle.

That way they can stop wasting my tax payer dollars!!! Either pick something or dont, but dont waste my money every few years on a fruitless trial!!!

So i say pick a damn rifle and stop wasting my money!!!!

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm

The sad thing is that no new caliber or system is being introduced so NO there is no new rifle worth adopting!!!!!!

Reply

The truth June 13, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Im not saying there is.

Im saying either adopt a piston rifle to please congress or stop wasting my tax payer dollars on crap tests that wont lead anywhere and just waste millions.

If we at least adopted something all that money would equate to something real.

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 5:20 pm

I agree time to tell congress what every other American knows ''WE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO PLAY AROUND''. Drop ICC and go on getting more needed weapons ie F-22, DD-1000s ect.

Telling congress to stop wasting money is like telling the sun not to be bright and shinny on a clear day sorry it sucks.

Reply

crackedlenses June 13, 2012 at 4:46 pm

@xcalbr

Where to begin.

"I think you are buying into the mythology of the M113 and the propaganda that the US military has the best vehicles it can purchase. It clearly does not. There is well-detailed documentation that the Bradley is inadequate, the Stryker does not fulfill the prerequisites required for its adoption in the first place, and the M1 Abrams is not as good as people would like to think it is."

As for the Bradley, I'm calling bunk on some of your claims. Check out this entry:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/

Something's not adding up, and I'm betting on these guys as opposed to you (aka anomynous internet poster)…….

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 4:52 pm

Strange China has CRAP for APC and tanks Russia has mostly older weapons like the US has so there is no SUPER APC you think is better tan current US vehicles.

Reply

crackedlenses June 13, 2012 at 4:54 pm

My reply was halved. See the bottom half below….

Reply

crackedlenses June 13, 2012 at 4:53 pm

@xcalbr

Oops, my response to your quote got left out. Here it is:

The Bradley is an older design, and comparing it to the emerging Puma is a tad biased. A comparison to the CV90 would be more apropo (although the CV90 still lacks AT capability). The Stryker is actually adequate, that is if it is used as a high-mobility infantry squad carrier. We never needed that role, especially in Iraq/Afghanistan, hence it's outrageously bad performance. As for the M1, it is at least equal to the current MBTs in use (Challenger 2, Leopard 2, Leclerc, etc.), and the Russians have never been known for exporting their best stuff. Thus, short of a war with Russia, most Russian tanks we will encounter will be crap, and not much of a threat to the M1….

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 4:55 pm

I agree T-80s and T-84s have net been sold much out of the Russia and CIS so I doubt we be going head to head with one. Mostly old Soviet T-72s in service which are crap. Thing is CV-90s and BMP dont offer a upgrade over M-2/3s at all.

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 6:36 pm

lenses – Agree with comparing older vs. newer designs but also consider this.

Why spend $5mil on either the Puma/CV90 that only are marginally better in certain categories? Better to spend that money on upgrading Bradleys.

BTW, the greatest weakness of the Bradley is it doesn't carry the nine man squad. Oncee adopted, we made the faulty decision of splitting the Infantry squad across two APCs. Supsequently Bradley Inf platoons have over 30% less grunts than light or stryker platoons. That difference showed in Iraq and is one of the primary drivers for the GCV. It is also one of the non-negotiables in the RFP.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 9:32 pm

"As for the Bradley, I’m calling bunk on some of your claims. Check out this entry:" http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/

Yup, saved on my favorites. I enjoy army-technology. Interesting read alongside Janes. Since the website details upcoming projects, upgrades, etc in the defense industry, i think you wont find much criticisms of design limitations there. Thats my .2 cents. you wont find criticism of subarus on subaru's website.

"Something’s not adding up, and I’m betting on these guys as opposed to you (aka anomynous internet poster)……."

Right, because might makes right. Isn't mob rule delightful? god forbid, i mean god forbid you ask questions, bring up points, and keep a open mind from the "not made here" syndrome.

"Strange China has CRAP for APC and tanks Russia has mostly older weapons like the US has so there is no SUPER APC you think is better tan current US vehicles."

Yet you are ignoring key players to compare the Bradley with: the CV90, Puma (even the Marder), Dardo, other European IFVs, and the new BMPs.

"The Bradley is an older design, and comparing it to the emerging Puma is a tad biased."

The bias is the idea that "the Bradley is the best", which it isn't. The "A3" is not that old either. The two are different beasts.

"A comparison to the CV90 would be more apropo (although the CV90 still lacks AT capability)."

That is a weakness of the CV90. It lacks a missile system. Or you can compare other IFVs. Consider the CV90 attained commercial success following budget cuts after the end of the cold war. That merit speaks for itself.

"The Stryker is actually adequate, that is if it is used as a high-mobility infantry squad carrier. We never needed that role, especially in Iraq/Afghanistan, hence it’s outrageously bad performance."

Here's the prereqs for adopting the strkyer family:

-rapid deployability via C130 (which it utterly fails) for strategic response forces
-super mobility for infantry troops (which is fails because tires have higher PSI, less traction, and highly complex drive trains compared to the tracked M113; its good on roads though LOL)

never need the high-mobility infantry squad carrier? tell me that is a joke. How are strategic response forces, necessary for maintaining protection over American interests abroad, supposed to deploy in combat zones and conduct operations? with humvees and their boots? the idea of air droppable APCs that can support infantry is absolutely essential. Heavy metal takes weeks upon weeks to ship from air and sea. Airborne forces need a air droppable tank (which we have…its the M8 gun system) and APC (which the stryker isn't). As far as im concerned, airborne strategic response forces can be so much better…

"As for the M1, it is at least equal to the current MBTs in use (Challenger 2, Leopard 2, Leclerc, etc.), and the Russians have never been known for exporting their best stuff. Thus, short of a war with Russia, most Russian tanks we will encounter will be crap, and not much of a threat to the M1…."

The M1's main disadvantages is its astronomically high cost of operation, large size, and gas turbine engine. The gas turbine takes a measurable amount of time to start (instead of instantly like a diesel engine) and consumes 4-7 gallons for every mile. It has a operational range of 260 miles, shorter than modern competing MBTs, and can remain idled at a significantly shorter time than other MBTs; thats not even getting into its thermal signature. It has no infantry-telephone, troops cannot take cover behind it because of the engine, and it has no bottom escape hatch. more http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/m1-report-19900612.p

"I agree T-80s and T-84s have net been sold much out of the Russia and CIS so I doubt we be going head to head with one. Mostly old Soviet T-72s in service which are crap. Thing is CV-90s and BMP dont offer a upgrade over M-2/3s at all."

well the T80 was disliked because it was derived from the mediocre T64 and because of its gas turbine engine. You coincidentally ignore the T90, which is exported in large numbers around the globe. Modernized and upgraded T72 and even T55 variants are also being sold and adopted.

The CV90 and BMP have several key advantages over the Bradley, often mundane details. The CV90 is also considered to be a measurable upgrade to contend for the GCV competition.

"Why spend $5mil on either the Puma/CV90 that only are marginally better in certain categories? Better to spend that money on upgrading Bradleys."

I think you are mistaking the initial cost to final production cost within the United States. Though it doesn't really matter. I'm sure the US will adopt the turretless Bradley or upgrade every vehicle to the A3.

"BTW, the greatest weakness of the Bradley is it doesn’t carry the nine man squad. Oncee adopted, we made the faulty decision of splitting the Infantry squad across two APCs. Supsequently Bradley Inf platoons have over 30% less grunts than light or stryker platoons. That difference showed in Iraq and is one of the primary drivers for the GCV. It is also one of the non-negotiables in the RFP."

That is a excellent point. I had a fantasy earlier that the Army adopted the Namer :D

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 4:55 pm

Good, common sense and practical solutions are a good thing. That has nothing to do with the cost of an Abrams, Bradley etc. Let's not let a special ops arrogance cloud common sense and practical solutions?

Reply

majrod June 13, 2012 at 5:44 pm

xcalbr – the Puma’s armor is not superior to comparable Bradley versions. You are buying the advertising propaganda. “Nano ceramic” sounds high speed. It does not provide superior or lighter protection (yet costs more). The all around protection is rated the same. Unmanned turret is nice. Nothing that can’t be installed.

The 30mm is also nice but doesn’t outclass the Bradley which could use an upgrade. The MUSS softkill anti RPG system doesn’t stop RPGs! The system obscures the vehicle or defeats guided missiles. You really have to be a skeptical reader. (BTW, the Bradley and a turretless Bradley are also being looked at for the GCV role).

Burton insisted "overmatch" tests in which weapons that would easily defeat the Bradley be fired at it. This in no way supports allegations of “notoriously thin armor” unless one doesn’t know the difference between an IFV and a tank. Bradley armor does protect against 14.5 and 30mm. Again. More skeptical reading is in order.

The basic model of the M113A3 stops 12.7 mm across the frontal arc. “12.7mm resistant” means the armor slows the round a little everywhere else as it enters the vehicle. The Egyptian version has less armor protection than the Bradley as does Turkey’s.

You’ve bought the EVIL Military Industrial Complex conspiracy to the point you can’t objectively weigh the facts. The MIC exists but it’s not as omnipresent and powerful as the conspiracy nuts would like us to believe.

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 8:15 pm

"xcalbr – the Puma’s armor is not superior to comparable Bradley versions. You are buying the advertising propaganda. “Nano ceramic” sounds high speed. It does not provide superior or lighter protection (yet costs more). The all around protection is rated the same. Unmanned turret is nice. Nothing that can’t be installed."

So what information is this based on? If the Puma had armor and protection that was not superior, then why would it be a contender for GCV? (the original FCS was cancelled because of less than ideal protection against IEDs) Ill add that the crew is further protected like a MRAP, with the seats having no contact with the floor. Ill also add that the Puma is better protected in critical areas of the vehicle than the Bradley. This is a established fact if you examine them both.

The fact is that the Bradley doesn't have a unmanned turret, the armor, crew seating, and firepower of the Puma. Such upgrades will add to the astronomically high cost of already expensive family of vehicles.

"The 30mm is also nice but doesn’t outclass the Bradley which could use an upgrade. The MUSS softkill anti RPG system doesn’t stop RPGs! The system obscures the vehicle or defeats guided missiles. You really have to be a skeptical reader. (BTW, the Bradley and a turretless Bradley are also being looked at for the GCV role)."

The bradley's upgrade is not fielded yet, so thats irrelevant. Where did I say the MUSS "stops" RPGs? I can be blamed for created the misconception that it is only RPG, in fact being anti-missile, but the MUSS functions by detecting the missile and a.) jamming it with infrared, or b.) throwing up a smoke screen like you said. Certainly more effective against a ATGM but also somewhat effective against a RPG. It is a consideration between collateral damage of Arena or other similar systems or a more "soft" approach".

"Burton insisted “overmatch” tests in which weapons that would easily defeat the Bradley be fired at it. This in no way supports allegations of “notoriously thin armor” unless one doesn’t know the difference between an IFV and a tank. Bradley armor does protect against 14.5 and 30mm. Again. More skeptical reading is in order."

Like I said before, the "A3" variant, with its additional armor, offers protection to the sides and a square in the front and tiny portion on the turret, not as much as the Puma; i digress, the A3 is a measurable improvement over the A2 and previous series. The A2 variants were far more common in Iraq in 2003, unfortunately. You mean "overmatch" by actually testing the aluminum armor of the Bradley against EXISTING anti-tank and vehicle weaponry? say it aint so.

"The basic model of the M113A3 stops 12.7 mm across the frontal arc. “12.7mm resistant” means the armor slows the round a little everywhere else as it enters the vehicle. The Egyptian version has less armor protection than the Bradley as does Turkey’s."

As I have confirmed before. This is not counting the applique armor. With the applique it is as protected as a Bradley.

"You’ve bought the EVIL Military Industrial Complex conspiracy to the point you can’t objectively weigh the facts. The MIC exists but it’s not as omnipresent and powerful as the conspiracy nuts would like us to believe."

conspiracy nut? LOL. Im sure Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, author of "War is a Racket" and muckraker of the Business Plot, was a conspiracy nut. Im sure Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Ruppert, and Dwight D Eisenhower are also conspiracy nuts. I rest my case. The MIC not omnipresent? war is immensely profitable. Like what Eisenhower forewarned, the US political spectrum is dominated by the desire to go to war for money.

If you TRULY believe we are getting the best bang for our buck, then you are sadly mistaken. Respectfully, Im not sure what is worse, actually believing the Pentagon, or downplaying the threat to American liberty by the MIC…

Reply

crackedlenses June 13, 2012 at 9:14 pm

@xcalbr

I see some of what you are getting at. No, none of the systems we use in our military are perfect. The Sherman tank is a perfect example of this; out-gunned and out-classed and a literal death-trap in tank vs tank battles with the Germans.

That being said, (and we could go on and on about the failings of our weapons and equipment), in the end it works. We became a world power and then THE world power because of who we were, not because our weapons were unbeatable. Everyone knows that the best in technology won't save you if you cannot or will not fight. So far, we have been able and willing, and have succeeded (or failed) at that point.

It's great fun to make fun of our tanks and what not, compared to what the rest of the world uses, and it's great fun to take shots at the evil corporations that are always supposed to be taking over the country and the world (when things don't happen the way we humans like it, it is amazing who immature and nonsensical we can become), what does it accomplish? The Bradley did it's job, the M1 dominated every tank it came upon, what more do you want?

I'm not implying that we should not get the best for our soldiers. But the solution is to come up with something better, not drone on and on about how much better someone else's is. That, and fire some people at the top. The way our military projects have been going on the past few years is simply atrocious…..

Reply

xcalbr June 13, 2012 at 9:40 pm

i understand your points. Don't mistake my criticism of american AFVs for anti-americanism or attacks against the individual soldiers (that would be self-masochistic for me).

American might has everything to do with technology, industrial capacity, and wealth to invest (or squander/manipulate/cash in in many cases) in new technologies. No, i disagree, it is not fun to take shots at corporations and the status quo because so many are hopelessly protective and dependent on it and will do anything to defend it. It is not about a immature "corporations are evil" argument, it is sticking with the facts that the current status quo cannot be maintained and american citizens are paying dearly in their own prosperity, health, and well-being. America's merger of state and corporate power (fascism) brings back the old quote of "those that give up essential liberty to obtain little or no security deserve neither".

By no means do I intend to drone on (and get hopelessly off subject); I want whats best for our soldiers because we can do such much better…with our nation and military.

Reply

crackedlenses June 13, 2012 at 11:00 pm

@xcalbr

I hear you on the status quo; we need to fix ourselves very badly, and the mess that our weapons acquisitions process has become is only a reflection of a much broader problem. We have done better in the past (weapons we designed during WWII are still being used today for example), and we can return and surpass ourselves today (hopefully).

That being said, I still find it a little ridiculous to heap constant abuse on corporations and similar entities, when historically governments have had a much more catastrophic impact. I see corporations as being reflective of people, and people as a selfish, greedy, ingloriously @#$$% bunch. The corporations and those who run them are merely being the broken, sinful systems that they were born as.

Thus, the only real way to fix the problem of corporate influence (under normal conditions why do we not want them to make their influence felt?), is to either fix all of the corporate leadership, or elect leaders who will not be influenced by them (assuming we decide who should be listened to at all).

We may not agree, but it sounds as though our desire it towards the same goal. For both our sakes, I hope you are wrong; but I am not thick-headed enough to believe that you may indeed be right….

Reply

crackedlenses June 14, 2012 at 8:05 am

@xcalbr,

That last sentence came out all wrong. What I was trying to say is: "I am not thick-headed enough to deny that you may be right." Sorry :) …..

Reply

xcalbr June 14, 2012 at 10:20 am

given everything I have said, I hope to **** I am wrong too… LOL ;)

Reply

Lance June 13, 2012 at 10:30 pm

Your totally wrong the T-90 is just upgraded T-72. The T-72 horrible combat performance in Lebanon and Kuwait made the Russian change the name from T-72BV to T-90 to avoid potential contract losses with clients in the 90s. The T-90 is a standard T-72 with some T-80 features like gun stabilizer and some targeting systems but not all. T-80s have high Russian and Ukrainian crew approval. The T-80 wasn't bought as much because it is expensive like the M-1A1 is. The same went for the T-64 high quality and performance tanks is not the Soviet and Russian cup of tea so the cheaper and ******** T-55 and T-72 where made and sold for alot cheaper and greater number. and can beat a crappy T-72 and its regurgitated T-90 anytime. India is the only major buyer of the T-90 and the T-80 is bought by not only Russia and Ukrainian but by Pakistan and Cypress and other CIS states.

Fact to is that the M-60A1 and M-1A1 have destroyed large number of Syrian Iraqi T-72s and the T-72 has failed to even match the older model Merkava tanks which means the T-72 isn't that BIG of a bell ringer id use to argue that our tanks suck opinion you have. Having family in US Army armor for years I can pick your arguments apart about MBTs.

As for your CV-90 and Namar it isn't really that improved they lack AT and chain gun armament and are too close to the ground to warrant those two the best APCs ever.

The BMP-3 isn't new its a late 1980s Soviet design and some way failed to Replace the older BMP-2 in Russian service there many units BMP-1 still. Mostly quality over quality idea still is the mindset of the Russian army in armored vehicles .

Reply

crackedlenses June 13, 2012 at 11:35 pm

Oh boy; this will take a while.

"i think you wont find much criticisms of design limitations there. Thats my .2 cents. you wont find criticism of subarus on subaru’s website."

My point was specific criticisms you made concerning the Bradley. Army Technologies clearly states that the Bradley's chain-gun can be cranked to 500 RPM, and that the A3 is capable of amphibious operations, both of which contradict your earlier posts. They render no judgement as to the Bradley's performance. Reading their BMP-3 entry did not impress me; big guns and light weight mean nothing if the most you can withstand is 12.7 mm. Even including applique armor, that still gives the Bradley an armor advantage from the get-go (probably what the Army bet on).

"Yet you are ignoring key players to compare the Bradley with: the CV90, Puma (even the Marder), Dardo, other European IFVs, and the new BMPs."

"Consider the CV90 attained commercial success following budget cuts after the end of the cold war. That merit speaks for itself."
Marder is as obsolete as the Bradley is, and even more underarmed. Warrior traded ATGM for 30 mm. cannon, and has had better export success. Puma is next-gen, totally different class in my opinion. Dardo, eh, has not struck me as anything beyond a close relative of the Bradley, CV90 definitely looks good, have not seen anything on combat performance, still have argueably less capability against tanks compared to the Bradley (which could probably be easily remedied). ASCOD, Brits are buying it, so it can't be too bad. BMP-2/3, 2 looks capable, 3 looks like they traded protection for tank-level firepower. Russian weapons work well generally, but I do not prefer them (and there is no way on earth that we would ever buy from them).

I do not disagree that the Stryker was less than promised. In the airborne capacity, I never understood why a M113/M8 AGS combo was never pursued. Then again, I would assume that part of the whole point of the Stryker was to gain increased armor protection over the M113 without losing mobility. This obviously failed, if it was what was intended.

"The M1′s main disadvantages is its astronomically high cost of operation, large size, and gas turbine engine. The gas turbine takes a measurable amount of time to start (instead of instantly like a diesel engine) and consumes 4-7 gallons for every mile. It has a operational range of 260 miles, shorter than modern competing MBTs, and can remain idled at a significantly shorter time than other MBTs; thats not even getting into its thermal signature. It has no infantry-telephone, troops cannot take cover behind it because of the engine, and it has no bottom escape hatch"

The Army knew the cons of the gas turbine, and bet they could supply enough fuel to keep it going. The advantages are a higher acceleration and overall speed (and the Army has been working to fix the high fuel consumption). I'm sure you could get a diesel for it if you really had to have it. TUSK II has the infantry phone. Not sure which modern MBTs have bottom escape hatches (haven't heard of those since WWII). As for infantry, well, I guess that's what the Bradleys were for, right? [raises eyebrows]

"You coincidentally ignore the T90, which is exported in large numbers around the globe. Modernized and upgraded T72 and even T55 variants are also being sold and adopted."

Since when have Russians (or us for that matter) exported our good stuff? All the Russian equipment we have encountered has been junk (if the Russians wouldn't give out good T-72s the export T-90s won't be much better); as long as we don't take the Ruskies themselves, I highly doubt our future opponents will have Russian tanks superior to the M1.

As for the Namer, I concur that it is a dangerous-looking APC with promising armor capabilities. Still, how much weight and funding will it take to give it the firepower of a BMP or Bradley?

At the end of the day, this is a stupid debate. None of us (except for Major Rod) have ever piloted a Bradley or faced a BMP in our lives. In reality we are discussing topics we really don't know crap about (and the first-hand experience seems to side against you). I don't depreciate your alternate opinion, but Major Rod's view still stands. In any case, let's hope something good comes of GCV. We're going to need it for the future….

Reply

xcalbr June 14, 2012 at 10:18 am

"Your totally wrong the T-90 is just upgraded T-72."

And when did i say it wasn't? that doesn't change the fact that it has been exported in large numbers. The T90 is a modernization, or upgrade, with our generation equipment.

"The T-72 horrible combat performance in Lebanon and Kuwait made the Russian change the name from T-72BV to T-90 to avoid potential contract losses with clients in the 90s."

Dude, for the fifth time, we didn't face T72s in Iraq! those were Iraqi produced monkey models (or less than?) with mild, non ballistic steel. Asad Babil tanks looked like T72s, but US forces have yet to face modernized T72s and T90s.

"The T-90 is a standard T-72 with some T-80 features like gun stabilizer and some targeting systems but not all."

and composite armor, third gen ERA, and missile/RPG countermeasures, and other features modern battle tanks have.

"T-80s have high Russian and Ukrainian crew approval."

LOL no they didn't. They were once regarded as "quality" compared to the "quantity" T72, though their gas turbine engines were troublesome and they were especially vulnerable in Chechnya. In fact, the T80s underwhelming performance warranted the creation of the T72 to begin with.

"The T-80 wasn’t bought as much because it is expensive like the M-1A1 is. The same went for the T-64 high quality and performance tanks is not the Soviet and Russian cup of tea so the cheaper and ******** T-55 and T-72 where made and sold for alot cheaper and greater number. and can beat a crappy T-72 and its regurgitated T-90 anytime. India is the only major buyer of the T-90 and the T-80 is bought by not only Russia and Ukrainian but by Pakistan and Cypress and other CIS states."

I think you are mistaken. The T62 and T64 were not a "high quality and performance tank". They were more expensive than the T55 though their performance wasn't substantial enough to warrant adoption by Warsaw Pact members. If you think the T80 is "better", get that idea out of your head. There was a reason why it was replaced.

"Fact to is that the M-60A1 and M-1A1 have destroyed large number of Syrian Iraqi T-72s and the T-72 has failed to even match the older model Merkava tanks which means the T-72 isn’t that BIG of a bell ringer id use to argue that our tanks suck opinion you have. Having family in US Army armor for years I can pick your arguments apart about MBTs."

The M60 was a awesome tank. It never faced the T72 (Iraqi tanks were not T72s). It did have several critical advantages over the T62 in the Yom Kippur War. Again, the tanks that the M1s faced in Kuwait and, later, Iraq were monkey models and some poor copies with mild steel. The M1 has not faced upgraded T55s, T72s, and T90s operated by even moderately trained crew members.

"As for your CV-90 and Namar it isn’t really that improved they lack AT and chain gun armament and are too close to the ground to warrant those two the best APCs ever."

I was being facetious with the Namer (which is being evaluated with a external 30mm gun and Spike missile). The CV90 is a contender for the GCV, so i guess it is warranted enough of a improvement.

"The BMP-3 isn’t new its a late 1980s Soviet design and some way failed to Replace the older BMP-2 in Russian service there many units BMP-1 still. Mostly quality over quality idea still is the mindset of the Russian army in armored vehicles ."

The CV90, Bradley, and other NATO IFVs are also 1980s designs. It didn't completely replace the BMP-2 because of deficiencies in funding to the Russian armed forces. The BMP-3 has been widely exported around the world. In its most upgraded, newest configuration, the BMP-3 is a modern IFV.

"My point was specific criticisms you made concerning the Bradley. Army Technologies clearly states that the Bradley’s chain-gun can be cranked to 500 RPM, and that the A3 is capable of amphibious operations, both of which contradict your earlier posts."

they don't contradict my posts. the "A3" is upgraded, and not all army Bradleys are "A3". The Bradley's 25mm gun has a rate of fire of 200 RPM on average. It can be upgraded to 500 RPM. The A3 is not amphibious. The weight of its armor undoes any amphibious capability. Take a A3, or A2, and drive it into the river and see what happens.

"They render no judgement as to the Bradley’s performance. Reading their BMP-3 entry did not impress me; big guns and light weight mean nothing if the most you can withstand is 12.7 mm. Even including applique armor, that still gives the Bradley an armor advantage from the get-go (probably what the Army bet on)."

Its called confirmation bias. You say the "weakness" of the BMP-3 is weak armor, though applique armor would help mitigate this. Unlike the Bradley, the BMP-3 is truly amphibious, which opens a new set of possibilities. What good does armor advantage have if your enemy has a 100mm cannon that can fire anti-tank guided missiles? Im not saying the BMP-3 is end all, im just saying it is a foreseeable threat in our future and im given the impression that folks choose to deliberately ignore it rather than face its reality.

"Marder is as obsolete as the Bradley is, and even more underarmed."

In the case of its 20mm cannon, it is. It still has a MILAN ATGM.

"Puma is next-gen, totally different class in my opinion. Dardo, eh, has not struck me as anything beyond a close relative of the Bradley, CV90 definitely looks good, have not seen anything on combat performance, still have argueably less capability against tanks compared to the Bradley (which could probably be easily remedied). ASCOD, Brits are buying it, so it can’t be too bad. BMP-2/3, 2 looks capable, 3 looks like they traded protection for tank-level firepower. Russian weapons work well generally, but I do not prefer them (and there is no way on earth that we would ever buy from them)."

Believe it or not, that above paragraph sums up my opinion.

"I do not disagree that the Stryker was less than promised. In the airborne capacity, I never understood why a M113/M8 AGS combo was never pursued. Then again, I would assume that part of the whole point of the Stryker was to gain increased armor protection over the M113 without losing mobility. This obviously failed, if it was what was intended."

I didn't have anything to do with performance. The Stryker acquisition was corrupt and ridiculous…a clear case of defense acquisition cronyism.

"The Army knew the cons of the gas turbine, and bet they could supply enough fuel to keep it going. The advantages are a higher acceleration and overall speed (and the Army has been working to fix the high fuel consumption). I’m sure you could get a diesel for it if you really had to have it. TUSK II has the infantry phone. Not sure which modern MBTs have bottom escape hatches (haven’t heard of those since WWII). As for infantry, well, I guess that’s what the Bradleys were for, right? [raises eyebrows]"

The army arrogantly assumes that fuel can be acquired for it, despite the fact that fuel costs will only increase and supplies in the future decrease. The higher acceleration and overall speed are tradeoffs for logistical problems (with fuel), lower idle operational time, higher cost for a delicate power plant, and substantially increased thermal signature (as entailed in the link i posted above). The TUSK has a infantry phone, though not all M1s will be equipped with TUSK; it still doesn't fix the issue with the turbine's immense heat. And I know the Leopard 2 and M60 have bottom escape hatches, though Im sure there are more models that do. As far as infantry goes, the Bradley's integration with the infantry squad doesnt fix the problem that our MBT also needs to be more infantry friendly i.e. infantry phone and allowing them to use it for cover.

"Since when have Russians (or us for that matter) exported our good stuff? All the Russian equipment we have encountered has been junk (if the Russians wouldn’t give out good T-72s the export T-90s won’t be much better); as long as we don’t take the Ruskies themselves, I highly doubt our future opponents will have Russian tanks superior to the M1."

Well that was originally my point, in that the M1 and Bradley haven't competed against vehicles they can possibly face in the future or would have faced in the past event of World War III with the Soviet Union. It is well documented that the Soviets didn't trust saddam with their more capable weaponry.

"As for the Namer, I concur that it is a dangerous-looking APC with promising armor capabilities. Still, how much weight and funding will it take to give it the firepower of a BMP or Bradley?"

LOL like i said before, i was being facetious. It is a heavy vehicle (60 tons!) and i remain dubious at its possible effectiveness not as a IFV but in roles of reconnaissance.

"At the end of the day, this is a stupid debate. None of us (except for Major Rod) have ever piloted a Bradley or faced a BMP in our lives. In reality we are discussing topics we really don’t know crap about (and the first-hand experience seems to side against you). I don’t depreciate your alternate opinion, but Major Rod’s view still stands. In any case, let’s hope something good comes of GCV. We’re going to need it for the future…."

I dont think this is a stupid debate. You guys have brought up good points in your position of support to the Bradley. Im going by the experiences of former 19K and D's, as well as government accountability reports raising red flags on the flaws of our vehicles. The point is not to nitpick those vehicles as inadequate, its about giving our troops the equipment they require and protect them. I certainly hope the GCV competition yields the best, though given the army's track record, it is best to view those acquisitions with skepticism and a high degree of objectivity.

Reply

majrod June 14, 2012 at 5:21 pm

My problem with the Namer is weight. Unless we are willing to buy double the ships/aircraft we will deploy twice as slowly.

xcalbr – No offense to your buddies but they don't put 19D's in Bradleys. It's a 19K position.

You are wrong about Iraqi made T72s. They were made in Russia. The Iraqis did not nor do not have tank building factories though they can modify existing tanks.

This discussion has run its course. FTR, never said the Bradley was better or even as good as some other vehicles. Just responding to the BFF attitude some have for foreign armor.

Oh, after my first tour with the 101st (yep, light experience also) I was selected to go to the armor officer advanced course so they made me get M1 tank commander qualified also. Don't believe everything you read on those blogs. The M1 is one of the best if not THE best tank in the world.

In closing I'll share what some young sergeant said to some Russian officers in the PX tent set up at Camp Doha months after the cease fire. "Are you Russians?" They nodded. "T72s, love 'em. They burn really bright." I almost swallowed my tongue as I quickly made my way out so I wouldn't get sucked into an international incident.

Reply

xcalbr June 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm

"xcalbr – No offense to your buddies but they don’t put 19D’s in Bradleys. It’s a 19K position."

??? really??? 19D is the cavalry scout MOS. There are plenty of heavy reconnaissance squadrons with the M3 that would vehemently disagree with you. A bradley is not a tank (though I assume you know this already).

"You are wrong about Iraqi made T72s. They were made in Russia. The Iraqis did not nor do not have tank building factories though they can modify existing tanks."

They sure did. That is why the Asid Babil was a terrible tank. It didn't even have ballistic rolled homogeneous armor let alone fully charged munitions for its 125mm gun. I didnt even believe that the Iraqis tried to use training rounds for AT, thinking that was all ********…turns out it wasn't. A dear companion from EOD showed me. Iraq tried to produce its own tanks…they did and these were failures.

"This discussion has run its course. FTR, never said the Bradley was better or even as good as some other vehicles. Just responding to the BFF attitude some have for foreign armor."

And a armor officer would get defensive, using the "not made here" argument. Dont take that as a insult, i have a tendency to get that way with small arms.

"Oh, after my first tour with the 101st (yep, light experience also) I was selected to go to the armor officer advanced course so they made me get M1 tank commander qualified also. Don’t believe everything you read on those blogs. The M1 is one of the best if not THE best tank in the world."

I already provided a link highlighting the documented flaws of the M1 and the corruption behind its acquisition. It is a good tank, but not the best in the world: that title is to be fought over between the Challenger 2, Merkava, or Leopard 2. Don't believe the music from TRADOC (of course they would think its the best).

"In closing I’ll share what some young sergeant said to some Russian officers in the PX tent set up at Camp Doha months after the cease fire. “Are you Russians?” They nodded. “T72s, love ‘em. They burn really bright.” I almost swallowed my tongue as I quickly made my way out so I wouldn’t get sucked into an international incident."

Typical military arrogance. Now I know why I retired. God forbid we actually fight a real enemy with that kind of attitude.

Reply

Lance June 14, 2012 at 8:17 pm

Read the ''Encyclopedia of Tanks'' been out a few years great source of info on modern MBTs read it.

Reply

Robert Patty June 14, 2012 at 9:06 am

The problem is not the design, the M4A1 is a fine and fully functional design. The problem is with the cartridge. Between the longer distances that engagements are taking place and the shorter barrel the 5.56×45 is a mess.

A friend of mine from my days in 5th SFG, Steve Holland, along with another NCO from AMU at Ft. Benning came up with the solution and that was to retrofit the current issue carbine with a new barrel, bolt and magazine in 6.8 SPC. The army however shot this down, even for SOF soldiers, which is what the design was originally for. That's a low cost, simple and effective solution.

Unfortunately the people that make these decisions all too often have never had any time behind a gun in a real world situation. They live in a glass bubble or idealism.

Reply

The truth June 14, 2012 at 9:40 am

The USMC did testing on the 6.8 and found it does not perform any better than 5.56 past 400m. That is one of the man reasons 6.8 really has not gone anywhere.

The 5.56 with proper bullet design is more than enough, the Brown tip 5.56 is a great example of proper bullet design.

Reply

E. Ronc June 14, 2012 at 11:08 pm

"does not perform any better than 5.56 past 400m." What did it say about 0-400?

Reply

majrod June 14, 2012 at 4:36 pm

xcalbr – You’re the fella saying the Puma’s armor is better. You have ZERO documentation that it is. Your “assuming”. It's not. FCS was a family of systems not one vehicle. You’re referring to the XM1202 Mounted Combat System (MCS). It was cancelled with FCS because it was “too” much. Too much technical risk, too expensive, too complicated.

Selection for the GCV eval doesn’t mean the vehicle is superior in every respect. SEVEN vehicles are being evaluated. BTW, the latest Bradley troop seats are also isolated from the floor.
Critical protection? Besides the turret crew what exactly? Equipping the Bradley with a remote turret is going to be a heck of a lot less than $5mil. The Puma doesn’t seat a full squad. The turretless Bradley does (and has a remote weapon system).

“Where did I say the MUSS “stops” RPGs? “ Up above, you said… “It is also equipped with a softkill, anti-RPG system. “ Need to spread some sand on the ground for that tap dancing?

You cited Burton as evidence the Bradley had poor protection. I quoted what the man wanted to do (shoot tank guns at Bradleys). Now you want to move the goal posts? You can jump up and down and say it a dozen times but the Puma doesn’t provide more armor protection than a similar applique armored Bradley. It is so. Again, major “assumption” on your part.

Be careful, I hear black helicopters in the distance…

Reply

majrod June 14, 2012 at 4:52 pm

xcalbr – You saw Bradley’s get stuck in Euprates mud and base your “opinion” on that. May I remind you, you didn’t see Pumas plow through that ground either.

Million dollar question? Of course other vehicles could do the job. I didn’t say something as silly as “Objectively, the M2/M3 conduct the IFV, Recce, Scout jobs the worst out of any class of combat vehicles.”

Monkey models? Really, what’s the difference between the Iraqi BMP 1 & 2’s besides not having Russians in them? (Ans. There aren’t any. It’s an excuse) BTW, I’d avoid using the term “monkey” armor. “Monkey” is how Russians refer to their third world customers. It’s blatantly racist and comes from internalizing too much of what Russian bloggers say.

BTW, I’ll mention that Russian equip couldn’t get close enough in Desert Storm. My former XO Mike Ammons was awarded a bronze star with “V” for destroying two T62s with 25mm when the first Tow round failed to explode because they were within the arming distance. He’ll be entertained.

Reply

xcalbr June 14, 2012 at 7:47 pm

"xcalbr – You saw Bradley’s get stuck in Euprates mud and base your “opinion” on that. May I remind you, you didn’t see Pumas plow through that ground either."

I will base my opinion on that because it spells bad news for infantrymen. Puma's wouldn't plough through the ground because they were only adopted last year. Ill add that the CV90 is performing nicely in afghanistan, alongside NATO-member variants of the M113. Where is the Bradley in afghanistan?

"Million dollar question? Of course other vehicles could do the job. I didn’t say something as silly as “Objectively, the M2/M3 conduct the IFV, Recce, Scout jobs the worst out of any class of combat vehicles.”"

Actually it does. It has a "multipurpose" system that the US military likes. You either have two or three vehicle's perform a specialized role very well (even if they're based on the same chassis), or one that performs all tasks mediocre.

"Monkey models? Really, what’s the difference between the Iraqi BMP 1 & 2’s besides not having Russians in them? (Ans. There aren’t any. It’s an excuse) BTW, I’d avoid using the term “monkey” armor. “Monkey” is how Russians refer to their third world customers. It’s blatantly racist and comes from internalizing too much of what Russian bloggers say."

Well, for starters, like the Iraq tanks, their munitions were inferior quality and no additional armor upgrades were integrated, alongside fire control systems, etc. Yes, not having Russians in them, highly trained RPG tank hunter teams, gunships for support, and up to par main battle tanks essentially made them impotent. These aren't excuses, they are facts. Another fact is that a American Bradley IFV has never faced a highly trained Soviet crew in a A-group standard BMP.

*facepalm. You really need to read "Inside the Red Army" by Viktor Suvorov; its a well known book, even cited in wikipedia, amazon.com, and barnes and noble. Monkey model is a term for inferior equipment that essentially looks like a model of equipment, like a T72, though is not equipped with the sophisticated armor, electronics, and weapons systems, ipso facto, making it a entirely different system. These models were sold to non-communist allies, primarily in the Middle East and, to lesser extent, Africa, because their capture would be no big deal (if fact, their strategy to deceive adversaries that capture such models worked profoundly well given the western press about the inferior "T72" used in iraq LOL).

"BTW, I’ll mention that Russian equip couldn’t get close enough in Desert Storm. My former XO Mike Ammons was awarded a bronze star with “V” for destroying two T62s with 25mm when the first Tow round failed to explode because they were within the arming distance. He’ll be entertained."

Like I said before, without their radio-guided ATGMs, modern munitions, crew training, armor, and other battlefield essentials, they were inevitably doomed to failure, not to downplay the individual valor of the Americans that fought them. Not to sound like a *******, I remain extremely dubious that 25mm penetrated a tank's front armor; now shots within the turret ring, especially on these kinds of tanks where the rounds are stored, would yield catastrophic results.

Reply

E. Ronc June 14, 2012 at 10:43 pm

I kind of hung back on this a bit, but I'll throw my 2 cents in. Tom Coburn is a Senator from Oklahoma. He has an "A" NRA rating. I have no idea if he is a shooter or shot an M4. But being from that neck of the woods, I would imagine he has taken the obligatory hunting photo opportunity shot. A staffer originally brought up the M4 to his attention. I believe he was a veteran, though I am not sure. Why would he really care? None of the weapons are made or would be made in his state. I do not see him in FN pocket as some have said. Checked for contributions. http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.ph
The Doctor is at least not a lawyer like most. He upheld his campaign pledge to serve no more than three consecutive terms and did not run for re-election in 2000. In 2004, he returned to political office with a successful run for the Senate. Announced on February 12, 2010 that he was running for a second term in the Senate, but would not run for re-election to a third term in the Senate in 2016.Senate.
He does however sit on these Committees:
• Committee on Finance
o Subcommittee on Health Care
o Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure (Chairman)
o Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight
o United States Senate Finance Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy (Ranking Member)
o Subcommittee on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth
• Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
o Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information and International Security
o Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Ranking Member)
o Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight
• Committee on the Judiciary
o Subcommittee on the Constitution (Ranking Member)
o Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
o Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security
Several of which would I think have him looking into the M4 contracts. His big line is fiscal conservatism. He did get Colt to drop their price. Then after next tussle, open contract to competition. Remington got contract now at cheaper cost per unit.
As for the test, do I believe they were rigged no. The Army wanted the M4, so they put in crap ones… doesn't make much sense. Were a lot of non-standard issues.
Those that say they should be made here. Take a look, FN has a huge plant in Colombia, SC. There is a new HK manufacturing facility in Newington, New Hampshire. The facility is collocated within an existing 70,000 square foot facility.

Reply

crackedlenses June 15, 2012 at 11:54 am

Thanks for the info. If he is just trying to do his job, then he would need someone to come along side and guide him in the right direction, perhaps….

Reply

E. Ronc June 14, 2012 at 10:52 pm

“The price of each 416 “will range anywhere from $800 to $1,425 depending on volume and accessories,” said H&K’s CEO John Meyer Jr.” With quantity comes discount. I also said you could mitigate even more with just buying uppers.

Reply

E. Ronc June 14, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Once again majrod don't list me as a “HK416 for all” fan. My main contention was how much of an improvement is needed to warrant a change? Obviously I think there is. Like I said if the 1% went the other way, I would be backing the M4 since in my mind price difference between them is moot. Don’t want you to think I’m particularly in love with the H&K416. I think/believe there are better pistons systems out there. Using H&K416 in discussion because we have data supporting it, we have units using it and we can just change uppers for an improvement. For all the' M4 for all' fans.

Reply

The truth June 15, 2012 at 8:57 am

So the millions upon millions it will cost to get spare parts, new manuals, new rifles, and new training are worth a maybe 1% upgrade?

You say your not a HK shill but you sure act like one. The 416 is not a bad rifle but it doesnt do anything the M4A1 cant.

And im sorry but the dus test was rigged wether you want to admit it or not. The Amty submitted M4's for the trial, the issue with that is no other Army submitted rifles. Colt should have submitted the M4's for the trial not the Army. Like has been said the documentation is there for those that want the truth, im sorry you dont.

Reply

E. Ronc June 15, 2012 at 12:31 pm

"So the millions upon millions" Minor cost for retraining, have same layout, same controls, biggest difference might in cleaning. Without hot gas going back into receiver, less a need for spare parts. Also a lot of parts will still be common like the whole lower assembly, barrel and more. Plus I never advocated to change whole army, just ones in an operational theater. Where is AWG, Delta or SEALS getting their parts? "the documentation is there for those that want the truth" Never seen an actual report, the majrod likes to see chapter and verse. All I ever see is a lot of well I knew a guy… like I said do I believe test done right, no. So do it right and come up with an actual winner. Did they do this no, they just past out new contract for same thing. Please believe me no shill for H&K. I used as example primarily because there was data. Afore mentioned units using so we have some idea of actual combat use. Lastly all you would have to do is change the upper of existing carbines. Another savings. Do I think we should do it now, no we just gave Remington the contract, the money is spent.

Personally there are better. "In May 2012, the Army selected the companies and rifles that passed phase I of the competition. Phase I eliminated companies that would not have had the production capacity to manufacture sufficient numbers of their rifle." Shows they weren't looking for best rifle. Otherwise they would of tested all. Figure out how to make after, if one of them was selected. I myself tend to favor the LMT or even the Sig 556.

And as always, if the M4 was to win I would be fine with it. I just want are people to have the best with in cost.

Reply

Joshua June 15, 2012 at 1:13 pm

The issue E. Ronc is that the easiest and cheapest fix is in training.

You want to fix the issues with the M16FOW? Stop the white glove clean, stop the scraping of surfaces with god knows what!

I have seen people scrape the bolt and inside of the carrier with everything known to man, ive also seen enough pitted and damaged carriers and bolts from overcleaning to last me a life time.

We need to do away with the white glove mentality. Cleaning the AR-15 should not take more than 10-15 minutes and it should never ever require any type of scraper. A simple good wipedown is honesly all the AR-15 needs daily to run in any environment followed by good lube

The next way to fix the issues is get rid of CLP, I know the Army likes their CLP but IMO….its crap. It drys up fast, ive never had it last me more than 3-4 mags. I chose SLIP2000EWL when I could and id opt for motor oil before CLP.

There is enough testing in the civilian side of things to show just how bad CLP performs compared to SLIP2000.

On the lube topic of lube we need to ditch the mentality of lube attracts sand so its better to run the rifles dry. Thats simply not true, no matter what you do you will get sand in your rifle, lube or no lube. Its better to have wet internals than dry ones when sand is involved, I have seen alot of people running dryrifles to avoid sand only to complain after a few mags about how their rifle is crap and choking, well if it had some lube it wouldnt be choking.

The last thing is mags, mags are expendable, so stop haning onto mags from vietnam. Throw away mags that are dinged and old, better yet move to Pmags exclusively.

Doing those things will not only greatly increase parts life(scraping and pittin parts shortens their life by thousands of round), but it will also greatly increase the reliability of the M16FOW.

I dont care what new rifle we get, we will still preach no lube, still preach white glove(you ever seen how dirty a piston gets in an op rod AR-15?) cause scraping and pitting the piston in the new rifle will make it run poorly too.
And we will still issue crap mags that are bent at the feedlips giving a double feed every mag.

I also look forward to the handguard PiP they are working on, cause the M4 deserves a free float rail.

The simple fact is the M4A1 is the best small arms rifle there is, is it perfect? No, nothing is.

Reply

E. Ronc June 15, 2012 at 5:54 pm

Sorry, when you say training I have this picture of Bill Murray in Stripes. Training has always been part of my mantra, as a guy who did his time IN the pond with a lot of water over his head, it is one of the things we did more than anything else. One of the reasons I asked FormerSFMedic about the CNA report and to see if there is a cleaning standard now. A couple of you have mention scraping off coatings. They are there for a reason and there should be a (uniform) way to make carbon disappear, while leaving coatings intact.

Now here in New England I don't have a lot of environmental issues, if it is cold enough to freeze the boys off I ain't going out. Other than that I haven't had much else to gripe about. I also run my semi-auto M4 size rifle with Fail Zero parts: [UCT Coatings' patented, military-proven EXO Technology. This unique, breakthrough technology creates a permanently lubricious surface, harder than the substrate itself, which eliminates the need for grease, oil, or any wet lubrication for the life of the weapon. Unlike films, conventional coatings and applied lubricants, it will never rub off, never flake off, never build up crud. EXO Technology eliminates wet-lubrication failures of critical components, giving you an "active weapon advantage" under all conditions.}
How much of that is BS, not sure. But it does clean with just a wipe. Then again I in no desert dumping mag after mag through it. As to CLP I've used break free and lately M-Pro7. Here really not a big deal. Sent friends kid in Afghanistan Militec-1, was what he asked for when there. The SLIP2000EWL looks like a good product and I will look for it. Wonder how it compares to Militec-1. A look at either's web site and you think you found the holy grail. But once again a dilemma. Army has no clear cut policy on which cleaners or how to clean. Need a laugh: http://www.militec.com/video/militec.html

Agree magazine key to system, get reliable ones. One of the best things about the M4/16 family is it's age. Already done a lot of the growing pains, now refinements like a free floating barrel and maybe an Exo coated bolt and trigger group, will just top it off. Is it perfect, no. Is it very good as is yes.

Reply

Joshua June 15, 2012 at 6:14 pm

E. Ronc(if you wonder, i put our name so you know im addressing you)

I have looked at EXO coating and while nice it is no match for a screw driver or a knife.

Those are some of the things I have seen people use to scrape cabon off their bolt tail and inside the carrier chamber in order to pass the white glove clean.

Trust me from experience, all you need is a wrag or tshirt to clean the AR-15 bolt carrier group. Whatever carbon cannot be removed by just wiping is of no issue. The AR-15 is self limiting and self scraping, if there is carbon its because there is no contact there and the carbon on the bolt tail and chamber are also self limiting.

Years of M4 and AR-14 use has led to believe all you need is a good wipe down and lube and the rifle will never fail.

As long as we are held up on carbon no rifle will be safe.

Ive also seen people scraping the crown on their rifles, this destorys accuracy of the rifle, but you gotta make sure you get all that copper residue that is self limiting……

You see what im saying? The biggest issues with the M16FOW is how we treat them. Once you gouge the bolt tail or inisde of the carrier it changes everything about how the rifle cycles and functions.

The biggest thing we could do is teach proper cleaning and lubrication.

The whole scraping with screwdrives and steel sectional bore rods has to stop.

Reply

E. Ronc June 14, 2012 at 11:05 pm

Surprised you didn't ask him for chapter and verse?

Reply

E. Ronc June 14, 2012 at 11:57 pm

"If you look at the Army’s evolution from the 1903 Springfield to the M16 family you can see MAJOR improvements in lethality, accuracy, reliability or weight in EVERY case. Technology just hasn’t delivered a major improvement, yet."
Slightly off the mark a bit, 1903 8.67 lb with an effective range 0f 656 yd (600 m) (more with optic). Maximum range 1,200 yd (1,097 m). M1 Grand weighed more at 9.5 lb., effective range (without optics) range down a bit due to bleed from gas piston. M14 comes in a touch heavier at 9.8 lb with an effective range 800+ m (875+ yd) (with optics).
So we went from a highly accurate bolt action to something that weighed more, lost some range. Then up again to the M14 for a tad more weight. Till the great M16 with a loaded weight more than the 1903. Dropping to 5.56mm showed "improvements in lethality". Somehow I doubt that especially at say, 600 yards. Some would say no big technology jump between M1 Grand and M14. But if you were to let a WWII era soldier choose which do you think he would take?

"BTW, only the Army awards the CIB but I get where you were going." If you knew where he was going why bother. Maybe should of told him navy doesn't have sergeants or majors. But since I'm fairly sure he knows that and I knew where he was going I won't bother.

Reply

E. Ronc June 15, 2012 at 12:25 am

"Also the dust test was demanded by Coburn after Wanat, the issues at Wanat also was not the M4′s fault. Yes there was M4 failuers at Wanat but the media horribly blew it out of proportion, M4′s used as LMG’s are bound to fail. If you look at Keating it lasted longer and more ammo was expended than Wanat." "Of course Coburn would never mention that since he clearly knows the M4 is a horrible weapon, and admitting there were no failures and more ammo expended at keating would be detrimental to his argument." Well to be fair, Wanat and Keating were about a year apart and Coburn had already asked for the test. I do agree most of the problems at Wanat were from treating M4′s as LMG’s. "Keating it lasted longer and more ammo was expended." I don't know how much ammo was used at either? The key was the rate of fire. But with bad guys in the wire you can't say wait till my M4 cools so I can shoot you

Reply

E. Ronc June 15, 2012 at 12:37 am

For FormerSFMedic

I was reading the December 2006 survey, conducted on behalf of the Army by CNA Corp., conducted over 2,600 interviews with Soldiers returning from combat duty.
http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/S

From Page 32:
Soldiers issued cleaning kits were less likely to experience stoppages
and more likely to be confident in weapon reliability. Weapon
cleaning type and frequency had little impact on stoppages and repairs
overall. However, soldiers who frequently performed quick
wipe-down cleanings experienced more stoppages. Frequency of
disassembled cleanings had no effect on the occurrence of stoppages.
Variations in lubrication practices, such as type of lubrication
used and amount of lubrication applied, also had little effect on
stoppages. Using a dry lubricant decreased reports of stoppages only
for the M4 users. However, soldiers using a non-Army issued lubricant
were more likely to have confidence in the reliability of their
weapon.
Any thoughts on this conclusion?

Reply

crackedlenses June 15, 2012 at 12:02 pm

@E.Ronc,

In our previous discussion I believe you indicated that the M4's issues were as much perception as reality. If buying non-issued lube and being issued cleaning kits boost confidence, then doesn't that solve the perception issue? Not debating the actual number of stoppages, but if perception is the issue, then couldn't you fix the problems without actually having to purchase a new weapon?

Justing thinking out loud….

Reply

E. Ronc June 15, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Can see perception of M4 reliability going up. Several factors now helping, updated parts (like extractor parts, a feed ramp or heavier barrels) being one, from other post improved magazines another. Last the proper care of an M4 in that environment.
That why I asked FormerSFMedic to weigh in on CNA report. More for a proper cleaning and to why something's might of helped or hindered. Like, "soldiers who frequently performed quick
wipe-down cleanings experienced more stoppages." I would believe it is because sand and crap would stick to oil so at least on outside of weapon, not best Idea maybe?

The spent the dime now so Individual carbine competition a mute point. Need to make the reality the M4 into being all it can be. But I think it perception will be going up.

Reply

Lance June 15, 2012 at 12:41 am

I do agree at closer ranges 5.56mm dose a bit more damage due to tumbling to flesh than 7.62mm NATO dose. However 7.62 NATO dose better on vehicle damage and long range past 500 yards. hence the current M-4 and M-110/M-14 combo going on.

The M-14 was good for its day too. The main draw down to the M-14 like the FAL was its 7.62mm round is too BIG to be a assault rifle round for infantrymen.

Reply

The truth June 15, 2012 at 8:53 am

Cmon E. Ronc, wait till my M4 cools to shoot you? Please.

It doesn matter if its a piston or not treating a Carbine as a LMG will have adverse side effect. I you look a Wanat there was more spray and pray than alot of engagements, the fact that they were engaging using burst mode shows that.

Keating used more ammo than Wanat, at Keating they went black on all ammo but 5.56 and .50. The soldiers expended far more ammo at Keating it was also 4-5hrs longer than Wanat. The difference is the soldiers at Keating were true soldiers. They were trained and did not as warriors and did not freak out when being engaged like the soldiers at Wanat did.

The fact that soldiers at Wanat just threw down their rifles when they got to hot to hold shows really what kind of soldiers they were

Reply

E. Ronc June 15, 2012 at 9:48 am

"It doesn matter if its a piston or not treating a Carbine as a LMG will have adverse side effect." I concur whole hardily with that. "Keating they went black on all ammo but 5.56 and .50. The soldiers expended far more ammo at Keating it was also 4-5hrs longer than Wanat." A couple things to notice of here A) Longer battle, more ammo expended. B) Looks to me then Keating used all their 7.62 ammo. So they got a lot more use out of their 240's. Not to mention they did have 50. Wanat's took round in feed tray early.

Also look at overall layouts, Keating was larger, after the initial assault they were able to fall back to the out buildings, larger fields of fire. Wanat you were pretty much where your were. Stuck with a bad layout, unfinished defenses, hotel/bazaar complex able to put MG fire on area. Initial assault pretty much left those not dead, dazed, 120 mortar and TOW out.

"The difference is the soldiers at Keating were true soldiers." That shows a lot of balls for someone not there at Wanat. My point is if all you have is an M4, do you not shoot at the guys close enough to throw rocks or wait for it to cool down. Do I believe they were using as a LMG on occasion sure, with almost no other suppressive fire weapon. "threw down their rifles when they got to hot to hold " And I guess your answer would be to hold it and get burned rather than get something else. The 173rd Airborne is not your ill equipped National Guard unit but professional soldiers. You can take that "freak out when being engaged" and stuff it.

Reply

majrod June 15, 2012 at 10:24 am

xcalbr – I've read the book. Again, you aren't thinking through. I was a CO during DS. I was serving in Germany. Who do you think we were supposed to be fighting? I'm more than a little familiar with Soviet equipment. Our GDP was behind the Fulda Gap (3rd Armored Div). BTW, had discussions with E. German and Soviets discussing equip and have been in their vehicles. Have you? I'm not a fanboy or speaking from google experience. (facepalm)

BTW, never said Mike shot up T62s in the front (rear turret). The point was you said they'd never get close enough.

We're done here.

Reply

xcalbr June 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm

you think I haven't been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan? or examined foreign weaponry and equipment?

It utterly amazes me that people think they can judge the effectiveness of Russian equipment because of desert storm and OIF. That is utterly ******* stupid. God forbid you mention the limitations of the high priesthood of armor.

If you really did read the book, you wouldnt have made the inane "racist comment". Youre right, were done.

Reply

E. Ronc June 15, 2012 at 6:47 pm

Joshua the EXO coating actually penetrates the metal much like bluing. So if you use a knife or scraper you will be taking pieces off the BCG, will you nick down past coatings penetration sure possible. The thing is with it there is no need to use a knife or scraper, what little carbon does stick is easily just wiped away with it your rag or T shirt. "scraping the crown on their rifles" now I feel I'll. My FN SPR has such a nice recessed crown. Damn if that important to them for cleaning, use a copper solvent.

"Once you gouge the bolt tail or inisde of the carrier it changes everything about how the rifle cycles and functions. The biggest thing we could do is teach proper cleaning and lubrication." I'm on board with what you have said. I do believe they should take your comments on white gloving a weapon right out of the equation. It is pointless and detrimental. I'm just looking for a decent set of cleaning instructions to follow. A universal standard. This is after all the military still, there should be a clear documented procedure for this. Stating like you said certain amounts of carbon is allowable for your reasons you already listed. What type lube works best, in say what condition.

Reply

Joshua June 15, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Honestly E.Ronc, if it was me I would say a good thorough wipe down of the bolt carrier group and inside the upper, a good cleaning of the chamber(by good i mean a 20-30 seconds of twisting the chamber brush) and a couple of bore snakes down the bore is all you need, even in a dusty environment.

there is no need to scrape off carbon(what needs to come off will with a rag), there is no need to scrape the crown(copper buildup does not effect anything since its self limiting), and there is no need to scrub the chamber like there is no tomorrow(you want it clean but dont overdo it)

after cleaning liberally apply a good lube, i personally use SLIP2000EWL since I have found it to last longer than most lubes and it does not attract as much dust as other lubes do either. it also has pretty good rust protection.

before going outside the wire each rifle should get a good bit of lube applied to the bolt carrier group(cam pin, gas rings, guide rails on carrier), you can never overlube a rifle, its not possible. what is not needed will be slung off.

keeping it lubed in the field will keep it running no matter how sandy it is. just look at what pat rogers did with filthy 14(google it) he also has numerous rifles that are in the 12-20 thousand round counts with no cleaning.

Reply

E. Ronc June 16, 2012 at 3:01 am

Joshua. Well, I think I would like one of them Otis kits. Here at the house I usually just use my coated one piece rod to clean with, Kleen bore made it if I remember right. I do have a snake for the FN. I usually run it after every 5 rounds while out shooting. If you're in/from the New England area look me up.

Reply

E. Ronc June 16, 2012 at 12:21 pm

The Battle of Bunker Hill took place on June 17, 1775, mostly on and around Breed's Hill. Continental Army authorized three days before. No politician picked out their equipment. They brought their own rifles and kit to work. Also Lincoln didn't do real bad picking out the sharps, then again he was suppose to be a real good shot. I gotta stop hanging out at armory.

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 8:14 am

The Army needs a new carbine, face it. Compared to modern rifles the M4 is probably one of the lower end rifles.

While the M4A1 may be reliable it could be better.
The M4A1 uses a 60yr old TDP with outdated materials and techniques.
The M4A1 when using M855A1 has a bolt and barrel life o 5,000 rounds.
The M4A1 is very dependent on lubrication to keep it running in sand.
The M4A1 requires more maintenance.
The M4A1 is a 4-5 MOA rifle.

The M4 PiP is failing, the bolt carrier group and operating system PiP have been cancelled so at the end of the M4 PiP we will have a FF M4A1.

The IC is the way to go.

The IC rifles use a TDP comprised of modern day materials and techniques.
The IC rifles will cost on par what the M4A1 does.
The IC rifles have a bolt and barrel life of 10,000 on M855A1.
The IC rifles have better ergonomics(ARX-160IC, ACR, FNAC, BEAR).
The IC rifles are not dependent of lubrication, while still requiring lubrication they do not need a constan supply to run.
The IC rifles are more resistant to sand and dust and will run longer with fewer stoppages than the M4A1.
The IC rifles have a higher cookoff point.

It should be obvious that the IC is the way to go and our soldiers deserve the best. To field 500,000 rifles it would cost us $600mil. About the cost of a F-35.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 10:58 am

You dont know squat about weapons. Any new weapon would be billions not just for the new weapon but for accessories manuals and training. The IC contenders dont offer squat over the PIP M-4A1 and this whole program is a waste of money.

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 11:12 am

It would be worth it.

Also it would be more like $800mil after everything is purchased.

I have seen your other posts Lance and I am sorry but YOU, are the one who does not know rifles.

You think the M4A1 is the be all end all, IT IS NOT! A rifle with 5,000 bolt and barrel life is not the beat rifle, a rifle that requires constant lubrication to run in dusty conditions is not the best rifle, a 4-5moa rifle is not the best rifle.

I am sorry Lance but you are mistaken. I am not saying the M4A1 is a horrible rifle, its actually a good rifle, but our Military deserves the BEST, the M4A1 is not the BEST.

The IC rifles offer double the parts life, double the accuracy on M855, they offer less needed maintenance in cleaning, and they are far less reliant on lubrication.

The bet Military in the world deserves the best small arms, and the IC offers that.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 11:23 am

Another SCAR lover sorry your IC is dying and I guess you resort to name calling like most SCAR lovers to make up that IC offer nothing. Cook off is a none factor since the M-4A1 can match the light barreled IC competitors. The FNAC offer no real accuracy over a M-4A1 and. fact is the M-4A1 is better than any rifle in the market little one in military use all over the world. Fact is no matter who we fight we will face enemy's with older AK and AKM rifles.

Rifle are NOT the be all and end all of wars and is not worth the waste in money now.

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 11:33 am

SCAR lover? An you say im callig names.

Honestly I do not like the SCAR the recoil patterns it exhibits tends to break optics and peq's far earlier than other rifles.
The SCAR is not the only IC rifle either.

You seem to ignore the parts life issue as well. You can say what you want but the M4 is not the best rifle in the world, its not, just ask AWG.

The HK416IC, the ARX-160IC, the ACR all are rated for 10,000 bolt and barrel life with M855A1, all run cleaner and do not require nearly as much lubrication, all run much longer when dusty than the M4A1, all offer 2 MOA with M855 and sub 1MOA with MK262, somethin the M4 cannot do, all can pass the OTB test, the M4 cannot.

The switch would be worth it, and its good for people like Coburn who challenge the Military in upgrading.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 11:44 am

The M-4A1 was NEVER tested in the dust and accuracy test. The Beretta ARX-160 isn't in the competition. A HK-416 is a AR just with a piston and offer no real advantage over a M-4A1 with a FF rail.

Colburn is taking money from a none mentioned Belgian gun maker and has been for years. Doesn't matter the Army is broke and will be in hawk soon. there no money for this and it isn't worth it.

You can disagree but the fact is the M-4is going to stay as the main rifle for the Army. There no other weapon thats a major step ahead in production so IC is a waste.

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 11:52 am

Lance the ARX-160 is in the IC. Beretta reps said so during shot joking the mods they made it Americanized it.

Also the HK416 is proven to be far more reliable than the M4A1, AWG has proven this in testing.

Colburn really does want the best for our soldiers and the ICis that.

You still ignore the OTB tests, the better accuracy, and the fact that the IC rifles offer double the parts life.

I'm sorry but people like you are what halts advancements, you are to hung up on the Stoner system to realize there are better.

Reply

E. Ronc June 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm

I believe the switch would of been worth it, but now that Remington has a new contract it is a moot point, the money is spent. The army is holding out for that "Game Changer." There is better out there than the M4. The "fact is the M-4A1 is better than any rifle in the market little one{wonder?} in military use all over the world". It is a good rifle, no one denies that, it is used all over the world much for the same reason as the AK, it's been around for awhile and had a decent price and we gave a bunch to others or sold at reduced price. We could of done better. Army locked on M4. All other contenders don't offer a substantial INCREASE, oh that means they did better. The M4 is ACCEPTIBLE. When the ARMY itself uses these lines that's what bother me. It means we don't have the best out there.

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Nothing is set in stone.

The Army has stated that the Remington M4A1's would replace old M16's if yhe IC goes through. The Army will only purchase 500,000 of whichever rifle wins.

Yall still fail to mention the bad points of the M4. 5,000 M855A1 bolt and barrel life, the constant need for more and more lubrication, the excessive cleaning, the 4-5MOA accuracy.

Fact is while the M4 is a good rifle more and more SOF groups are moving away from the M4 to newer rifles, which a few are in the IC. The Army would be fools to not replace the M4.

The reason so many people chose the M4 is because at the time 1990-2006 it was the best, but its 2012 and there is better.

Reply

E. Ronc June 22, 2012 at 12:52 pm

"no real advantage over a M-4A1 with a FF rail." Does it have the FF rail yet. So wearing out parts less frequently, keeping the weapon cooler an increase in reliability is "No real advantage." FN paying Coburn nice accusation, any proof. I checked his donor list. Not there. FN is not located in his state why care if not for his position on the committees
"the fact is the M-4is going to stay as the main rifle for the Army." Correct the M4 is it. But do listen closely "There no other weapon thats a major step ahead in production so IC is a waste." A major step depends on your definition, if just works better than, no you might be right.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 12:54 pm

Sorry but you both have been arguing the same failed points with Joshua and Majrod for a while. You can argue that one IC rifle has a high point here and there. But it doesn't warrant change since overall they all 5.56mm and same area of performance as the M-4.

Overall except for WW2 the Army hasn't had the most revolutionary rifles in the world. In WW1 we had 03 which where same as the Gewher 98. In the 50s we had M-1 still the Soviets where moving to the AK-47. In Spanish American war we had crappy Kraig 1892 rifle vs far better Spanish 1893 Mausers.

Rifle dont make the be all and in all in rifles. In army ways we kept in pair with the world and done just fine with weapons we had.

Reply

E. Ronc June 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Believe you are correct you're not going to get substantial change while using 5.56. Performance of the round is not however performance of the rifle though. The M1 was great but the Germans had a few innovations on their side, not all issued bolt Mausers.
"Rifle dont make the be all and in all in rifles." ????
So we should strive to stay on par. Not better than the other guys because we can do just fine with whatever?

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Lance unless we enter into WWIII our wars will be similar to Iraq.

We need the best small arms and our soldiers deserve it.

You have no points that make the M4A1 a good candidate.

And while we are still using 5.56 all of the IC rifles do indeed shoot it more accurately, that right there increases the lethalit of the 5.56 by allowing our soldiers to get more hits in the important points on targets.

Add that to a cleaner cooler more reliable and durable rifle with better ergonomics nd you have a rifle that is a big upgrade.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Strange ive seen M-4s out shoot men with your fav IC guns. your reading too many Eurogun sale pitches. You have no experience.

ron June 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm

WE all should raise **** about this !!!and call your Rep and Senators If you guys are going to bitck about this ,***** to your Rep and Senators.Put a lot of pressure on them to do the right thing for our troops. And ***** loud and clear about colt!!!WE all know what needs to be done.

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 2:44 pm

I think I will do that. We need to get more people on board with Tom Coburn.

Reply

E. Ronc June 22, 2012 at 4:49 pm

About the test. I see a lot of people say this, but no one shows an actual report, with the Army pushing so hard for the M4 you think they would of issued at least a statement that listed over gassing of the rifles and other discrepancies or abnormalities in the testing . Not a blank well, we all in the know knew. Sorry as Majrod would say that don't fly. Because "the results show that it was rigged." So if a result comes out as a surprise in testing, it must of been rigged? Not too much logic in that.

As I've said the M4 is a **** of a system, but it does have short comings in certain areas. Please don't be that foolish to think its perfect. God forbid anything could do actually do better than it, is all I hear. But yet your top professionals, the people who are suppose to be in the know like; the AWG, Deltas and SEALS don't have to go M4. Think about that. Ask yourself again why a man in the tops of his profession isn't picking the M4 if it was all your making it out to be.

Reply

Joshua June 22, 2012 at 8:08 pm

ok this has gotten odd.

M855A1 is correct in a way, its a fact M855A1 does indeed reduce barrel life and bolt life, since its running at nearly proof load strength.

I have heard the Army is looking at ways to fix this, but I am not sure how true that is. I do know the Marines will not adopt it until it is fixed.

as far as parts life on the M4A1, I have personally experienced about 7,000 bolt life and longer for the barrel, that is still pretty good, while not 10,000 its not 5,000 either.

for accuracy the main issue the M4A1 suffers is the non FF KAC M4 RAS. having used a FF drop in rail on the M4 before I can say I was getting about 1.5-2MOA using MK318SOST which is good. you have to remember M855 was a 3-4MOA bullet, no special barrel will make it perform better, bullet construction is HUGE in accuracy and M855 is a 3-4MOA bullet.

from what I hear current production M855A1 is a 1.5-2MOA bullet, but it is also built using older outdated machines, if it ever gets started on new machines who knows what it will be.

as far as reliability, the M4 does not need constant cleaning, a wipe down in the morning and at night was good enough for me(unless I had to pass an inspection then it was scraping for days on end). the M4 does not need to be scraped like the Military teaches, honestly a wipe down with a T-shirt is all it needs. the M4 is self scraping and self limiting in where carbon builds up.

the M4 does require alot of lube to run in a sandy environment, but I think one of the main issues(that gets passed around as all lubes) is CLP, to me and my experiences its crap. I have never had it last more than 5 mags or so. I personally use SLIP2000EWL, or Motor oil when im out of SLIP, I have had nearly 1,000 rounds of M855 through my M4 on just one lubing with SLIP, it is also built to NOT attract sand and dust, while it still does, it is nothing like CLP.

sure the M4 PiP could have had better results, but the M4A1 is not outclassed by any current rifle to date, are there some that are slightly better? sure, but not enough to afford the cost.

while the other PiP categories have failed, the handguard part will 95% likely give us a FF handguard since it is easy to see the advantages.

@Lance, you gotta calm down. I know you like the M4 but you do come off as someone who refuses to admit that it will be replaced eventually. I dont think it will be with another 5.56 rifle(unless we get one with no chances to ever fail or break parts).

Reply

E. Ronc June 22, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Finally sanity prevails.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 9:14 pm

I do agree someday the M-4 will be replaced LSAT is like a new rifle that warrents a possible replacement. I do say none of the IC have such a break threw. I admit I got nerved. But that just because its the same tired false hoods from the 07 dust test and the claims from FNH company.

Some claim SOCOM doesn't use M-4s but they do they stopped the SCAR L in favor of keeping M-4A1s so elite units still have them.

Overall your right someday Phasers will become a infantry reality.

Reply

Joshua June 22, 2012 at 9:23 pm

ALOT of SOCOM uses the M4A1 with the SOPMOD Block II package.

you have to understand a few things about SOCOM, they have a set funding that they can spend.

when the SCAR-L came out, it performed great but had a habit of breaking SOPMOD package items faster than the M4A1 was because of its unique recoil impulses. SOCOM decided that because they get M4A1's for free that their limited funds would be better spent focusing on Block II products as well as the MK17 and MK20 rifles.

why spend your limited funds on MK16's when you get M4A1's for free, the M4A1's performed at least to a 99% capacity of the MK16 and with the Block II products bridging that 1% gap, they felt this was a better way to spend their funds than actually paying for a 5.56 rifle that honestly didnt do anything better than a SOPMOD M4A1.

the MK16 did not get dropped because it was a bad rifle, it performed everything it was supposed to, but it did not offer enough improvement to warrant the spending of their budget.

Reply

E. Ronc June 23, 2012 at 2:45 am

Now my questions, are the regular troops getting the SOPMOD Block II? That is one of my problems with the system. We treat some troops one way and others, well you get what you get. Always agreed SCAR-L not worth the money difference. But SOCOM also bought H&K416. Did they dump these when they did the SCAR-L? The small difference in performance upgrade by going with a piston system, at least in my mind would be offset by a low cost to convert by just basically changing the uppers. Haven't seen too many lowers wear out. You could get a lot of your Block 2 features like FF rails standard on the new uppers for all, not just elite troops. Sure you could get half a dozen companies to compete for a new upper. LMT, PWS, SIG, H&K, LWRC, CMMG, POF and even Colt came to mind.

Joshua June 23, 2012 at 11:34 am

Only SF groups use the Block II M4A1's.

Standard troops are using the M4/M4A1MWS(modular weapon system) package.

The main reason for the HKM4 bein developed(later renamed the HK416) was to address the issues with the DI system in the 10.3" MK18 package. HK later tried to corner the marke with their piston design which at this point did no work for them.

Anyone running 14.5" M4's are running DI Block II's. Where a piston really shines is short weapons like the MK18.

The MK18 is rated for 5,000 rounds bolt life which is not a lot, while the HK416 is rated for 10,000 bolt life in the 10.3" package. This basically gives you M4A1 parts life in the MK18 package.

It should be noted the 14.5" HK416 the polish use is also rated for 10,000 rounds which is what the Block II M4A1's is rated for. Having talked to my Polish friend the HK416 is a great rifle but the piston if it gets gouged its toast. They had a few die from being scraped to remove carbon and once the piston got goiged it would no longer function.

Reply

E. Ronc June 24, 2012 at 12:22 am

Yeah I knew piston shined in the SBR. If I remember right H&K had to renamed due to Colt complaining copyright on M4 name. What do these people have against a little carbon? Ever here of carbon remover? Stop the scraping and gouging.

Reply

Joshua June 29, 2012 at 9:49 pm

E.Ronc

got some info for you.

I talked to my armor buddy who knows his stuff. I also talked to my buddy in the Norwegian Army again(for some reason I keep saying Polish….hes Norwegian….)

anyways. the bolt on the M4A1 will develop microscopic cracks at around 5,000 rounds. the bolt will then last around 8,000-14,000 rounds depending on use. if its a hard use rifle thats seen alot of automatic fire it will go around 8,000, if its been a mix it will go around 14,000.

Now in heavy use units the bolts get replaced at 5,000 rounds just for the added security of knowing the bolt wont give out prematurely.

now my buddy in the Norwegian military has said their HK416 bolts go 10,000-14,000 rounds, he also stated the rifles require similar maintenance to the M4A1, the difference being the carbon is in the piston vs the bolt carrier group.

he also said the rifles still require plenty of lube to run in the deserts of afghanistan.

so basically there is very little difference between the HK416 and the M4A1 other than the FF rail(excluding SOCOM).

Reply

E. Ronc June 30, 2012 at 12:22 am

Joshua: So the bolts are rated pretty close to each other. I would suspect other internals to wear out a little quicker with hot gas being dumped into the rifle, but not a huge deal breaker. Any decent armor when he changed the bolt should inspect internals for wear and tear and replace what was necessary. Cook off should also occur a little earlier on DI. How much earlier should probably be quantified if we want to know.

Reply

Joshua July 1, 2012 at 9:26 pm

M4A1 is rated for 210 rounds before cookoff, the HK416 is rated for 240 rounds.

cook off is related to the chamber so the only real diff is the barrel material.

Bolts are indeed rated very similar to each other. one thing to note is that the whole piston is cooler than DI has been very overplayed, there is not a huge difference according to testing done by multiple sources on the internet. after 150rnds on full auto the Colt bolt was 90*F the HK416 was 78*F, certainly not enough of a diff to cause any issues.

Reply

E. Ronc July 1, 2012 at 9:41 pm

Thanks for the cook off numbers Joshua. I still believe the heat on the bolt should contribute some. How much, I'm not sure. I think if the barrels were created "equal" that at some point the extra heat from the bolt should add to the overall temperature in the chamber. Seems like pretty much straight physics. Unless I'm missing something? Wonder what it's like at say 200rds for both?

Reply

NMate July 2, 2012 at 4:07 am

It's pretty simple what you do. You fund the LSAT LMG and Carbine completely, wait for the technology to fully cook, then you deploy it. Getting a SCAR or product improved M4 isn't going to make much of a difference. Coburn is an ****** anyway, the M4 is a good weapon. The LSAT is the only thing I can think of that would actually be worth the trouble and expense of issuing a new rifle.

Reply

E. Ronc July 2, 2012 at 6:35 am

All Politician are Ahats, I don't think this one particularly worse than others. Even if you consider "misguided" at best, at least he take some interest in our troops and our money. "wait for the technology to fully cook" Kind of a catch all isn't it. How is it fully cooked? I think some of your cooking has been done. They tried the SCAR-L. Decide not worth the extra money. Tried the H&K416 and still use it.

As I said the M4 is a good system. The M4 has been improving like a good wine as it ages. "product improved M4 isn't going to make much of a difference". I agree it isn't going to make that big a difference. But my whole line of thought was why continue to pay for an M4 when you could have that even that little bit of difference for roughly the same price.

Think of it like a UPS truck. The M4 comes out 15 years ago getting 25mpg. Fast forward to now. The M4 has been improved and now getting 35. It's competitor is getting 38mpg. If all else is the same which do you buy? Now the LSAT is coming and it promising 50mpg. Our problem is we're not sure when were gonna get the LSAT or even what it will cost. The answer normally would be save your money up and wait to get the big jump. The problem is our fleet needs more trucks now.

Over simplification yeah, but I believe it basically where we stand. There are advantages to keeping old, training cost, parts, and such. I think there is not enough difference between the two to worry about them. I might be wrong, but if it was my money, I think at the very least a cost analyst should be done. And that, I think is the Senator who sits on Committee on Finance and Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would like to see also.

Reply

top dog June 21, 2013 at 10:51 am

"Senator Blocks Nomination of Acquisitions Chief over Carbine"__________________And they wonder why very few people like teapublicans…they are like the mafia

Reply

David Reeder June 12, 2012 at 8:43 pm

"It has always struck me in a wierd way that someone with no military background can seemingly know just what the soldier needs."

Sadly there were probably NCOs marching off to Gettysburgh…or Bunker Hill even, that said the same thing.

Reply

David Reeder June 12, 2012 at 8:47 pm

Honestly I don't know enough about it to really comment on the matter (which is one of the reasons I'm following this thread so closely). FYI when I mentioned "epithets and profane names" I meant as in "directed at each other". I'd just prefer to see the folks on here keep it reasonably civil (though I realize subject matter can get us all heated). That actually wasn't directed at anyone making a comment about a political figure.

By and large though, when it comes to politicians I always assume they're shady and/or an integral part of the world's largest entrenched bureaucracy until they prove me wrong. No one has proven me wrong in years.

Reply

Lance June 12, 2012 at 9:33 pm

Agreed sadly there where some who wanted to keep 03s over M-1s which thankfully the Generals didn't listen to him.

Reply

David Reeder June 13, 2012 at 8:56 pm

Got it; sorry it took me so long, been on the road.

Reply

M855A1 June 22, 2012 at 1:32 pm

Maybe custom M4's using match OTM ammo, but not a standard issue M4 using M855.
You are still dancing around everything else.

Part life, constant need for lube, and sensitivity to sand and dust unless incredibly wet.

Reply

FormerSFMedic June 22, 2012 at 2:34 pm

When did you see an M4 out shoot an ICC gun? You were there Lance?

Reply

E. Ronc June 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm

"Eurogun sale pitches." Let's take a quick look, they are all made right here. FN Manufacturing, located in Columbia, South Carolina. H&K has location a manufacturing location in New Hampshire. The Beretta USA factory, in Accokeek, Maryland. Anything chosen will be built here. Please stop with that drivel.
You make unfounded accusations about a Senator. You try to rewrite history. The StG 44 was probably the most important design going forward to come out of WWII. The true beginning of even what we are talking about here. You refused to see any advantage in a piston system. "you both have been arguing the same failed points." The points did not fail, you refuse to acknowledge anything that might make your beloved M4 look bad. Putting your head in the sand doesn't make it so. Just whatever you do don't put your M4 in the sand.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 4:13 pm

Try looking up various matches and look at various accuracy reports. Joshua has some insight on this.

By the way you SCAR lover can can cry to Tom Colburn all you want but since most of you never carried a weapon I doubt it'll make a difference.

Reply

Lance June 22, 2012 at 4:42 pm

I know you love your HK 416 and its a fine weapon. BUT IC wont adopted and you seem to not grasp that. The USMC and other services have all stated they will not adopt a ICC winner and the Army is talking about dumping IC so get over it.

Reply

FormerSFMedic June 22, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Honestly E. Ronc, I'm not sure why anyone debates with Lance. I know I'm guilty of it too sometimes but honestly his trolling comments should be ignored. The funny thing about it is, I don't think he's actually a troll. I just think his bad attitude and ill intentions make him act like one. Regardless of whether or not we have a troll here, we shouldn't give in to anyone that shows disrespect or posts comments for the sake of provoking an emotional response from us. Honestly, I can't figure out how the moderators have let this go on for this long. I currently moderate two other websites and I can guarantee that this kind of behaviour would not be tolerated. That's why he hasn't come over there. At least not using his current screen name.

You may be wondering what the harm is engaging in debate with Lance. IMO, the comments section is a vital piece of the write up. Many readers, not just the ones who comment, read our posts to learn more information. This information may just be interesting, increase the readers knowledge and tactical skill level, or literally save a life. We have the same responsibility as the writers who write for this site to put out good information and most importantly, put out truthful information. Trolls don't care about objectivity or truth as you have seen today. I know this comment is harsh, but it's time someone put it out there. I have been nice and sat back and let it go on for far to long. Something needs to be done and it needs to be done now. Some may hate for this post, but I'm willing to leave kitup if I have to.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: