Has a replacement for the M4 been found?

Exit the M4 and Enter the M14 EBR
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3e6ca43062de.png[/atsimg]
If your not familiar there is a current debate on the effectiveness of the M4 main battle rifle... not just a question of reliability but also ranges beyond 300 meters. The Bad guys know to stay beyond 300 meters thus out of range of the M4... what to do what to do?

Back in 2004 the Army did request gun Manufactures haul out candidates for a possible M4 replacement. Nothing was done at the time but with need comes opportunity..
Folks this, or a variant of, is most likely candidate as replacement for the M4

March 23rd 2010 the ArmyTimes Posted this story...

The Army is doubling the number of 7.62mm weapons in the infantry squad, increasing soldiers’ long-range killing power in the wide-open expanses of Afghanistan.

Since the beginning of the war, a typical nine-man infantry squad has included a single squad-designated marksman, armed with a surplus M14 rifle for engaging the enemy beyond the 300-meter range of M4s and M16s.

Today, squads are deploying to Afghanistan with two SDMs, each armed with the M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle, a modernized version of the Vietnam War-era weapon that’s accurate out to 800 meters.

I have contacted a brother Marine and unofficially they have their own orders for M14 EBR's too.

For now it's being treated as a support weapon but we'll see as this gets into the hands of the front line troops





[edit on 28-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

I do not think they will actually replace the M4 with this. The M4 is a superior weapon system in a larger variety of scenariors. The 7.62 x 51 Nato (.308) is chamber of the M14 EBR, and yes, that is a superior round over 400 yards. They are also testing M4 chambers in 6.8 spc, alot of those in the field currently from what I understand. I think one of the issues they will run into with trying to replace the M4 with the M14 is the weight issue. The weight of carrying a standard load out of .308 ammo plus the heavier M14 would dramatically reduce the firepower of a squad. You would basically cut the ammo carried in half. All of that being said... The M14 in either orginal configuration or the EBR is a fine weapon system capable of ranges more than the discussed 800 meters.

I'd really like to see the M14 return as a standard rifle. 7.62mm is an urban environment is incredibly useful, from what I've heard. Cuts through masonry like nothing else. Bit difficult to use in a tight space, where it's so long.

Originally posted by ShadeWolf
I'd really like to see the M14 return as a standard rifle. 7.62mm is an urban environment is incredibly useful, from what I've heard. Cuts through masonry like nothing else. Bit difficult to use in a tight space, where it's so long.

It pays to be an Old Dude
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d3696135226a.jpg[/atsimg]

Quote from Firing line

The rifle is none other than AWC System Technologies’ M14/M1A bullpup designated the G2 Compact series. Ever trying to make the best even better, Gale worked closely with Lynn McWilliams, owner of AWC Systems Technologies, in the early 90’s to produce one of the sniping worlds most interesting hybrids.Capable of 1 MOA accuracy, the G2 was tested by a number of governmental agencies, both domestic and foreign, seeking to breathe new life into a venerable battle-proven platform, the M14. The G2 series had a number of variations, primarily surrounding barrel weights, scope mounts and AWC’s suppressor capabilities and both semi-auto and full-auto versions were eventually produced. Our cover features the last significant development of this weapon system, the G2A+ created for testing at the Fort Bragg sniper school. Sporting a compact bullpup stock, designed and produced by Gale McMillan’s firm exclusively for AWC System Technologies, this rifle was fit with a heavy stainless Krieger match barrel and Lynn McWilliams’ final scope mount design. The scope mount and scope selection was of paramount importance because the raised nature of the optics, combined with the peculiar “G” load factor produced by the weapon, created a harsh environment for anything but the strongest scopes.

24 Inches overall with the 20 inch Barrel
the M4 with stock fully retracted is 29.8 inches with the 14.5 barrel
No they can and have made them much much smaller than the original 46.8 inch models



[edit on 28-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

reply to post by DaddyBare


Whoa. That thing is nuts! I mean, I've seen bullpup mods for the SKS and the Mosin-Nagant, but the M14 is a new one.

I feel this is just a repetition of an old circular discussion. Remember, the 5.56mm was introduced because of complaints that 7.62 NATO is too heavy. Then the switch to the M4 carbine happened when soldiers wanted a less cumbersome weapon. Now they may reintroduce an M14-style system, and the same discussion will happen again in a few years. Because lets face it, thats what soldiers do best when not fighting, complain ;-)

Bottom line is, there is no swiss army knife of guns. Especially when it comes to barrel lengths. The only way to overcome these limitations is to diversify the weaponry in the infantry group - which sooner or later will lead to complaints and even deaths because of a lack of similar gear and ammunition.

One has to cut the Army some slack here, they KNOW that every choice they make will bite them in the ass sooner or later in one way or another.

...isn't the M14 EBR a semi-auto rifle designed for squad-level snipers?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
...isn't the M14 EBR a semi-auto rifle designed for squad-level snipers?

I think you're referring to the M14 DMR , the EBR was introduced for the Teams.

reply to post by Lonestar24

The only way to overcome these limitations is to diversify the weaponry in the infantry group

you are right and to some degree they are.
As you said there is no one magic gun... noting that does fulfils all roles well.
the problem they face now it with standoff... The Ali Baba's know 300 meters if our current effective range with the M4 and they try to engage beyond that range. Making the majority of our firepower ineffective.

Strategists are just now coming to understand we should have had a longer range main battle rifle choice all along... as others have mentioned the the swap out to a 6.5 upper is a good way to keep the same platform everyone is trained with...
but the old M4 is a well tested proven weapon. By no means a fix all but with ranges opening up I'd rather have an EBR

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

reply to post by DaddyBare


That contraption doesn't look anything like the M14 I know, lol.

Give someone an arms contract to build a better rifle, and you will almost invariably end up with one that is fubar.

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

That contraption doesn't look anything like the M14 I know, lol.

Give someone an arms contract to build a better rifle, and you will almost invariably end up with one that is fubar.

It's still the same M14 we all know and love... all they really did was take it out of the old wooden stock and dropped it into a more modern case...
Of course if it ever did make it as a standard issue I'm betting there would be yet another stock redesign... something easier to mass produce.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

Originally posted by DaddyBare

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by DaddyBare

 

It's still the same M14 we all know and love... all they really did was take it out of the old wooden stock and dropped it into a more modern case...
Of course if it ever did make it as a standard issue I'm betting there would be yet another stock redesign... something easier to mass produce.

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

Have you ever seen the BAR Mk5? It was submitted for testing in the early '90s... was about a 1/3 lighter than the M1918 and carried a 30 round mag and a quick change barrel. I think the Poles and Belgians bought the rights to produce it but I have never seen a production model since.

The only option when it comes to assault rifles is the AK47 ...

All purpose, all terrain, even an child can operate it with deadly efficiency.

The only reason the US doesn't use it is because nobody is getting kickbacks .....

Originally posted by harryhaller
The only option when it comes to assault rifles is the AK47 ...

All purpose, all terrain, even an child can operate it with deadly efficiency.

The only reason the US doesn't use it is because nobody is getting kickbacks .....

There is also a certain pride factor too... as in, the DoD is a little too proud to arm itself with former adversary's design. But... give Colt or Browning the chance to redesign it, like they did German MGs to produce the M60, and something good might come of it.

The AK is an excellent weapon and superior to the M16 and all its children. There is no denial factor in this. The 5.56 cartridge was an excellent replacemnt for the smaller carbine ammo, but the .30 cal - 7.62 is still the killer that needs to be applied to heavy combat... imo.

All the stuff you attach to a weapon is nothing but added weight when something that is durable, fast to load and reload, will be your best friend.

Well, we're already using SCARs in SOCOM and Delta Force has adopted HK416s as M4 replacements. The contract to purchase M4's was to continue through fiscal year 2009 to the tune of $375 million and I could see the SCAR or 416 being selected as M4 replacements in 7.62 versions like the SCAR Mk17, and HK417.

The M14 platform certainly has its place as a supplemental weapon or a primary weapon for specific units. However, the Army will not totally give up the M4 platform and 5.56 round easily.

THis is from the House Armed Services Subcommittee on March 10 2010;

The Army has fielded over 400,000 M4 carbines, replacing M16s in all the Combat Brigades and Division headquarters. The smaller, more maneuverable weapon has been the overwhelming individual weapon of choice for our Soldiers in combat. Regardless of the successes we have seen in our small arms, we continue to pursue improvements in our individual weapons' capability. We are currently taking a dual approach to improve the current weapon, the M4, as we move forward with a new carbine requirement. The Project Manager (PM) released a market survey in January 2010, seeking the best industry has to offer for improvements to the current M4. The PM expects to release an RFP soon to compete the upgrade program. Additionally, the Army will conduct a full and open competition to address a new requirement for an individual carbine. Once the Joint Requirements Oversight Council approves the new requirement, the PM will initiate the competition with the release of an RFP for comments from industry. This is the first step in conducting the competition. The Army is working with the other Services in these programs to ensure their requirements are included in our process and they are always invited to participate in the programs' development and production.
The Army is working to deliver the best ammunition possible to our Soldiers while, at the same time, fostering environmental stewardship. The M855A1 cartridge, designed for use with the M16/M4 family of weapons and the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, meets both of these goals while providing consistent, shot to shot performance against all targets. This “green” program resolves the environmental
14
issues associated with leaded ammunition and directly addresses the field reports associated with occasional poor close quarters battle performance. Testing to date has verified that the M855A1 performs significantly better than the M855 or any other 5.56mm cartridge available for military use. The LRIP began in January 2010 for production qualification test and live fire test and evaluation through April 2010. By the end of the production qualification test, there will be more than one million live-fire shots, making it the most tested round ever to be used by Soldiers. The M855A1 will be available for fielding in June 2010.

armedservices.house.gov...

A lot of red tape... I am still trying to figure out why the Army dropped HK xm-8 testing a couple of years ago. Field testing had that weapon nearly 7 times more reliable than the M-4 when testing for jams.

Remember too there was kind of a screwy philosophy to the 5.56

The thought is that a wounded man takes to people to look after him... that's three people out of the fight... the 5.56 is a wounding round...

The 7.62x51mm NATO kills, that's only one man down...

this so called philosophy works if your dealing with a compassionate civilized enemy... but when was the last time a fight occurred between honorable knights?

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

reply to post by jibeho

I am still trying to figure out why the Army dropped HK xm8 testing a couple of years ago. Field testing had that weapon nearly 7 times more reliable than the M-4 when testing for jams.

You can thank congress for that
The Army has a legislated obligation to prefer U.S.-based manufacturers, and that a previous agreement with Colt Defense required the Army to involve Colt in certain small-arms programs... Colt had no offering so the project was placed on hold 04 and finally canceled 05...

Of course that was 2005, now here we are 5 years later and the only contract Colt still holds is making replacement uppers for the M4. thought 2012... after that????

My guess is once again congress will demand an American manufacture produce a replacement...

Edit to add...
Last year the Marines tried to order 250,000 HK 417's the 7.62 version of the HK 416 5.56... Congress killed that order for the same reason... it isnt made in the good ole US of A...

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

reply to post by DaddyBare


Indeed, I can a see a new Colt piston operated upper on the horizon for many years to come.

So much for equipping our troops with the best weapons available. Colt needs to get out of the stone age. I see the need to support American companies but HK's are made in New Hampshire employing American workers and supporting a local economy.

Federal contracts only specify US manufacturing not US based ownership and HK is in full compliance.

Gotta love the bureaucracy...

Originally posted by DaddyBare
Remember too there was kind of a screwy philosophy to the 5.56

The thought is that a wounded man takes to people to look after him... that's three people out of the fight... the 5.56 is a wounding round...

The 7.62x51mm NATO kills, that's only one man down...

this so called philosophy works if your dealing with a compassionate civilized enemy... but when was the last time a fight occurred between honorable knights?

[edit on 30-3-2010 by DaddyBare]

Let's scrap both and go with the 6.5 Grendel. It is clearly the best of both worlds.

I have a contact at the Ruger factory who is selling me a 556 NIB for $1100. Lucky me!
He told me a 2 star general was making an inspection at the Ruger plant a few weeks ago. The competition is to provide the military with piston uppers for the existing M4 battle rifles.
Ruger is lucky, in that their 556 upper fits on standard lowers. Sig 556 uppers do not.
The Army can keep all of their full auto lowers and slap on a piston upper.
A few other companies are in the running, but Ruger is a favorite. They have quite a facility, and produce parts for Sig (556) and many others. Lots of cad/cam stuff.