It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Replacement trails for the M4 main battle riffle preparing to get underway/ Maybe

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:22 AM
The Army released a draft solicitation Jan. 31 to announce the endeavor, but long-arm manufacturers began preparing for this event more than three years ago when the M4's performance came under scrutiny from Soldiers and lawmakers alike. While a formal solicitation for the competition is scheduled for release in May, the current rules seem to limit companies from entering more than one carbine design.

Remington makes the Adaptive Combat Rifle, a modular design that allows the user to change calibers from 5.56mm to 6.8mm in minutes by changing the bolt head, barrel and magazine.

Several other gun makers have invested in new carbine designs that can convert from 5.56mm to 7.62x51mm or 7.62x39mm.

Army officials have said many times the competition will be open to all calibers, but it already seems that a priority has been given to service's new M855A1 5.56mm ammunition. The Army recently began fielding the new round that features a lead-free slug and is designed for use in the M4's 14.5-inch barrel.

In addition to the M855A1, the Army will also provide the service's standard 7.62mm ammunition. Gun makers planning to submit weapons with alternative calibers -- such as the 6.8mm SPC or 6.5mm Grendel -- will have to bring their own bullets.

"If you bring another caliber … you have to provide ammo for that weapon," Col. Doug Tamilio, who runs Project Manager Soldier Weapons, said at a recent Pentagon briefing. "And you have to provide the ammo we have in our current fleet. You have to have armor piercing, tracers -- you have to produce all of that."

To Remington and other gun makers, there is no incentive to submit anything but weapons that fire M855A1.

From Mili news network

So who knows what we'll end up with...???
maybe something like this

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by DaddyBare

Wheres the TV remote?

This has been dragging on for far too long IMO.

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

The TV remote is hidden in the bird weather-vane wings...
I said they should go with the topless lady model but they said it was cost prohibitive... who knew???

Anyway I'm all bummed out over ammo choices or should I say limits... this is the 21st century and we have so many better choices today... Even if they are still judging by the recoil sensitivity standard there are several good choices other than...???

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by DaddyBare

there is a huge charlie foxtrot linked to backdoor dealings in the us ammo choice arena.

I mean EXCUSE ME!! but what in the world was ever found wrong with the 30-06 round.
it freakin used to piss me off so bad while I was in the suck (usmc) taking the green weenie daily and be shafted with the weak 5.56.

why not use a fn/fal based 30-06 type weapon with modern tech included. an accurate fal with its already awesome durabiity reliabilty combined with a little less recoil and better accuracy would be tits.

or better yet the beast 9.3x62 based rifle would make a killer (pun intended) choice.


posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by rebeldog

to answer your question as to why we went to a 5.56 from a 30-06 requires a bit of a history lesson...
and for that rather then retype it all again I'll copy paste from another recent post of mine...

But if you dont want to read it all then the short answer is simply "Recoil control"

So why did the US military choose this round (5,56 or .223) over all the other's?.... "Recoil control"...
From 7.5 pound rifles, the .223 firing a 62 grain bullet at a 3,020 fps. generates only 4.07 ft. lbs. of recoil energy; the .308 firing a 150 grain bullet at 2,800 fps. generates 17.72 ft. lbs. of recoil energy.
what that means is two thing's the first is does not intimidate the inexperienced shooters and allows you to come back on target quickly. We have an old saying in the Marines, You cant miss fast enough to lose a gun fight. Aimed accurate fire is the key. for those reasons alone the .5,56 was chosen, not for is killing ability, period

(The velocity, energy, trajectory, and wind drift figures quoted below are taken from the 2007 Federal, Remington, and Winchester ammunition catalogs.)
Compared to its main competition in the infantry rifle cartridge sweepstakes, the 7.62x39 Soviet, the 5.56mm NATO cartridge has much higher velocity (for flatter trajectory), and slightly more energy downrange. Neither actually has much punch at medium to long range: at 200 yards they have 860-875 ft. lbs. of energy, and at 300 yards they are down to only 655-710 ft. lbs. When you consider that 900 ft. lbs. of remaining bullet energy is generally considered the minimum for reliably killing an inoffensive deer, these numbers are not impressive. For what it's worth, at each range the slightly higher figure belongs to the 5.56mm.
At typical 5.56mm velocities, this bullet's lateral drift at 300 yards in a light 10 MPH crosswind is 14.2 inches. This is enough to blow a perfectly aimed bullet completely off a Deer/man-size target! The 5.56mm 62 grain FMJ-boat tail spitzer has a BC of .307. This is still very inferior to the BC of the .243's 95 grain bullet. Good enough for varmint shooting under the best conditions, but... we can do so much better now especially with this new gen of 6mm cartridges!!!

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by DaddyBare

Im familiar with the outcome of the data. what i am unsure with is this, was the testing done using the same type of rifle .. meaning example --m16a2 in all calibers. obviously an m1 will kick more than m16.

couldn't new gun tech create a 30-06 rifle with less recoil, im sure to some extent it can be done no?

that is my point, the testing was maybe flawed from the aspect of what weapons were used to get those results?

i think 30-06 or 9.3x62 would be the sweet spot between m4 and barrett .50 wouldn't it?

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by rebeldog

couldnt say about the weapons used for the tests it was done back in 1954 but if I recall Rem, made all the test weapons so maybe

Wel you are right and it might just be the reason why they let the 7.52x51 (308) remain in the comp..
see we do have a reduced reciol version of the m14 the The United States Navy Mark 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR)
Check it out here
edit on 16-3-2011 by DaddyBare because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by DaddyBare

do you have much experience with the 9.3x62? it is a knock out.

i still don't understand why the military mostly abandoned the 30-06.
the model 70 (pre 64) was White Feather's gun of choice. and he knew a little bit about effectively putting rounds down range. anyone who doubts the superiority of the aught 6 is a poser in the world of weaponry.

hands down, bar none i know from experience that it is the best round leathernecks ever used. to say otherwise would be foolhardy, no?

new topics


log in