Army looking for a Carbine.

Just as the title says. It appears that the Army is looking for a True Carbine to fill the role of CQC. Not the Half Breed M16 to M4.

www.armytimes.com...

Aren't they already using that HK Carbine?

M468 ? Higher caliber than the standard M4 & smaller i believe ? I remember watching a show on the discovery channel where an ex navy seal tested one and it was awesome.

reply to post by macman


The Army keeps revisiting this every three or so years. But "everything is to expensive", they always say.

Myself? I would recommend the POF-USA P308. Let's get back to some firepower.

And I would recommend keeping it semi, just to force Joe to actually aim at he is shooting at, rather than spraying and praying.

Have the DoD tell POF that they get the contract if they bring the price down a tad.

My choice of a new carbine

This is my choice!!!

reply to post by etombo


GunBroker! My favorite gun site.....pun intended.

Maybe if HK produces it in 6.8 for the military, but the 5.56 is once again lacking. We need a heavier round these days. They do make the 417 as well in 7.62.

Time to go back to the old ways.

How about that bullpup M-14 SF was testing out last year?

Originally posted by Darce
How about that bullpup M-14 SF was testing out last year?

That wouldn't work as it can only be fired by a right handed person.

Though Kel Tec has the RFB in 7'62 that ejects from the front so it is ambidextrous.

Not to sure if it would stand up to the rigorous tests though.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Yeah, tha'ts true. I am a lefty shot myself and I'd have a hard time getting used to chewing on hot.308 brass.

Looks great though.

reply to post by TDawgRex

What about the modernized Springfield M1A or the M14 EBR? Both are 7.62 and apparently the Army said it would be relatively cheap to convert the existing stocks of M14s to M14 EBRs.

Originally posted by Darce
How about that bullpup M-14 SF was testing out last year?

edit on 12-7-2011 by Darce because: (no reason given)

OOOOHHHHH YEAH!!!
I love me some M14/M1a goodness.

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

What about the modernized Springfield M1A or the M14 EBR? Both are 7.62 and apparently the Army said it would be relatively cheap to convert the existing stocks of M14s to M14 EBRs.

Not a bad idea, but I'm sure they would have modify the sliding stock some. Joes are notoriously hard on weapons, even if they do keep 'em clean.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Ways to refurbish the M14/M1a www.crazyhorserifles.com...

If they want a carbine it needs a to either be short or have a short barrel, maybe too short for the .308 to remain effective at 600 meters?

Shouldn't a carbine be able to retain fully automatic fire, for the situations they are likely to be used in?

Originally posted by Darce
If they want a carbine it needs a to either be short or have a short barrel, maybe too short for the .308 to remain effective at 600 meters?

Shouldn't a carbine be able to retain fully automatic fire, for the situations they are likely to be used in?

Carbine is a classification for CQC and room clearing. Max range to about 200 yards.
3 round burst, as Full Auto is typically to hard to control.

reply to post by macman


Right but the carbine they require should be ideal in a mounted patrol type situation where they need to lay accurate fire quickly after dismounting to longer ranges than a .223 can be effective to. I can't imagine firing .223 up a mountainside beyond 400 meters, out of a carbine length barrel is very effective. It also said the tests will go to 600m in the article.

Of course, they also need to be able to maneuver and shoot in urban situations where fully automatic fire and overpowered cartridges can be dangerous. That might leave the .308 out.

Maybe they need to look at a new cartridge altogether? Something more similar to the 7.62X39, that seems like an ideal carbine cartridge to me.

reply to post by Darce


Yeah, they define the carbine affective distance to 600m. Seems like they are poisoning the well.
I do like the 223 round, but it is good I think from about 100-300m for maximum effectiveness.
The 308 is my go to round. But, I really am not impressed with the 7.62X39.
I would have to agree with some that the new 6.8 round has promise.

The 10.5" M16 (MK18) won't be replaced anytime soon in a CQC role.

Just like the sidearm trials, the government will waste millions on contracts to manufacturers who will design fantastic firearms but in the end, the number crunchers will decide that the logistical expense isn't viable.

reply to post by macman


Yeah I agree, 100-300 is where the .223 performs best, but that cartridge needs a full length barrel to achieve it's top velocity. I like the idea of a short casing with a .30 cal round for a carbine. That will hit hard and not peel through targets at closer ranges, and still be able to have enough energy at medium-long ranges to kill. A carbine's effective range probably doesn't need to be greater than 400 meters. The 7.62X39 may be dropping 4-5 feet out there, but at least it will still stand a good chance of killing what it hits. Does the 6.8 have enough energy in the terminal phase to kill as well?


ETA 4-5 feet drop isn't too bad, I shoot .22lr to 200 meters and it's like that. I can still hit beer bottles out there anyway with a simple 4X scope.

reply to post by macman


If I were doing the testing
there would be two I would want on my table come test firing
First the FN P90
youtu.be...


and the Kriss Super V
youtu.be...


both are small light and carry one hell of a punch