Army Looking for Weapon to Replace M4

[Defender]

Thought y'all might find this interesting:

Army Looking for Weapon to Replace M4

February 10, 2011

Stars and Stripes|by Dan Blottenberger

BAMBERG, Germany -- The Army is searching for a replacement for its M4 carbine, one of its primary weapons in Afghanistan.

In a draft solicitation, the Army's research and development arm is asking weapons manufacturers to try to produce a carbine rifle that can outperform the M4, which has been part of the Army inventory since the mid-1990s.

Learn more about the M4 Carbine at Military.com's Equipment Guide

"Is there something better than the M4 out there? Let's go find out," said Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, head of PEO Soldier, during a media roundtable last week.

The Army has about 500,000 M4s in its inventory.

The M4's lethality and reliability have been questioned for years. A Congressional Research Service report released in June cited at four studies that found varying levels of fault with the M4.

The first study, published by the U.S. Special Operations Command in 2001, concluded the M4A1 design was fundamentally flawed, saying a variety of factors "led to alarming failures" under harsh conditions and heavy firing schedules. The command started replacing its M4s in 2009, opting for the Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, known as SCAR.

An Army-commissioned study released in 2006 by the Center for Naval Analyses said 20 percent of soldiers recommended a larger bullet to increase lethality. Some in the combat zones commented on the weapon's limited ability to effectively stop targets, saying those who were shot multiple times were still able to continue fighting, the study stated.

While the Army is upgrading the M4s in the field now to address such issues, it has begun looking for a replacement.

Army officials plan to meet with vendors on March 30 in Washington to offer feedback and answer specific questions on the project. The Army will issue a solicitation for the new weapon in May, according to a Program Executive Office memo dated Jan. 31.

The three-phase selection process for a replacement is expected to take at least two years. No new carbines are expected to be fielded for at least three years.

During the first phase, the Army will determine if a company is able to provide a weapon according to PEO's requirements and whether the weapon can be produced at a reliable pace. The requirements request production up to 4,200 weapons per month, with a minimum of 2,000 per month.

During the second phase, the weapons will test fire approximately 700,000 rounds. The weapons will be graded on their physical attributes and features as well as their compatibility with existing Army accessories. Other areas of consideration include accuracy, reliability and durability, according to a PEO press release.

Some of the requirements listed are a barrel life of 20,000 rounds, flash suppressors, and backup sights allowing accurate engagements up to 2,000 feet. The weapon must be able to handle various attachments to include a grenade launcher.

It will also be determined if the new carbine will use 5.56 mm rounds or 7.62 mm ammunition, said Tamilio.

During the third phase, about 850,000 additional rounds will be fired to test the lethality of the weapon against multiple targets.

It is still uncertain at this point whether the top entry will replace the current M4, which is undergoing an overhaul.

Upgrades to the M4 include a more resilient barrel, ambidextrous controls, a full-automatic setting and a more lethal round. The improvements will be integrated into the force this year, PEO officials said in an interview with Stars and Stripes last year.

The first of the new carbines, which are expected to cost about the same as the current M4, will go to infantry units, Tamilio said.

The Army introduced the M4 as a shorter-barrel version of the Vietnam-era M16 rifle.

Both weapons are still heavily used by soldiers today.

[Armed Aviator]

Way to go Barewoolf, great article.

[Links2k]

6.8 enough said

[LagerHead]

6.8 enough said

Only to some extent. Until we replace the asinine policy of only using less lethal bullets this will only get marginally better. FMJ/Ball ammo needs to be replaced with something that actually expands.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

6.8 enough said

That's what a lot of folks thought. It's doubtful it would happen, but it still

makes sense.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Regardless of the weapong they choose they are going to have the same problems because they can't see what needs to be done to make a more effective rifle.

Some of you may have seen my stance on this but here goes again.

The problem is the twist rate. With such a high twist rate the bullet will not tumble once the bullet drops below a certain velocity. Add to this a shorter barrel and you reduce the velocity enough to reduce the effectiveness of the current round to near nothing. To be effective the bullet needs to do one of two things, either tumble or break apart upon impact. The current setup has a twist rate that is too fast to tumble yet the bullet is too slow to break up.

There are a couple of ways to fix the problem. First, change the twist rate to something that would allow the bullet to be marginally stabile out to roughly 200 yards. With the 62 grain M855 I thing the 9 twist is still too fast, we need a twist rate of probably 1:11 for it to work well. After all the 223/5.56 was never designed to be a weapon for long range shooting. Second, increase the barrel length to get the velocity up to a point where the bullet will fall apart upon impact. You don't hear of Marines having as manny issues as the Army, could it be because they still use a 20" barreled gun? I think so.

The original design specs called for a 1:12 twist barrel to fire 55 grain bullets. This was nearly optimal and the bullet did both, tumble and fall apart upon impact becaue it was marginally stabile. Even at the farther ranges this combination would be quite effective because of these characteristics.

The military ruined the cartridge by increasing the twist and using heavier bullets. The heavier bullets require the velocity to be reduced this reduces the chance the bullet will disrupt on impact and the increased twist decreases the likelyhood of the bullet tumbling upon impact. Believe it or not but by taking the 5.56 and reducing the velocity to less than 2000 fps it will increase its penetration because the bullet no longer tumbles or disrupts on impact. This is the reason we are hearing of all the problems with it overseas. The military is trying to take a short to medium range caliber and turn it into a long range caliber.

Here are some interesting reads on the effectiveness of the 5.56:

Do not hot link this but copy and paste it into a new browser to open it:

http://stevespages.com/pdf/5_56mm_military_info.pdf

This is the penetration based on velocity:

http://stevespages.com/jpg/bestbullet.jpg

I have persoanlly done a lot of testing on twist rates and how they affect the tumbling of rifle bullets. I have also tested the effectiveness of those same rifle bullets as they tumbled. Most of my testing was done on the edge of the sound barrier so roughly 1050 fps. If I can get a bullet to reliably tumble at less than 1100 fps there should be no problem getting a bullet travelling at 2500+ fps to reliably tumble. It is all in the twist rate.

Dolomite

[mousegunner]

SKS with hollow points would do the job. Cheap, too!

[Guest Octo]

It's about damn time.

[Defender]

From reading the report, along with a few others, I gather that there are least SOME people involved in the selection process who would like to see the 5.56 superseded by the 7.62...and I think they are probably on the right track for more than one reason.

[Jasongar8]

As long as our war fighters are having to use non-expanding bullets I think bigger and heavier bullets are always going to be better than little and light. But they have to find a weapon that all military personnel can use. I think this is where the .308 will run into problems. I know from personal experience that a full auto .308 is a handful to shoot. I just wish that the military got the best equipment available and politics and back door business wasn't involved in choosing what they get.

[Defender]

As long as our war fighters are having to use non-expanding bullets I think bigger and heavier bullets are always going to be better than little and light. But they have to find a weapon that all military personnel can use. I think this is where the .308 will run into problems. I know from personal experience that a full auto .308 is a handful to shoot. I just wish that the military got the best equipment available and politics and back door business wasn't involved in choosing what they get.

I agree. The military went away from full autos for the average infantrymen a while back, opting for models with switchability between semi auto fire and 3 round burst fire modes. I know they do have M4A1s with full auto also though. Geneva Convention limitations to non expanding rounds, as Jason said, is the primary problem with 5.56. I see them changing to a bigger round before deviating form the standard NATO non-expanding round.

[mikegideon]

As long as our war fighters are having to use non-expanding bullets I think bigger and heavier bullets are always going to be better than little and light. But they have to find a weapon that all military personnel can use. I think this is where the .308 will run into problems. I know from personal experience that a full auto .308 is a handful to shoot. I just wish that the military got the best equipment available and politics and back door business wasn't involved in choosing what they get.

it's a handful to carry around too compared to the 5.56

[Daniel]

All M4s are supposed to be converted to M4A1s.... I still have a M4 atm though.

[Moped]

IGeneva Convention limitations to non expanding rounds, as Jason said, is the primary problem with 5.56. I see them changing to a bigger round before deviating form the standard NATO non-expanding round.

As long as we continue to follow the Geneva Convention(and I don't see us ever not following it) we will never go to expanding bullets. There are other things that we do to offset that however. As Dolomite_Supafly was talking about, we make our bullets tumble upon impacting something. That's why when you get hit in the shoulder with a 5.56 it's liable to come out your ass. But it holds to the Geneva Convention, because it doesn't expand. That was what Supafly was talking about.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Moped

[Daniel]

But at this time Moped, that is not the case. Our rounds were developed to defeat soviet body armor. Today's enemy wears none and as such the rounds pass straight through doing little damage comparatively speaking.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think the biggest thing that needs to be done is a realization by those in power that the 223 is a short range cartridge designed to defeat soft targets and forget about using it for anything else. It should not be developed into a long range cartridge or into a cartridge designed to defeat hard targets. Develop a seperate weapon system or more specifically a round to fill that role. And the 308 is the fartherst from an ideal cartridge, it was great in its day but there are more accurate, powerful and lighter kicking calibers out there that would be better suited to a long range role. Look at the current F class calibers to see somes rounds more suited to long range or hard targets. Any of the 7mm or 6.5mm offerings would likely be better than any incarnation of the 223 or the 308. 7mm and 6.5mm both offer better ballistic coefficients than 308 and using the same technology as the newest M855a1 it could provide an excellent long range as well as hard target killer.

And I also believe that if there is a need to use shorter barrels the 223 should not be used. It looses so much of its effectiveness as the barrel get shorter. Generally speaking the smaller the caliber the more barrel it needs to be effective. You can't take a 223 and fire it out of a 7.5" barrel and hope for anything close to the preformance of a longer barrel. Find another caliber that uses the shorter barrels more effectively. There are plenty out there, 6.8 SPC, 7.62x39 or even a pistol caliber is more effective than the 223 in the shortest of barrels.

Dolomite

[nightrunner]

They have been talking about changing the m4 for a while now just like the pistol. Ill believe it when I see it

[DaveTN]

No need for a new designer round; 7.62 NATO is a proven performer.

[Mike.357]

.30 cal bullets killed a lot of people before the .223 came along.

Maybe get away from fully auto weapons and give out rifles that need to be aimed rather than sprayed? I dunno.

[Daniel]

.30 cal bullets killed a lot of people before the .223 came along.

Maybe get away from fully auto weapons and give out rifles that need to be aimed rather than sprayed? I dunno.

You are mistaken if you think we run around on burst or auto. I never fired a burst on my M4 unless just wasting ammo at the range. The only time I fired an automatic was when I was a M249 SAW gunner.

[R1100R]

You are mistaken if you think we run around on burst or auto. I never fired a burst on my M4 unless just wasting ammo at the range. The only time I fired an automatic was when I was a M249 SAW gunner.

+100

When I was on the trail, a trainee got to fire one mag at full auto to show how hard it is to hit a target at certain distances. Only when we had excess at the end of the day did we burn it up. Turning in live ammo is a PIA. Basic load is/was 7 mags, that doesn't last long on auto.

Edited February 12, 2011 by R1100R

[Mike.357]

thanks for the info. I do believe a bigger bullet would work better. But you guys who were there will know better.

Does the military ever ask those that are there actually doing it? And I do not mean officers.

[R1100R]

thanks for the info. I do believe a bigger bullet would work better. But you guys who were there will know better.

Does the military ever ask those that are there actually doing it? And I do not mean officers.

Mike 357, I have been at this awhile. I have done surveys, classes, Q&A's, test panel's and just plain asked on things from MRE's to Gay's in the military.

I just got one the other day on military health care. No, I don't think they listen. It boils down to politics and money.

[Mike.357]

No, I don't think they listen

sounds like where I work ,except what I do is not life or death. Boss asks me my opinion and then disregards anything I say.

[Guest Aces&8s]

It boils down to politics and money.

Isn't this how we wound up with the 5.56 to begin with?