Army Looking for Weapon to Replace M4

[Moped]

No, I don't think they listen.

You ain't just whistlin' Dixie! But it's everywhere. Business ignores those surveys, just like the Government does. I get them all the time too. Filed one out two weeks ago and blasted the company I work for. But the Survey will show all employees are happy little lemmings.

[Moped]

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.

Then it sounds like we need to step back and go back to the slower twist and longer barrel as Suprafly said. Maybe even the old 55gr. round. Or change back to the 7.62.

The only thing about going back to the 7.62 is the added weight. I have a friend of mine I work with that is a SGM and he has 3 tours in Iraq under his belt (Desert Storm and two more under Iraqi Freedom). He says the weight our troops carry compared to what we carried back in Desert Storm is almost twice as much. He says the Army is seeing alot more back and knee injuries and he believes it's due to the all the added weight of our equipment. I imagine that 210 rounds of 7.62 is 1.5x or more the weight of 210 rounds of 5.56. That's more weight for our guys to carry.

[DaveTN]

Then it sounds like we need to step back and go back to the slower twist and longer barrel as Suprafly said. Maybe even the old 55gr. round. Or change back to the 7.62.

The only thing about going back to the 7.62 is the added weight. I have a friend of mine I work with that is a SGM and he has 3 tours in Iraq under his belt (Desert Storm and two more under Iraqi Freedom). He says the weight our troops carry compared to what we carried back in Desert Storm is almost twice as much. He says the Army is seeing alot more back and knee injuries and he believes it's due to the all the added weight of our equipment. I imagine that 210 rounds of 7.62 is 1.5x or more the weight of 210 rounds of 5.56. That's more weight for our guys to carry.

Then they need to address the weight that is being carried. It appears to me that there are far more vehicles around than in wars of the past. Can’t they shift some of that weight to vehicles?

[Guest ab28]

Then it sounds like we need to step back and go back to the slower twist and longer barrel as Suprafly said. Maybe even the old 55gr. round. Or change back to the 7.62.

The only thing about going back to the 7.62 is the added weight. I have a friend of mine I work with that is a SGM and he has 3 tours in Iraq under his belt (Desert Storm and two more under Iraqi Freedom). He says the weight our troops carry compared to what we carried back in Desert Storm is almost twice as much. He says the Army is seeing alot more back and knee injuries and he believes it's due to the all the added weight of our equipment. I imagine that 210 rounds of 7.62 is 1.5x or more the weight of 210 rounds of 5.56. That's more weight for our guys to carry.

Yeah, I was in Iraq in 2004, and I got discharged for severe stress fractures in both tibias directly from carrying too much gear. The military probably loses a lot of people just for these injuries.

In regards to the M4, a friend of mine with multiple tours mentioned the marines started using 77 grain bullets and had much better results. I am not sure if they still use the full size M16A4, but they did when I was in.

My fixes: Shoot a lot more, I was surprised at how little we shot in basic, and how little we shot before we deployed. Every unit should be burning up semi truck loads of ammo in practice before they ship out. Practice marksmanship constantly and shoot constantly. For the effectiveness of the round, it would be a moot point if everyone was trained well enough to get headshots most of the time.

Do some serious work on lightening gear weight. I humped close to 90 lbs, with an aid bag, as the unit medic. I weighed 145 when I was in. I know the body armor with plates is gonna be heavy, but other gear can be lightened. Look at what the hiking community does to lighten weight. This is another reason for me not wanting to see them go back to 7.62, I was 12th of 400 in my medic school graduation, and I read and practiced my medic skills constantly. The Army spent all that money training me, and wasted it simply because the gear was too heavy.

[Moped]

Then they need to address the weight that is being carried. It appears to me that there are far more vehicles around than in wars of the past. Can’t they shift some of that weight to vehicles?

You can't patrol from a vehicle most of the time. You still have to get out and walk, run and crawl sometimes.

[DaveTN]

You can't patrol from a vehicle most of the time. You still have to get out and walk, run and crawl sometimes.

You don’t need to be carrying all your gear when you are doing that…. Do you?

[tnhawk]

6.8 enough said

+1

[Paletiger13]

Bullpup with a 20" barrel. Tavor? Lol

[dou44]

they need to go back to the 20" barrel or use a 65-77 grain bullet.i never did like the m4 because of the short barrel. it helped when doing a sweep in a building but i still liked the a2 with the 20''. you can get some good shot groups with the 3 round burst. the a1 that i carried for acouple of years would jam easy on full auto.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Heavier bullets in the 223 is not the answer because it only exacerbates the problem, lower velocity which leads to less chance of tumbling because of the current twist rates used. If they do decide to use heavier they need to slow the twist to where the bullets are barely stabile. That way they will at least tumble. As velocity drops the probability of the bullet tumbling increases so long as the twist isn't too fast. Another advantage to a slower twist is an increase of velocity.

The 5.56 is a phenomenal round as long as we stay within it's limitations. It is not a 500 yard caliber, at best 300 yards and even that is pushing the envelope using FMJ ammo with the current twist rates.

Weight was and has always been a huge concern for me. At a bare minimum most times I had 60 pounds of weight hanging off my body not including any packs or equipment. And in a world of moving around every ounce counts. In the hills of Afganistan there is no chance of using a vehicle.

Dolomite

[Moped]

You don’t need to be carrying all your gear when you are doing that…. Do you?

It all depends on the mission, but I would bet the average soldier is going to carry enough to last two or three days in the field at any given time out on patrol. Mostly because you never know. I was in a Combat Engineering Battalion and we hardly ever got that far away from a vehicle. But straight leg infantry typically don't have that luxury. They take what they can carry. I just read an older article about what the average weight was for troops rotating through JRTC over 13 tours and the weight averaged out to 91 lbs! That didn't include body armor. That's freakin' amazing! And somewhat worrying. Carrying those kinds of loads, when those guys hit their 40's, their going to broken down physically.

This is one of the reasons I think the U.S. Military still uses the 5.56 round as it's main rifle round. Lot more fire power for the weight. Still pretty accurate. And a wounded man takes more resources up than a dead man does. At least that's the theory. As it turns out that's a pretty good theory for the enemy to go by fighting us. I'm not so sure that ir's a good theory for us to be going by though. I figure the Taliban doesn't worry to much about their wounded.

[Dolomite_supafly]

It all depends on the mission, but I would bet the average soldier is going to carry enough to last two or three days in the field at any given time out on patrol. Mostly because you never know. I was in a Combat Engineering Battalion and we hardly ever got that far away from a vehicle. But straight leg infantry typically don't have that luxury. They take what they can carry. I just read an older article about what the average weight was for troops rotating through JRTC over 13 tours and the weight averaged out to 91 lbs! That didn't include body armor. That's freakin' amazing! And somewhat worrying. Carrying those kinds of loads, when those guys hit their 40's, their going to broken down physically.

This is one of the reasons I think the U.S. Military still uses the 5.56 round as it's main rifle round. Lot more fire power for the weight. Still pretty accurate. And a wounded man takes more resources up than a dead man does. At least that's the theory. As it turns out that's a pretty good theory for the enemy to go by fighting us. I'm not so sure that ir's a good theory for us to be going by though. I figure the Taliban doesn't worry to much about their wounded.

Actually they will pick up everyone if they can, both dead and their wounded. They will pick up their dead and wipe the area clean of blood if they can. They feel that any bodies or evidence of the dead that we find is a moral booster to us so they want to avoid that at all costs. There have been times when more bad guys have been killed as they returned to clean up an area.

Dolomite

[Moped]

Wow! That's incredibly stupid and waste of lives. Good for us though!

Also what I meant was they don't really have the medical know how or technology to heal most of their wounded. They aren't tying up personnel, resources and money healing their men. Wound one of us and there are 15 people working on that person (which is good, don't get me wrong!). Wound one of them and it's basically three or four guys carrying that one off the battle field so he can probably die in a cave somewhere. They have unlimited resources when it comes to cannon fodder too.

What do you think about going back to the old 55 gr round? If we don't really have to defeat body armor, why stick with the current round or at least change the load for Afghanistan?

What about going with the 6.5 Grendel or the Remington 6.8 SPC, are they viable options? Basically you'd just have to change out the upper in the field, I would imagine and the follower in the magazine.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Moped

[Mr. Brooks]

Have any of you been following the new M855A1 round? They just started getting these in country during my last deployment. If the numbers I saw were true (and that's a big if) this round is better then 7.62 NATO ball ammo as well as the current M855 ball ammo.

http://www.defensereview.com/u-s-army-begins-shipping-m855a1-enhanced-performance-round-a-k-a-green-ammo-improved-5-56mm-nato-round-to-warfighters-m855-ball-ammo-gets-an-upgrade/

If the round performs as well as reported it is likely the Army will stay with 5.56. Maybe during my next deployment I can get my hands on some and do some independent testing.

Edit: found a video talking about it.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The new design is good but only at the higher velocities. Once the velocity drops it will perform just like any other over stabilized bullet. Along with the new bullet they need a new twist that is slower.

I know I keep saying the same thing over and over but had we kept the twist slower we wouldn't have the problems we are having today.

Dolomite

[mikegideon]

The thing I take away from all these threads... most of the real problems can be sloved without switching platforms. Not saying that they couldn't reinvent the wheel. Just saying that most of the issues can be fixed with a barrel and ammo change. 500,000 new rifles is pretty big money, especially if you figure the mods that will have to come after they field a new platform.

The exception would be going to the 7.62. Does anybody think they'll really do that? Double the weight, and 3-4 times the recoil?

[bigwakes]

What about changing the design of the 5.56. The 5.45x39 Russian AK74 round is hollowed out in the tip, so the center of gravity is in the rear. When the round strikes a soft target it begins to tumble instantly. It's a 56 grain bullet moving at 2900fps and tumbles on impact every time. The round is a FMJ and is therefore Geneva Convention legal. I'm not saying use the 5.45, but use different metals to weight the round so it becomes unstable on impact. I would prefer they go to a 6.5 Grendel if they are looking for a 2000ft accurate rifle.

5.45x39

[Guest ab28]

I have always found "rules of war" like the Geneva Convention kind of amusing. Let's kill people, but do it in a friendly and humane manner?

[Guest bkelm18]

Just to clarify, bullets that expand/deform are not outlawed by the Geneva Convention, they are outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899.

The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

Edited February 14, 2011 by bkelm18

[Guest ab28]

Just to clarify, bullets that expand/deform are not outlawed by the Geneva Convention, they are outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899.

The Avalon Project : Laws of War - Declaration on the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body; July 29, 1899

Yeah, I know that. I was mentioning all the "rules of war" in my comment. I believe the only rule for war should be to completely and utterly crush our enemies.

[memphisjim]

They could save a lot of parts going to a piston upper and a larger round the .223 doesn't cut it. 6.8 or the grendel would be fine

[Dolomite_supafly]

They could save a lot of parts going to a piston upper and a larger round the .223 doesn't cut it. 6.8 or the grendel would be fine

Why a piston upper?

The DI system is fine and will go thousands of rounds without cleaning. You have less weight and every ounce counts when you have to carry everything. And finally, cost. It is an uneeded upgrade.

As far as caliber they do not need to change the caliber, just the way they design the rounds and the barrel twist. Go back in my previous post and it will explain a lot, giving insight into the reason whe are having the problems we are with the 5.56.

Dolomite

[James in Franklin]

This idea has been batted around for a long time.

[timcalhoun]

I would like to see a piston gun in something larger as well. I like the 6.8 or the Gremlin that the AMU is messing with.

[Guest Crud]

I am completely agreeing with Dolomite. The problem with the 5.56 is not the size itself, it's the twist rate of the barrel we use. He really opened my eyes to this thing. The 5.56 can not tumble unless it is borderline unstable in flight. We need to be using 1:12 twist rates.