Army Looking To Replace The M4

[wjh2657]

It is a shame our military does not replace it's weapons by selling them via the surplus market. Would have been something nice to look forward to.

Some enterprising Blackwater type corporation would buy them all up and sell them to the Mexican drug Cartels. Then Diane Feinstein would put through a bill to limit single shot shotguns to stem the tide of weapons. Either way, no "free" American citizen would see any of them.

[SC Tiger]

Wow, I've heard and read terrible things about the M16 but not the M14 in Vietnam... interesting insight.

The M16 had a very painful birth to be sure. The powder switch (flake to ball) was part of the problem, as was the failure to chrome-plate the chamber (like on the M14) and the fact that if it jammed you were summarily screwed (no actual bolt handle). Actually the military wanted to chrome-plate the chambers before the weapon was adopted but Robert McNamara's office veto'd the idea, saying that if it was necessary then Stoner would have put it in the original design (I guess he never heard of a design change). These issues were fixed through design modifications (chrome plating the chamber, new buffer group, bolt closing device) and training (You actually need to clean any weapon every once and a while. Who knew?). The other problem it had was that, outside the Air Force, the military just didn't seem to want the rifle.

I don't think the M14 was nearly as prevalant in Vietnam as the M16. Add to this the fact that the solders were likely more familiar with the M14 and it's quirks since they likely had them from the start of their service. The M14 is a good weapon but it isn't as great as many think. It would be a step backwards from anything available now. Now that I think about it I don't know that the M14 has seen a lot of combat service, since the M1 was used in Korea and mostly the M16 in Vietnam.

[wjh2657]

Has anybody noticed that the Israeli arms industry has been able to design and manufacture state-of-the-art modern weapons for their soldiers while the U.S. industry is still pushing a 50 year old weapon system that has always had malfunction issues on the government? The issue in this country is not to design an effective weapon to keep the troops alive but to make sure the right senator's brother-in-law gets the contract. We keep going to weapons from outside countries because they are designing and manufacturing more effective systems.

[SC Tiger]

Has anybody noticed that the Israeli arms industry has been able to design and manufacture state-of-the-art modern weapons for their soldiers while the U.S. industry is still pushing a 50 year old weapon system that has always had malfunction issues on the government? The issue in this country is not to design an effective weapon to keep the troops alive but to make sure the right senator's brother-in-law gets the contract. We keep going to weapons from outside countries because they are designing and manufacturing more effective systems.

I'm not sure about this. The latest batch of M4s were manufactured by FN (a Belgian company, who BTW owns Browning) so I don't think you can blame the "US Firearms Industry." Besides, the AK-47 is an even older design and is still in use all over the world, and not just by 3rd-world countries either. Like someone said above there just hasn't been a major advancement in assault rifle technology in 50 years. Just because something is different doesn't mean it's better. I doubt any changes will happen until a caliber change comes along, or caseless ammo is developed.

[gunnerbob]

How about trying the 16" or 18" barrel FN FAL type weapons?

[wjh2657]

I'm not sure about this. The latest batch of M4s were manufactured by FN (a Belgian company, who BTW owns Browning) so I don't think you can blame the "US Firearms Industry." Besides, the AK-47 is an even older design and is still in use all over the world, and not just by 3rd-world countries either. Like someone said above there just hasn't been a major advancement in assault rifle technology in 50 years. Just because something is different doesn't mean it's better. I doubt any changes will happen until a caliber change comes along, or caseless ammo is developed.

You just made my point. Large American manufacturers (and the Government) are outsourcing our weapons manufacturing. If American makers did their homework, they would be producing a better weapon to compete and if our government did it's job it would be buying the then superior American-made weapon.Large American companies do not improve anything except their bottom line. They expect the buyer to accept their products regardless of utility or need instead of meeting the market demand. Their motto is: "Chase profits not market."

The AK-47 is in use because it was designed to be made in crude, "home factories", a lesson the Soviets learned at Stalingrad. (They built the PPSH type weapons right inside a besieged city.) Also the AK-47s were built in such huge numbers that many are available. It is also very easy to maintain under rough conditions. IMHO it is not however the best weapon around or one for a technically advanced country to emulate. I base this on carrying an AK-47M in one of my tours in VietNam and I now own a Czech made AK-47 ( the cream of the crop.) I love it but there are newer rifles I would rather carry in combat (based on 6 years in Vietnam. 4 tours.)

There has been many advances in the assault rifle design, including bull pup configuration to give a smaller overall length. There have even been several smaller American companies that have designed and built very effective newer designs. IMHO they just can't break into the inner circle of Congressional influence to get the government buyers to act.

[SC Tiger]

You just made my point. Large American manufacturers (and the Government) are outsourcing our weapons manufacturing. If American makers did their homework, they would be producing a better weapon to compete and if our government did it's job it would be buying the then superior American-made weapon.Large American companies do not improve anything except their bottom line. They expect the buyer to accept their products regardless of utility or need instead of meeting the market demand. Their motto is: "Chase profits not market."

The AK-47 is in use because it was designed to be made in crude, "home factories", a lesson the Soviets learned at Stalingrad. (They built the PPSH type weapons right inside a besieged city.) Also the AK-47s were built in such huge numbers that many are available. It is also very easy to maintain under rough conditions. IMHO it is not however the best weapon around or one for a technically advanced country to emulate. I base this on carrying an AK-47M in one of my tours in VietNam and I now own a Czech made AK-47 ( the cream of the crop.) I love it but there are newer rifles I would rather carry in combat (based on 6 years in Vietnam. 4 tours.)

There has been many advances in the assault rifle design, including bull pup configuration to give a smaller overall length. There have even been several smaller American companies that have designed and built very effective newer designs. IMHO they just can't break into the inner circle of Congressional influence to get the government buyers to act.

I may have misinterpreted your previous post, but no American company outsourced the M4 or the machine guns. The government deals directly with FN. I agree for the most part, but before the army adopts an American-made weapon someone has to make one that is reliable and won't get soldiers killed. Ruger or Remington/Bushmaster (same company really) could probably do it if they are interested but they don't have anything that would be a huge gain. The original M16 manufacturer (Colt) barely exists any more. I don't think it is a "conspiracy" but is more of a lack of options. Bushmaster's one different weapon that I am aware of (the ACR) started life as the Magpul Masada. Magpul sold the design to Bushmaster because they can't make the thing.

The US Military has always been scared of smaller companies. For example - the Jeep was originally designed and submitted by Willys (sp?). However, the government felt like they could not make the thing in large enough numbers so the contract went to Ford. I have nothing against large companies. Most all of them started as small companies that did a great job at what they were trying to do so they grew.

Bullpups aren't that new - the British are now using one and the French may still be as well. The achillies heel of the old Bullpups was the trigger system. That may be fixed now. The original British bullpup was very problematic but they seem to have corrected the issues. What it finally comes down to though is whether the new system is enough of an improvement to justify the cost.

Here's a funny thing - while we are looking at Belgian and German designs - Lewis Machine and Tool just got a big contract from the British Army for a new rifle that performs the same basic role as the M14 is doing for the US right now.

[jg1967]

It seems that a good many countries have gone the way of the bullpub, Britain, France, Isreael, Austria all use it. The fact that the US switched their frontline rifle to the shorter carbine version M4 seems to indicate they too see the advantages of the more compact rifle.

The Bushmaster ACR is pretty much designed for the military. Most of the features are overkill for anybody else and they drive up the price considerably.

One thing's for sure: If there is a replacement rifle it won't be direct gas impingement again. I'd consider that a goner by now. Just syaing by now there are better ways.