That time of the year again - Army seeks improved carbine

[JointStrikeFighter]

Oh, and someone mentioned the AN-94. It really looks as if that rifle has been consigned to the dustbin of history. Too expensive, too complicated. Only used in small numbers by really good operators. The future of the Russian Army's infantry is in the hands of the AK-200.

Probably end up with M27 IARs.

[MKSheppard]

Seems one major reason why gas piston uppers are still in the "not adopted yet" zone is their enormous extra cost.

Did some checking around; and the average cost for a conventional replacement M4 upper is about $600; while a gas-piston replacement M4 upper is about $1,100 or more; and while the G-P does improve reliability quite a bit; it's not enough to make up for it's doubled cost.

This is not a problem when you're talking about equipping a small quantity of Special Forces shooters; you're only paying for about 50-100 or so.

But when you start talking about the kind of quantities the US Military buys; then twice the cost becomes a major issue; for it means for the same amount of money you get either:

400,000 conventional M4s
or
200,000 gas piston M4s

Meaning that if you go with conventional M4s, you can give more people newer guns that aren't beat to shit.

If this time around, the Army can manage to get a Gas Piston system that's marginally more expensive ($100 - $150 more) than the traditional M4; then the cost-benefit ratio of the improved reliability will be enough to get the system purchased.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Seems one major reason why gas piston uppers are still in the "not adopted yet" zone is their enormous extra cost.

Did some checking around; and the average cost for a conventional replacement M4 upper is about $600; while a gas-piston replacement M4 upper is about $1,100 or more; and while the G-P does improve reliability quite a bit; it's not enough to make up for it's doubled cost.

This is not a problem when you're talking about equipping a small quantity of Special Forces shooters; you're only paying for about 50-100 or so.

But when you start talking about the kind of quantities the US Military buys; then twice the cost becomes a major issue; for it means for the same amount of money you get either:

400,000 conventional M4s
or
200,000 gas piston M4s

Meaning that if you go with conventional M4s, you can give more people newer guns that aren't beat to shit.

If this time around, the Army can manage to get a Gas Piston system that's marginally more expensive ($100 - $150 more) than the traditional M4; then the cost-benefit ratio of the improved reliability will be enough to get the system purchased.

And yet everyone else can afford it with far smaller percentage spending on defence.

[Stark]

Is this more 'compare low-rate production with high-rate production and claim intrinsic cost' analysis from the armchair generals?

Maybe - just maybe - the heap of shit AR15 family is cheap in the US due to the enormous cultural penetration and wide production scale and maybe - just maybe - anything else would be similar in cost at the same scale.

Ie maybe changing appears expensive due to non-intrinsic factors.

Oh sorry I forgot we needed more one-datapoint one-variable simpleminded analysis to explain away why the greatest military in history fields such a heap of shit while blowing piles of money on weapons it'll never use.

What's interesting in that article I linked before is that its considered that the 416 - like all the not-shit mine-resistant vehicles - might be a catalyst for change, and while it won't be adopted because Americans are morons they might adopt the Colt version and finally get some improvement for the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent on wasting their time. Turns out by having a product the blatantly demonstrates how shit your product is and how easily it can be improved forces people to change.

[Thanas]

What "shit" would that be?

I'd guess he's talking about optics, laser, lights, ect. Added weight probably isn't 10Lbs (more like it brings the total weight of the weapon to around that depending on what all you got attached).

But the weapons mentioned already have that installed and taken into account for base weight, the G-36 for example already has a good optics system as standard issue.

[JointStrikeFighter]

The designers of the G36 didn't feel the need to rail up every single surface of their gun either :V

[Stark]

Adding functionality with addons is less efficient weightwise anyway. But hey, it's way better to buy an M16 and put an ACOG on it, right?

[Zixinus]

About the nationalistic things: keep in mind that the US armies did adopt the Baretta 92, an Italian weapon over a Colt SSP or rthe S&W (another all-american maker!) M459 (some say that the M459 was removed from the competition unfairly). The same happened with the SOCOM OHS trials: the German Mark 23 M0 was picked above the American Colt's SOCOM OHS. The latter trials were especially controversial. So this may not be as simple as "americans don't want eurocommie guns hur hur".

And yet everyone else can afford it with far smaller percentage spending on defence.

That is not that significant. What is to be considered, is how large the army is when compared to how large the country is versus the defense budget as a whole. It's easy to buy the best when you only need a few of them.

[haard]

One thing that struck me as odd in the OP was the specification of a "500-meter" weapon.

Is that desirable? I can understand those ranges for marksmen and machine guns, but why would a standard-issue assault rifle/carbine need an effective range of 500 meters? You'll need (or at least I need) good optics and a bi-pod to hit anything at 500.

[Skgoa]

Because engagements are happening at longer ranges, now. E.g. the Taliban have switched their tactics to what comes down to sitting outside the M4's effective range. Since air support has also been reduced, this led to longer engagements with higher casualties.

[MKSheppard]

Adding functionality with addons is less efficient weightwise anyway. But hey, it's way better to buy an M16 and put an ACOG on it, right?

From a long term perspective; keeping the functionality separate via addons is more cost effective; since if the addon breaks, you can just remove it from the rifle and put a replacement on -- while if it's integrated into the weapon itself, a breakage means you need something a bit more advanced than the skills of your unit armorer.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Because engagements are happening at longer ranges, now. E.g. the Taliban have switched their tactics to what comes down to sitting outside the M4's effective range. Since air support has also been reduced, this led to longer engagements with higher casualties.

I think it would not be wise to design a new rifle for the current situation in Afghanistan. Of course more effective range is never a bad thing in itself, but if it increases the weight of the weapon and ammunition too much, it could be counter-productive in the long run. Modern soldiers already have a lot of gear to haul around. I mean it would be easy to get that kind of range; just switch back to the M14. Although I don't know how many of those the US Army still has stockpiled.

The point is that from a modern point of view a battle rifle like the M14 is too heavy and cumbersome for a standard rifle. The SCAR-H is lighter, but pretty expensive. This of course brings a right back to the cartridge problem: cartridges in the 6-7 mm range look good on paper, but would it be wise to adopt a completely new cartridge that is not NATO compatible, since it's extremely unlikely that any other NATO country or other US allies would be willing to change their rifle at this point or any time in the near future? Furthermore, buying sufficient quantities of the new ammo would be a non-trivial cost. That's why I think that a better way to deal with the range issue would be to train more designated marksmen with suitable weapons (i.e. 7.62x51 mm) for the job and get a new, or at least less worn down GPMGs to replace the M249, perhaps something light enough that it could be used at the squad level at least in Afghanistan, or alternatively a slightly heavier LMG with a long barrel (in other words, the MG-4).

[Commander 598]

Nobody is talking about the M14, we're talking about the 14.5in barrel on the M4 (A carbine that this thread is about) being insufficient for the task and a pretty big step down from the M16's 20in barrel. The M27 IAR is supposed to have a 16.5in barrel.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Nobody is talking about the M14, we're talking about the 14.5in barrel on the M4 (A carbine that this thread is about) being insufficient for the task and a pretty big step down from the M16's 20in barrel. The M27 IAR is supposed to have a 16.5in barrel.

I am. The easiest answer to the range problem is to increase caliber; after all apart from the alleged stopping power issues of the 5.56x45 mm, range is the main reason for the various 6-7 mm cartridge proposals. Furthermore, if all you care about is range, the M14 is a pretty good solution for that, although I don't think anyone would seriously suggest bringing it back (well, I have seen such proposals, mostly from old Marines). With that in mind I also wanted to analyze a little bit why increasing caliber might not be realistic or even desirable. This is relevant because one of the main points of the new carbine competition is that it's supposed to be caliber agnostic. In theory, that is.

[MKSheppard]

Nobody is talking about the M14, we're talking about the 14.5in barrel on the M4 (A carbine that this thread is about) being insufficient for the task and a pretty big step down from the M16's 20in barrel. The M27 IAR is supposed to have a 16.5in barrel.

Speaking of which, the XM-8 was the same length as the M-4, but had a 12.5 inch barrel. So it's easy to see why it quietly died along with the rest of the OICW system.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I am. The easiest answer to the range problem is to increase caliber; after all apart from the alleged stopping power issues of the 5.56x45 mm, range is the main reason for the various 6-7 mm cartridge proposals. Furthermore, if all you care about is range, the M14 is a pretty good solution for that, although I don't think anyone would seriously suggest bringing it back (well, I have seen such proposals, mostly from old Marines). With that in mind I also wanted to analyze a little bit why increasing caliber might not be realistic or even desirable. This is relevant because one of the main points of the new carbine competition is that it's supposed to be caliber agnostic. In theory, that is.

You are aware that the length of the barrel impacts the ballistics of the 5.56 NATO immensely, right? An M16A4 with a 20-in barrel is good out to 500m, by changing the barrel to a 14.5-inch it drops the initial velocity and thus the effective range of the weapon drops by 200m. You don't need a brand new fucking cartridge just to get more range, just stopping using an insufficiently sized barrel.

[Mr Bean]

You are aware that the length of the barrel impacts the ballistics of the 5.56 NATO immensely, right? An M16A4 with a 20-in barrel is good out to 500m, by changing the barrel to a 14.5-inch it drops the initial velocity and thus the effective range of the weapon drops by 200m. You don't need a brand new fucking cartridge just to get more range, just stopping using an insufficiently sized barrel.

Then it would not be you know... a carbine. Which is what they are after. And surprise if your 5.56 NATO has terrible range out of a carbine, might be another great idea to have your carbine switch ammo types eh?

[Zixinus]

Nobody is talking about the M14, we're talking about the 14.5in barrel on the M4 (A carbine that this thread is about) being insufficient for the task and a pretty big step down from the M16's 20in barrel. The M27 IAR is supposed to have a 16.5in barrel.

Speaking of which, the XM-8 was the same length as the M-4, but had a 12.5 inch barrel. So it's easy to see why it quietly died along with the rest of the OICW system.

Not quite. The barrel was meant to be interchangeable, remember? Granted that standard configuration was a 318mm barrel versus the M4's 370mm. Unlike the M4, the XM8 was meant to accept a 229mm Compact barrel and a 509mm Sharpshooter/SAW barrel as well. If barrel length would have been an issue later on, it would be easier to replace as the XM8's barrel was designed to be quick-detachable.

Plus, there is the idea that if the judges told that the XM8 would have only needed a barrel 50-80mms longer and there would be XM8s coming out with 50-80mm longer barrels for a weapon that was more reliable (not just the weapon's operations but also in munition feeding: the STAGNAG has some problems) and somewhat more modular than than the M4 (Picatinny rails could always be added later).

So, no, I don't see how barrel length alone was the source of the problem.

[Stark]

Adding functionality with addons is less efficient weightwise anyway. But hey, it's way better to buy an M16 and put an ACOG on it, right?

From a long term perspective; keeping the functionality separate via addons is more cost effective; since if the addon breaks, you can just remove it from the rifle and put a replacement on -- while if it's integrated into the weapon itself, a breakage means you need something a bit more advanced than the skills of your unit armorer.

Did you just say it was better to throw the ACOG away and put another on because somehow that makes sense or your armourers are retards? Don't spend more on a rifle when you can spend way more on wasting money.

Good thing armorers never upskill I guess. Nobody in the ADF knows how to replace the sight on a rifle that's for ... Wait a second.

Is this really what passes for logic in the US Army?

[[R_H]]

One thing that struck me as odd in the OP was the specification of a "500-meter" weapon.

Is that desirable? I can understand those ranges for marksmen and machine guns, but why would a standard-issue assault rifle/carbine need an effective range of 500 meters? You'll need (or at least I need) good optics and a bi-pod to hit anything at 500.

It doesn't, because if they don't receive the appropriate training and range to utilise the 500m range, they won't have much luck hitting targets that far out. 500m range means heavier ammunition, which means being able to carry less MG belts/mortar bombs etc.

Because engagements are happening at longer ranges, now. E.g. the Taliban have switched their tactics to what comes down to sitting outside the M4's effective range. Since air support has also been reduced, this led to longer engagements with higher casualties.

An infantry squad/platoon doesn't just have M4s. Besides, the enemy should be fixed, then closed with and destroyed by fire and maneuver.

[Aaron]

Did you just say it was better to throw the ACOG away and put another on because somehow that makes sense or your armourers are retards? Don't spend more on a rifle when you can spend way more on wasting money.

Good thing armorers never upskill I guess. Nobody in the ADF knows how to replace the sight on a rifle that's for ... Wait a second.

Is this really what passes for logic in the US Army?

No, thats Shep's logic. Weapons Tech's are on the same level as a civvie gunsmith (above a certain QL), so their capable of doing all this. Regardless, there will almost certainly be a maintenance agreement with whoever they buy from, having certain problems will require them sent back for X years.

[JointStrikeFighter]

You are aware that the length of the barrel impacts the ballistics of the 5.56 NATO immensely, right? An M16A4 with a 20-in barrel is good out to 500m, by changing the barrel to a 14.5-inch it drops the initial velocity and thus the effective range of the weapon drops by 200m. You don't need a brand new fucking cartridge just to get more range, just stopping using an insufficiently sized barrel.

Then it would not be you know... a carbine. Which is what they are after. And surprise if your 5.56 NATO has terrible range out of a carbine, might be another great idea to have your carbine switch ammo types eh?

Or they could just switch to a bullpup and have a 20inch barrel in the same length as an M4

But that would be unamerican

[Mr. Coffee]

But the weapons mentioned already have that installed and taken into account for base weight, the G-36 for example already has a good optics system as standard issue.

Um, no they don't. But the SCAR, no built in optics and it's got a bunch of rails for mounting stuff, and no, they didn't include the weight of add-ons into the base weight of the weapon itself (seriously, name one manufacturer of anything that includes the weight of optional accessories in the base weight of a product). Same for HK's 416.

The G36 has built in optics, but having seen 'em up close, it's not that great an optic and it's fixed in place so you can't adjust eye relief and because the stock is of a fixed length you can't adjust length of pull either. Other then those two flaws, it's great rifle.

[Thanas]

The G36 has built in optics, but having seen 'em up close, it's not that great an optic and it's fixed in place so you can't adjust eye relief and because the stock is of a fixed length you can't adjust length of pull either.

Both of that would be because you would be handling the dumbed-down export version and not the premium version the Bundeswehr uses, which to my knowledge has great adjustable optics.

[Mr. Coffee]

The G36 has built in optics, but having seen 'em up close, it's not that great an optic and it's fixed in place so you can't adjust eye relief and because the stock is of a fixed length you can't adjust length of pull either.

Both of that would be because you would be handling the dumbed-down export version and not the premium version the Bundeswehr uses, which to my knowledge has great adjustable optics.

Yeah, the made a newer version with quick detachable optics on a picatinny rail. They're still stick with that god-awful stock. Which is odd because the export versions they sold to Latvia and Spain have fully adjustable stocks instead.