That time of the year again - Army seeks improved carbine

[Stark]

Hey Stark, do you happen to remember any of the stuff said about the AUG when you guys were adopting it?

There were complaints about reliability (ie 'wah I don't know how to strip it').

There were complaints about the barrel melting (ie 'omg its not a machinegun' although this was apparently a problem at some point).

There were complaints about all the plastic (ie 'wah toygun').

There were complaints about the sight (ie 'wah it's not like the FAL').

There were complaints about the bullpup layout (ie 'wah I have to learn new drills') specifically about how it was 'impossible' to reload prone.

There were complaints about the foregrip (ie 'wah its better but I hate it').

Basically every firearm rag hated it because it was new/different/modern/etc. Nowadays everyone loves it; any body of guys with specific skills are going to hate change, but later they can genearlly look back and see it was a good thing. Most long-serving ADF guys seem to think it's an accurate, reliable, easy to look after and forgiving weapon. They'd probably prefer the newer furniture with rails and shit, though.

Outside the loss of essential 'shoot guy through a tree' capacity in the change to 5.56 it was a win.

[Mr. Coffee]

Are you stupid? The OP is yet another example of the AR15 family being the worst of several tested weapons.

yep, never said it wasn't either, dick.

You can't handwave this with 'age of weapon' and 'omg parts failure'.

And never tried to handwave the weapons test either, shitbird. I said age and parts failure would account for a lot of the annecdotes about malfuntions by users of the M4.

Your simpleminded costing analysis (which doesn't even take into account that the AR15 family is always going to be cheaper because its established until AFTER you change) is irrelevant to your attempts to dodge the repeated failures in controlled tests to factors that aren't relevant.

Actually I already mentioned a reason for why it's cheaper, dumbass. Maybe you were to busy stroking yourself up for another troll to notice when I mentioned the existing vendors we have contracts with for M4 and spares in my last post.

They keep testing because they KNOW the AR15 is shit, and they WANT another weapon, and they PROVE those weapons are better.

And until they can find a better weapon at a price point close enough to the M4 to satisfy the people that authorize the purchase they ain't gonna get one. Which has been pretty much my point all along.

Then ... nothing happens... probably because American procurement is corrupt and dishonest and a whole generation of Americans like you were raised to defend the M16.

Yes, because saying it's cheaper and the flaws are actually not that hard to fix, it just costs money means "corrupt"... Seriously, is there something in the water down there that makes you this retarded?

The fact you provide no sources for any of your cost comparisons and don't bother to consider that improved uppers for the family have already been rejected is just sad.

Hell, at least I've attempted to source my shit. You haven't even tried that much, Mister "$200 M4". Instead all I get is more hot air and accusations about me being corrupt or some retarded trolling horseshit.

I guess all that's left it... justify how the M4 is actually a quality weapon and you don't need to replace it after all every time it loses a reliability trial.

For the price it's pretty much the best gun you can get. Basically you're saying that a bunch of weapons that cost a lot more than the M4 have better reliability. No shit, Sherlock. Let me guess, next you'll tell me that a $500k Ferrari is a better car than a $30k Ford Taurus...

[Stark]

ITT 'the M16 isn't unreliable' is a valid counter-argument to 'the M16 family always loses reliability tests by a wide margin'. I'm glad we're not just knee-jerk defending the piece of shit or anything.

Oh wait other guns cost more even though you have no idea how much they cost and the Army itself clearly doesn't care because they keep testing anyway! These ARE the guys that wasted a pile of money on the OICW, remember. The US Army is too poverty to replace their firearms and are happy to constantly waste hundreds of millions (ie, hundreds of thousands of rifles) on tests out of kindness to the domestic arms industry, but there's no corruption there. What they need to do is fund another test for the M4 to lose and then buy more M4s! LOGIC!.

Americans and their cultural myopia about the AR15 family are fucking hilarious. My favourite part is where he claims that the problems are 'easy to fix' (ps, don't buy an M16 = don't need to fix them) even though parts designed to fix the weapons have already been rejected by the procurement process (ie, HK416).

Uh oh!

[CaptHawkeye]

It's pretty ironic when the Germans take a gun design of yours and it's so shitty they make it simpler and better. I mean, 70 years ago they were making the King Tiger. Now they're taking other guys weapons and making them not suck.

[Stark]

You have to imagine their confusion. After several tests go nowhere they decide that Americans want an American gun, so they rebrand the G36 the XM8. It goes nowhere, so they decide to go safe and just provide a new part for the existing weapons that make it better... and that goes nowhere either.

They probably think 'why the fuck are you looking for a new weapon when you have no interest in buying them'. The only result is that other nations have accurate statistics about how much better their rifle is than the American one.

[Mr. Coffee]

ITT 'the M16 isn't unreliable' is a valid counter-argument to 'the M16 family always loses reliability tests by a wide margin'. I'm glad we're not just knee-jerk defending the piece of shit or anything.

Compared to those rifles it's less reliable then the others. Less reliable does not mean unreliable, dickhead. Butt I'm glad to see you're back with more of your "lol" trolling idiocy.

Oh wait other guns cost more even though you have no idea how much they cost

FN SCAR: $2,300-$2,400 depending on model (Civilian model prices, figure the military/LEO sale version to be %5-%10 above that). source

HK416: $800-$1400 depending on what exactly your buying and in what volume. Source So on par with the M4 price wise as long as you're just buying the upper and swapping it out. Still costs more than just converting existing M4s to gas piston.

XM8 cost: No one fucking knows because they canceled it.

Cost of a gas piston conversion kit for an M4... $250 from ADAM Arms, $400 from Bushmaster for the kit. Installation is so simple even you could do it in about 15min with adult supervision.

and the Army itself clearly doesn't care because they keep testing anyway! These ARE the guys that wasted a pile of money on the OICW, remember. The US Army is too poverty to replace their firearms and are happy to constantly waste hundreds of millions (ie, hundreds of thousands of rifles) on tests out of kindness to the domestic arms industry, but there's no corruption there. What they need to do is fund another test for the M4 to lose and then buy more M4s! LOGIC!.

And you'll remember in my very first post where I said the US Army was going to just piss its money away, cancel the program before actually choosing, much less procuring a new weapon, and we'll still be using the M4s.

Seriously, if you're just going to invent arguments for me, could you just save us both some time and provide some entertainment at least by arguing with yourself?

Americans and their cultural myopia about the AR15 family are fucking hilarious. My favourite part is where he claims that the problems are 'easy to fix' (ps, don't buy an M16 = don't need to fix them) even though parts designed to fix the weapons have already been rejected by the procurement process (ie, HK416).

Yeah, they probably rejected the upper because then you've got a brand new upper on top of an old ass M4 lower. Also, I don't think they actually looked at just simply swapping out the direct gas impingement system to gas piston (it really is just a $250 part that takes about 15min to swap).

The funny part is, the best candidate for replacing the M4, the HK416 is essentially an M4 clone with all the fixes the M4 needs designed into it. After us fucking with HK on the XM8 I'm surprised they even talk to us anymore. At least the HK416 will see some civilian sales if the Army dicks 'em around on this weapon too.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Best part of the XM8 was that at the end of the day it was a G36 that had been broken AMERICANIZED at extreme cost.

[Mr. Coffee]

Best part of the XM8 was that at the end of the day it was a G36 that had been broken AMERICANIZED at extreme cost.

Few other difference beside just the silly looking pew-pew laser rifle furniture. But, yeah...

[JointStrikeFighter]

Best part of the XM8 was that at the end of the day it was a G36 that had been broken AMERICANIZED at extreme cost.

Few other difference beside just the silly looking pew-pew laser rifle furniture. But, yeah...

Apparently it was significantly less durable.

[CaptHawkeye]

I don't even get it. Britain was literally able to just GUESS the future weapons they would need for scenarios that hadn't even happened yet. They made the 15 inch naval gun with a ridiculously short development cycle and no prototype testing when they barely even needed it. The Army's anti tank guns and field guns were all great designs (they were so good the industrially superior American and Russian Armies bought them in swaths). They were all on the field almost as soon as it became apparent they would need them. When Britain made a boo boo with the SA-80 they just fixed it, renamed it the L85 and that was it.

Yet America with all its money, factories, talented design teams, etc can't get through the bureaucracy to make a new god damn rifle.

[Mr. Coffee]

Best part of the XM8 was that at the end of the day it was a G36 that had been broken AMERICANIZED at extreme cost.

Few other difference beside just the silly looking pew-pew laser rifle furniture. But, yeah...

Apparently it was significantly less durable.

But it looked all futuristic and transformative and shit, dude! But yeah, we could've just gone with the G36. I don't see why we'd be worried about "Oh noes, the Germans are building them and not 'MURICAN Laborers". They'd have ended up mostly being build here in the states either by HK USA or under license by Colt or Remington.

[Stark]

Uh oh, sources suggest 19% of soldiers experience M4 stoppages in combat. Whoops.

Not an unreliable weapon, though. Probably anecdotal, even though it's repeatedly proven in tests. WHY DO I HATE FREEDOM?

The M4 received a number of strong requests from M-16 users, who liked its smaller profile. Among M4 users, however, 19% of said they experienced stoppages in combat – and almost 20% of those said they were “unable to engage the target with that weapon during a significant portion of or the entire firefight after performing immediate or remedial action to clear the stoppage.” The report adds that “Those who attached accessories to their weapon were more likely to experience stoppages, regardless of how the accessories were attached [including via official means like rail mounts].” Since “accessories” can include items like night sights, flashlights, et. al., their use is not expected to go away any time soon.

Wait wait wait - gluing shit on a shit rifle doesn't solve problems? FUCK OFF!

But hey, let's compare first-run prices for a new weapon to prices for an established weapon and then claim that cheaper is better even when it gets you complete shit. Why does America have super-advanced missiles and planes but fucking horrid rifles? Possibly because people like Coffee create an environment where change isn't just bad - its actively attacked. The M4 is FINE! It's totally FINE! It's not unreliable!

Hawx, the British also made those experimental rifles post WW2 that were basically modern assault rifles and ammunition. America just said 'na uh fuck youse go 762'.

[Mr. Coffee]

Yet America with all its money, factories, talented design teams, etc can't get through the bureaucracy to make a new god damn rifle.

It's not getting someone to make a new rifle. There's several weapons out there ready to go that are better. The big problem is getting the people that hold the purse strings to understand why we need something better even if it costs more.

[Stark]

Not corruption, though. Let's hand around all the contracts to get parts for existing systems instead! The article shows how much the US Army gets raped on procurement costs to support the M4.

Amusingly even state arsenal Colt would be happy to make a pistol system for the M4.

[Mr. Coffee]

Wait wait wait - gluing shit on a shit rifle doesn't solve problems? FUCK OFF!

Yeah, who'd a thunk that when you add on ten pounds of extra shit to a weapon things go wrong. Guess what... All the possible replacements would need a lot of that same shit added on as well.

But hey, let's compare first-run prices for a new weapon to prices for an established weapon and then claim that cheaper is better even when it gets you complete shit.

I never said cheaper is better, you dishonest shit. I said cheaper is more likely to get bought, because well, it fucking costs less money. Which is the exact same reasoning dipshit congress critters are going to use when the next DoD budget item comes up for a vote. Also, the DoD has a lot of other programs that need money, and once again a new rifle is sucking hind tit to things like new stealth fighters and missiles and shit that they can sell to congress easier because it means more jobs, taxes, pork, ect.

Why does America have super-advanced missiles and planes but fucking horrid rifles?

Because it's easier to sell people on flashy wizbangs then it is on something relatively simple like a rifle.

Possibly because people like Coffee create an environment where change isn't just bad - its actively attacked. The M4 is FINE! It's totally FINE! It's not unreliable!

There you go inventing shit again. I'm actually starting to wonder if there's another user here with my screen name or if you've finally lost your goddamned mind.

Hawx, the British also made those experimental rifles post WW2 that were basically modern assault rifles and ammunition. America just said 'na uh fuck youse go 762'.

Pretty much...

[Edward Yee]

Amusingly even state arsenal Colt would be happy to make a pistol system for the M4.

If I recall correctly, it's not so much a "foreign-made" problem -- supposedly the Army actually rejected a piston upper offered by Colt Defense itself.

[Ritterin Sophia]

It's pretty ironic when the Germans take a gun design of yours and it's so shitty they make it simpler and better. I mean, 70 years ago they were making the King Tiger. Now they're taking other guys weapons and making them not suck.

Eh? Are you talking about the HK416 and the gas piston system? Various manufacturers have been marketing gas piston conversion kits long before H&K decided to market it as a brand new weapon. I don't have a hate on for H&K but I do have a problem with giving them credit for an idea that was already well established.

[CaptHawkeye]

Yeah but it's not like it's the first time Heckler and Koch have made a better small arm than someone else. It's not even really important that they weren't the first to fix the weapon. They took a broken rifle, simplified it, and it was better.

The US Army has an irrational fear of any change to the base AR-15. Even though the 416 was changed very little and worked substantially better. HK literally couldn't give them a weapon that was enough like the M4. Giving them the M4 AGAIN didn't even work.

The fact that guys have made after market parts for the M4 that fix it just drive home the point.

[Edward Yee]

Didn't the HK416 come about specifically because a certain SOF wanted an AR-15 type with 10-inch barrel that could reliably operate while suppressed?

[Thanas]

Wait wait wait - gluing shit on a shit rifle doesn't solve problems? FUCK OFF!

Yeah, who'd a thunk that when you add on ten pounds of extra shit to a weapon things go wrong. Guess what... All the possible replacements would need a lot of that same shit added on as well.

What "shit" would that be?

[Mr. Coffee]

Yeah but it's not like it's the first time Heckler and Koch have made a better small arm than someone else.

Really? You actually think that HK is the first company to offer an M4/M16 clone with gas-piston operation? Because HK aren't the first to market with one by any stretch.

The US Army has an irrational fear of any change to the base AR-15. Even though the 416 was changed very little and worked substantially better. HK literally couldn't give them a weapon that was enough like the M4. Giving them the M4 AGAIN didn't even work.

That's the thing that kills me about this. Not only will they not settle on a better alternative to the M4, they won't even fix the M4 to correct the flaws.

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).

[Vympel]

Its so obvious what's going to happen with this. A few minor improvements will be made to the M4/M16 under the improvement program, and then those improvements will be used as a justification to reject all the new guns. And kludgy-mediocrity will continue.

[Vympel]

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.

[Mr Bean]

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.

Damn it Russia don't steal your naming scheme from computer makers, your going to end up in 20 years with the AK-280 MX. You had a good system, go by years, want to add a 1 to signify it's not the 1900's anymore? Fine, AK-110 or 115 or whenever you wide issue it.

[Lizzie]

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.

Yeah that was me who first mentioned the AN-94, thanks for the article, I didn't know they had shut down that rifle and replaced it with another one ... which looks just like a black AK74 but with rails. I wonder what the actual performance is like...