Our official response to the Washington Times article entitled “Army quits tests after competing rifle outperforms M4A1 carbine”?
“Derp”
That is all…
We reserve the right to refuse advertising to anyone
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
Soldier Systems Daily is in no way affiliated with the US Government.
Copyright © Soldier Systems Daily 2008-2021. All Rights Reserved.
…this isn’t the first time, I thought they’ve made it clear in the past that unless the new rifle is leaps and bounds better (less malfunctions, lighter, and phased plasma in the 40 watt range…)
So after reading the article, does anybody know who gun “C” was manufactured by?
S/F
29
I’ve seen on two other internet places CLAIMS that it was the HK 416A5
Say it ain’t so…
As for the allegation regarding the use of M855A1.
https://ssdaily.tempurl.host/2010/12/01/potential-individual-carbine-offerors-pay-heed/
Btw, my comment is directed at the Washington Times. They haven’t discovered anything and much of what they say is wrong.
The LSAT program is the future of small arms.
I’ve been hearing that for over 20 years.
😀
I’m sure their new pistol will be so awesome soldiers won’t even need rifles anymore.
Does this really come as a surprise to anyone? It’s common practice for the Army material developers and procurement entities to spend a little to justify doing nothing rather than spending a lot in order to actually field something. I am not denigrating them or their efforts as they have fielded some good kit, and honestly, if you’re not firing it suppressed, the M4A1 will function just fine if you maintain it and your magazines.
How quickly you all forget the Program Manager for Soldier Protection & Individual Equipment commented in regards to the Soldier Scalable Plate Carrier System program that: “the highest rated was the Eagle MBAV — 92 percent of the guys said they would be willing to wear it on a dismounted mission in Afghanistan,” only to have his Deputy defend the decision to go with the lower rated (dead last) KDH solution by stating: “We can’t just go with MBAV because it’s out there and battle-proven,”
Yeah, that’s a REAL “Derp” moment.
What you all need to realize is that the M4 is a sunk cost and the THIRTY MILLION they wasted on the Improved Carbine program pales in comparison to the ONE BILLION dollars and 10 years it would take to equip just the Active Army. Sure you could save some money and just equip the Ground Combat Element like they did during the transition from the M16A1 to the M16A2 (and now M4A1). However, those systems had 100% backwards compatibility of operating group components and +90% of ancillary components. A NEW carbine, let’s say a for arguments sake an HK416 and M4A1 carbine will only have backwards compatibility in regards to the buffer tube, maybe the buffer/buffer spring (depending on weight), pistol grip, butt stock and flash hider and that is a logistical nightmare.
Let’s face it, if you’re a conventional rank and file trooper, you are not going to get a new carbine or pistol and the Armor, Load Bearing Equipment, Optics/Sensors and Uniform you have now, will remain the same until 2030.
Maintain your kit and embrace the suck. Or, if you are really dead set on being issued superior boom sticks and kit, go to your respective service’s SOF entity.
Well said
Spot on Misha.
I speak the truth.
And to further support the fact that there will be no new carbine in the immediate future, one only needs to reference the Sources Sought notice the Army released in May for a potential buy for one or more five “(5) year Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract(s) with Firm Fixed Price orders with an estimated total maximum quantity of 300,000 units”
So, take care of it, and it will take care of you.
Until it randomly feeds a round into the gas tube, regardless of prior to firing cleaning
But thats none my business though
“A NEW carbine, let’s say a for arguments sake an HK416 and M4A1 carbine will only have backwards compatibility in regards to the buffer tube, maybe the buffer/buffer spring (depending on weight), pistol grip, butt stock and flash hider and that is a logistical nightmare.” No offense but that is an ill informed statement. Both the HK 416 and Adcor Upper Receivers will drop-in with existing lower receivers thus maintaining the “backwards” comparability with those parts(and there are a number of upper receiver small parts in the Piston designs that are backwards compatible). The other carbines in that list have little to no compatibility with M-16/M-4 parts other than ammo, magazines and M1913 associated interfaces. I have been shooting the Direct Impingement system for going on 30 years(as well as many other designs) and have been armoring/building them for 11 years and I know the system inside and out. Clearly, the HK416 and Adcor Piston designs totally outclass any DI design in terms of reliability, robustness/low maintenance/replacement cycles and in my shooting of those two types, no breakages or stoppages through 5000 plus rounds. The best barrel of all the types is clearly the HK. It is not only accurate as hell but also the bore can withstand incredible abuse and still have a lifespan many times that of average M-4 barrels. I have lost count of the malfunction and parts breakage occurrences I’ve had with DI rifles and have long known that there have been and are much better designs. Such is why overwhelmingly different Governments & Military’s outside the US avoid the DI design like the plague. Yes, we could do better if we could get the stupid politics and ridiculously over- expensive and lengthy procurement processes out of the way and just adopt a proven off the shelf design. Then again, who cares how much it costs the taxpayers or deprives our Forces of the best equipment so long as the towed lines of the status quo get their fingers in the pie???
Considering that the Mil-Spec regarding the accuracy of the M4 series ( is a 5.6 inch group at 100 yards, it isn’t too hard for any of the other big name manufacturers to best the M4. This comes as no surprise to me.
While the MILSPEC indicates one performance standard for acceptability, the actual performance can be quite different.
The same weapon with a 5 MOA standard can produce 1 MOA groups (if there were a way to post pictures, I would insert a target showing a 5 round/1 inch group at 100 yards), with a rack-grade weapon and standard M855 rounds.
My point is, comparing one rifle’s actual “rounds down range” group, with another rifle’s written MILSPEC acceptability standard is the proverbial “apples and oranges” comparison.
So, at zero cost to the government they could have written the standards as 1 MOA rather than 5 MOA. As you pointed out, Colt/FN is already providing a 1 MOA rifle for the cost of a 5 MOA rifle.
Actually, the 1 MOA grouping that I referred to was accomplished with a current Colt production M4.
Mike D said that it wasn’t hard for other manufacturers to best the Colt in terms of accuracy (5 MOA), while I was pointing out that comparing another manufacturer’s actual group with the gov’t MILSPEC performance standard for the Colt M4 is an unfair comparison, since the Colt M4 can produce actual groupings far tighter than the acceptable 5 MOA that he referred to.
Modern barrel production methods create quite good performance…I might even say that a standard MILSPEC barrel produced today rivals the performance of yesteryear’s match-grade barrel.
With exceptions, the typical rack grade M4 will far out perform the typical service member’s ability, rendering this whole conversation the equivalent of academic mental masturbation.
Please enlighten us as to where you sourced your “Mil-spec” IRT the accuracy requirement of the M4. I’m sure you meant “PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION” (P-SPEC). So, before you start throwing out numbers, you’d better be able to site the government source document.
Now, what is the title of the document, it’s date and what is the full text of the paragraph you cited it from?
Or, did you “read it on the internet”?
I know you were asking Mike D for his source, and I can’t speak for him, but my reference is:
“Military Specification Carbine, 5.56MM: M4,” MIL-C-70599A(AR), 20 January 1994, which superseded MIL-C-70599(AR) of 01 April 1987.
Paragraph 3.4.6, “Targeting and accuracy”:
A series of 10 rounds fired from each carbine at a range of 91.4 meters shall be within the extreme spread and targeting area (heavy outline) specified in Figure I when the front and rear sights are set as follows. The
normal rear sight peep (sight rotated fully rearward) shall be
used with the rear sight set centrally in the slot for windage
within plus or minus five (5) clicks. The top edge of the front
sight post flange shall be set flush to .030 inch below the
bottom surface of the front sight slot. Ammunition shall be
Government standard M855, 5.56mm ball cartridges conforming to
Drawing 9342868 and shall have been certified by the Government
to be of a quality that will have an average horizontal and
vertical standard deviation of 3.4 inches to 4.0 inches at 600
yards as measured in accordance with MIL-C-63989.
Then, there’s a graphic, within which is a table which states that the grouping must not exceed 5.0 inches at 100 yards. This number is slightly different than what Mike D stated (5.6), but is substantially the same, and not particularly erroneous to be worth correcting in passing conversation.
The “heavy outline,” mentioned in the first sentence of para 3.4.6 is actually 22″ x 16″, as shown in the graphic.
The bottom line for all that 3.4.6 states is that when mechanically zeroed according to their directions, the sights need to be accurate enough to get rounds on target at 100 yards. The precision aspect of a 5 MOA group is indicated in the graphic itself.
^ Mike D. should take a lesson from you.
And here we go again….
If those morons were back in the old Army we’d still be using M-1’s
Let me ask something.
We know ca got the results of the competition as they have stated so on their website in a power point on spending. I also know it was a blind test and every rifle was given a letter.
If we take this information at face value….. And given the Washington times hate for the M4 I have no doubt it is correct if they got the information from the CNA, why would we want to swap from a rifle with 500MRBS and 6,000MRBEFF to a rifle with 2,500MRBS and 4,500MRBEFF.
sure one is more reliable in Class I, i stoppages, but come Class III stoppages it breaks way more often.
Maybe it is just me but I would rather keep our M4A1s than move to a rifle that breaks faster, but may have less double feeds(which can be remedied with Pmags).