The Next Infantry Assault rifle for the United States

[Chino]

I still think the 6.8 would be better.

If you have a $200 10G iPod, would you fork out another $200 for a new iPod that is 5G bigger?

Because this is what you are asking armed forces to do - fork out lots of money for something that's basically the same as what they already have.

The un-combat-tested 6.8 may indeed be better. But how much better? Forget dry data readings. You have to give it to thousands of troopers who would then shoot thousands of rounds at real people before you know the real answer.

How did you think they found out the shortcomings of the M855? At the test range? No. At the test range they thought they had the perfect answer. That is, until they started issuing it for real combat.

That is the same thing with the 6.8 or whatever new ammo. You won't know its shortcomings until you've invested heavily into it. In the old days governments raised taxes for war, are you willing to let your government use big amounts of your tax dollars for a bullet that is PROBABLY slightly better?

...

With the iPod analogy, most would wait a few more years until something substantially better comes along. After buying a 10G iPod, I waited several years and then bought an iPhone instead. I didn't bother buying another iPod.

That's what most armed forces will be doing: Wait for ammo technology to be substantially different/better.

 

[Marc 1]

I still think the 6.8 would be better.

Why?

It also may reduce muzzle flash but you still give away your position every time you fire just because of the noise.

I disagree. The noise may cue you to look in the general direction of the shooter (crack thump), the muzzle flash will give away his/her exact location. Sound in different environments can be very deceptive in foggy/misty conditions it can be very hard to pinpoint where the shot came from also in close country (jungle), in urban areas or areas with rock walls that the sound can bounce off its also nigh on impossible to use sound alone to pinpoint a shooter.

 

[IronsightSniper]

I honestly do not care if it's a bullpup or "traditional", foriegn or domestic, just get some new guns man!

 

[davh12]

Xm8

We tested the XM 8 in 2005, just before our first deployment to Iraq. Alot of good feedback about the weapon, but like all good things...the Army was not ready to pay for it. They want mass production, best cost & efficiency, etc..........wished they woud've taken that approach. There is some rumor floating around about an upgrade Piston operated upper receiver. I seen it on the ground in Mosul. Some of the SOCOM guys or "Secret squirrel" operators get attached to our unit to eval our tactics & they had that upgrade.

Regards,

Dav:nutkick

The thing is, is that the M16a1,a2,a3,a4 and the M4 Carbine will soon be very outdated, with Russia developing more complex Kalashnikov variants and the rest of NATO moving on to new weapons being produced in Europe.

There was while testing for the XM8 assault riffle, however was canceled.

I believe that the next candidate for a new Infantry riffle of the United States is the SCAR-L which is already in a lot of use in the US army rangers.

Not only that the SCAR 'variants' can be deployed as Assault and Heavy Battle riffles as well as CQB and CQBR forms

I want to know if there are any other better options?

What do you think:ar15

 

[davh12]

Xm 8

Our unit, like some others, tested the XM 8 in 2005 before we deployed to Iraq the first time. Alot of good feedback, but like all good things.... the Army did not go for it in the end. The has been some rumor of the piston operated upper receiver upgrade being used. I seen it a time or two in Mosul.

Regards,

Dav:gun

 

[Go229]

Just my two cents i think a caliber switch would have much more chance of being considered if it was offered in a comprehensive package for all small arms. Perhaps a new rifle design with the new caliber, new barrels and conversion kits for M249 SAWs and upper receivers (half-rifles) to retrofit M16/M4 weapons. But since 5.56mm is NATO standard, you'd want to not only approach the US but major NATO countries to persuade them.

 

[Chino]

Just my two cents i think a caliber switch would have much more chance of being considered if it was offered in a comprehensive package for all small arms. Perhaps a new rifle design with the new caliber, new barrels and conversion kits for M249 SAWs and upper receivers (half-rifles) to retrofit M16/M4 weapons. But since 5.56mm is NATO standard, you'd want to not only approach the US but major NATO countries to persuade them.

There MAY be acknowledged problems with the M855 5.56 round used in the short-barreled M4. But 5.56 as a calibre - no official complaints so far from any military.


To your point about a conversion kit, many NATO countries do not use the M16, so a conversion kit would be pointless to them.

And to your point about a new rifle design, the last thing NATO countries would accept is a rifle design forced upon them because of the calibre change.

And designing a rifle that all NATO can accept? You know the answer.

 

[Go229]

No No No, i didin't mean that all NATO countries would take exactly what america takes. Countries that do use the M16 and SAW (Canada, for instance) could use the same kit or an adapted version. What i meant was approaching major small arms contractors of NATO countries (H&K, FN, ect) to encourage them to integrate the new caliber in their rifles, not forcing a rifle on them. They would do everything, the only thing "forced" on them would be a new standard caliber.

 

[Waylander]

And this new calibre would force other NATO countries to adopt a new rifle + ammunition. This costs money which is a big factor while nearly all countries reduce their defence budgets.

One should also remember that most other NATO countries are rather satisfied with their current assault rifles. Most of these countries also field rifles which liked by the guys on the ground and are much newer designs than the AR-15 descendants the US fields.

How much of the calibre discussion really comes from the US soldiers fielding a short carbine...?

 

[davh12]

I've never had any trouble w/ the 5.56mm. Good for close quarters and I had no issues using it a handful of times in overwatches. It will stop the bad guys trying to drop IEDs:idea2. There are certain cals that have their purpose, but I'm still just up for modifying the M4 w/ gas piston upper receiver.

Regards,

Dav

 

[Chino]

In Desert Storm 1, we did not hear much complaints about rifle jam, terrorists absorbing M16 hits with impunity etc...

But now, suddenly....

IMO... I hate to say this (and deserve all the flak coming) but... when battles or wars are not going well, there is suddenly a lot of complaints about equipment.

It's called the "blame game".

Take for example the massive build up to the case for the piston, and we hear all these unsubstantiated reports where everyone and their dog who didn't do well in combat could now blame it on the M16.

And then who comes along but H&K, with their piston rifle. Hmmm....



On the contrary, here and there, you can find stories of serving troops who deny their M16/M4 is as bad as now being claimed. But the media is only interested when "there is a problem".

Journalists are never impartial and go seeking the truth. They go seek the truth as they already think it.

The IDF fought for 40 years in the same desert with the M16, no complaints. And most of them are conscripts/reservists.

 

[Bonza]

In Desert Storm 1, we did not hear much complaints about rifle jam, terrorists absorbing M16 hits with impunity etc...

But now, suddenly....

IMO... I hate to say this (and deserve all the flak coming) but... when battles or wars are not going well, there is suddenly a lot of complaints about equipment.

It's called the "blame game".

Take for example the massive build up to the case for the piston, and we hear all these unsubstantiated reports where everyone and their dog who didn't do well in combat could now blame it on the M16.

And then who comes along but H&K, with their piston rifle. Hmmm....



On the contrary, here and there, you can find stories of serving troops who deny their M16/M4 is as bad as now being claimed. But the media is only interested when "there is a problem".

Journalists are never impartial and go seeking the truth. They go seek the truth as they already think it.

The IDF fought for 40 years in the same desert with the M16, no complaints. And most of them are conscripts/reservists.

Chino, could I ask for your thoughts on the new M855A1 round? If the information getting around the net is accurate it sounds like quite a high performer. It's apparently tailored for use in the M-4, and I suspect this would go a long way toward correcting the apparent shortcomings associated with firing standard issue 5.56mm ammunition from a short-barrelled weapon. However this isn't an area I'm too familiar with so I'd be interested to hear what you think.

The fact that the Army developed such a round seems to indicate there was at least some kind of problem with service rifle performance (how much of a problem is another story). It sounds to me like the issue has more to do with carbine barrel lengths than it does the 5.56mm as a calibre, but as I said, this isn't really an area of expertise for me.

If the M855A1 can provide a significant performance increase, then it seems like a far more practical and affordable method of increasing service rifle lethality than all this talk of procuring an entirely new rifle/calibre. I should add that I agree with you re "the blame game" and media priorities. I think all the reporting about "issues" with the 5.56mm isn't necessarily a sign of widespread problems, it's merely an indicator of heavy media coverage. While plenty of anecdotes can be found in the media describing problems with the 5.56mm's effectiveness, this needs to be balanced against the millions of global users who have apparently been satisfied enough to use the round for years (as you pointed out with your Israel example).

Likewise I'm very, very doubtful that the US military would consider a large-scale service rifle replacement to be worth it unless emerging technology could provide a significant advance in capability. Until that happens I don't think there's any sense in replacing millions of rifles with millions of marginally improved rifles.

Anyway I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[Chino]

Bonza

I do not have any opinions about the M855A1 in particular as I do not know anything about it other than what I read here and there.

But I have always insisted that, while the 5.56 is not the "magic bullet", it is a mistake to think that any other calibres will/can be.

And it would take a large scale issue to combat troops to find out the real combat effectiveness of any new weapon/ammunition.

I always felt that the answer lies in redesigning the M855. So the M855A1, if it works as advertised, is exactly the solution we need. Not a new calibre.

Or stop issuing short-barrel rifles.

 

[SARC]

During the recent Saudi-Houthi incursion, the very-well equipped Saudi Arabian National Guard (SANG) started their campaign with the 5.56mm Steyr AUG. Like many other Western-orientated armies however, they found themselves outgunned. The Houthi insurgents favour the 7.62mm AK or .303 Enfield. The SANG have since reverted to their old FN-FAL and raided the Army’s H&K G3 stocks.

Saudi Ministry of Defence are presently evaluating the FN SCAR H.

 

[sgtgunn]

The problem is, at least in part, due to the short barrel of the M4. The loss of muzzle velocity is definitely effecting the terminal ballistic performance of the 5.56mm. BUT.....The short LOA of the M4 is one thing that every soldier who carries one is pretty universally happy with. CQB with with a full length M16 is a pain in the ass, as is constantly climbing in and out of HMMWV/MRAP/Bradley/Stryker with a full length rifle.

I spent a lot of my time in Iraq crammed in the front seat of an up armored Toyota Land Cruiser, and with my body armor and M4 it was a tight fit (and I'm not a big guy). A full sized M16 would have sucked to no end.

So it's a trade off - short and light but some loss of range and terminal ballistics.

I would have been willing to carry a longer, heavier rifle, but ONLY if it was worth it due to a larger caliber providing more range, etc.

The people I knew who carried M-14s in a DM role, were quite happy with them (despite the length, weight, etc.) because they felt it was worth the hassle to gain the range, penetration and stopping power of a 7.62mm (especially in Afghanistan were long range shooting is more likely).

I think they best compromise for general use is a intermediate caliber carbine (6.8mm, 6.5mm, etc.) with roughly the same dimensions as the M-4 (perhaps a bullpup, so you can have a shorter LOA and still have a full length barrel). Or maybe field a rifle with interchangeable barrels, so you can throw on a shorty 14.5" or even 10" for CQB and a full length barrel for patrol in the mountains.

Adrian

 

[Waylander]

Other weapons solved the problem of crammed vehicles by either being one of the mentioned bullpub designs or by simply adding a folding stock. By just reducing the barrel length extremely I think the M4 made an important trade-off.
In the US Army you either have the choice of a very short-barrelled carbine or an assault rifle which doesn't even feature full auto.
IMO other nation's 5.56mm rifles offer more and because of this the discussion about the calibre is not so intense as it is in the US.

 

[golden]

Not going to happen with army

The problem is, at least in part, due to the short barrel of the M4. The loss of muzzle velocity is definitely effecting the terminal ballistic performance of the 5.56mm. BUT.....The short LOA of the M4 is one thing that every soldier who carries one is pretty universally happy with. CQB with with a full length M16 is a pain in the ass, as is constantly climbing in and out of HMMWV/MRAP/Bradley/Stryker with a full length rifle.

I spent a lot of my time in Iraq crammed in the front seat of an up armored Toyota Land Cruiser, and with my body armor and M4 it was a tight fit (and I'm not a big guy). A full sized M16 would have sucked to no end.

So it's a trade off - short and light but some loss of range and terminal ballistics.

I would have been willing to carry a longer, heavier rifle, but ONLY if it was worth it due to a larger caliber providing more range, etc.

The people I knew who carried M-14s in a DM role, were quite happy with them (despite the length, weight, etc.) because they felt it was worth the hassle to gain the range, penetration and stopping power of a 7.62mm (especially in Afghanistan were long range shooting is more likely).

I think they best compromise for general use is a intermediate caliber carbine (6.8mm, 6.5mm, etc.) with roughly the same dimensions as the M-4 (perhaps a bullpup, so you can have a shorter LOA and still have a full length barrel). Or maybe field a rifle with interchangeable barrels, so you can throw on a shorty 14.5" or even 10" for CQB and a full length barrel for patrol in the mountains.

Adrian

The problem as always with replacing the M-4 is with what and who will pay for it. SOCOM adopted the SCAR L & H. Now they have stopped purchasing the SCAR-L, but want to keep buying the SCAR H.
They argue that the SCAR L is a better rifle than the M-4, but not worth the much higher costs, probably 50% to 75% higher than buying the M-4 (I don't know what SOCOM paid for them, but am basing this on the MSRP of the civilian version.

The SCAR H in .308 is a different matter. There is not other choice. The M-14 is out of production and would make a poor carbine anyway. It was designed to WW II standards to give the generals an M-1 GARAND with a box magazine in .308 (7.62x51) caliber. SOCOM will keep buying it.

The problem with issuing a 7.62x51 caliber rifle is hitting the target. Designated Marksmen and Snipers do not count. They are by definition, expert shots and specially selected. Same for SOCOM units. What happens when you issue a 7.62x51 rifle or worse a carbine to the average infantry soldier. I will bet the hits go WAY DOWN. A miss with even a .50 caliber Browning is still a miss.

In the end, the next army rifle will probably be selected by the MARINE CORP who are already looking. The will just use the selection process for the interim squad weapon as a chance to spec out an M-4 replacement. Then the ARMY can either buy the 416 top end so as to not buy what the MARINES picked (again) or maybe just go with an ALL AMERICAN buy like the RUGER SR-556 or REMINGTON version of the ACR. To the ARMY, only big name contractors need apply.

 

[sgtgunn]

The problem as always with replacing the M-4 is with what and who will pay for it. SOCOM adopted the SCAR L & H. Now they have stopped purchasing the SCAR-L, but want to keep buying the SCAR H.
They argue that the SCAR L is a better rifle than the M-4, but not worth the much higher costs, probably 50% to 75% higher than buying the M-4 (I don't know what SOCOM paid for them, but am basing this on the MSRP of the civilian version.

The SCAR H in .308 is a different matter. There is not other choice. The M-14 is out of production and would make a poor carbine anyway. It was designed to WW II standards to give the generals an M-1 GARAND with a box magazine in .308 (7.62x51) caliber. SOCOM will keep buying it.

The problem with issuing a 7.62x51 caliber rifle is hitting the target. Designated Marksmen and Snipers do not count. They are by definition, expert shots and specially selected. Same for SOCOM units. What happens when you issue a 7.62x51 rifle or worse a carbine to the average infantry soldier. I will bet the hits go WAY DOWN. A miss with even a .50 caliber Browning is still a miss.

In the end, the next army rifle will probably be selected by the MARINE CORP who are already looking. The will just use the selection process for the interim squad weapon as a chance to spec out an M-4 replacement. Then the ARMY can either buy the 416 top end so as to not buy what the MARINES picked (again) or maybe just go with an ALL AMERICAN buy like the RUGER SR-556 or REMINGTON version of the ACR. To the ARMY, only big name contractors need apply.

A recent press release from FN is denying reports that SOCOM is no longer purchasing the SCAR-L.

FN 5.56 SCAR® Retained in USSOCOM Inventory

I'm not sure why you seem to think that issuing a 7.62mm rifle to "he average infantry soldier" is going to negatively affect marksmanship. A SCAR-H or M-14 is more inherently accurate than an M4 carbine (which is what 90% of US infantry soldiers are carrying these days), especially at longer ranges. With appropriate training and range time, the differences in felt recoil will be no big deal. Everyone these days has some kind of optic as well, either an M68 CCO, ACOG or EoTech. The marksmanship standards of every infantry unit I've ever served in has been remarkably high. I expect is only going to improve due to the recent changes to the basic and advanced rifle marksmanship programs in Army BCT. Non-infantry soldiers will now fire 500 rounds in BRM, and infantry soldiers will fire 750 rounds - a 50% increase from the previous standard.

Army marksmanship declined in the late 60's early 70's after the introduction of the M16 and the retirement of the M-14.

Ultimately it is training, proper weapons maintenance and shot placement that really matter. I'd rather have a squad of professional, well trained soldiers with M1903 Springfields than a bunch of ragged ass conscripts with the latest high tech super rifle.

But having a cool rifle doesn't hurt

Adrian

 

[golden]

Agree to disagree

ADRIAN, I have to ask, have you actually fired the M14 or SCAR? I do not intend any insult, but I have fired the M1A, H&K 91 (semi-auto version of the G3) and the M1 GARAND. If you shoot any of them, recoil will become a problem you notice. 100 rounds in a single session, through an H&K 91, left me with a sore shoulder and bruises.
You may not even be bothered by the recoil, but the issued rifle and round are carried by a lot of people, not just gun enthusiasts. I worked with a guy who used to shoot a .44 magnum with the original wooden grips and thought nothing of it. I only did it once and that cured me of that desire.

When we compare recoil for different rounds, I am not talking about 40 rounds on the range. I am talking about 100 to 200 rounds at a time. For many soldiers, the end result will be a flinch when they shoot and a miss.
Also the time between shots is longer for most people. Recovery time can be critical in a close range battle and a longer recovery time does not help you hit a target at medium ranges.

My agency finally retired the last GLOCK 17's in my district. They were kept for several years past their intended retirement out of fear that those officers issued them would not be able to transition to the .40 caliber H&K that we are now issued.
In fact, several officers are now marginal qualifiers while previously, they shot better scores.

RECOIL is a real factor. Hand an M14 to a 5'9" 160 pound male and train him to the same standard as used now. Then hand the same gun to a 5'3" 115 pound female or even small statured male and see what happens.

Also, according to the U.S. ARMY, the guy who did the most shooting and hitting was not armed with a SPRINGFIELD or GARAND, he was carrying a BAR.

Let me ask. If the requirement for a heavier round is that important, why keep the 7.62x51? I would drop it and issue a long range round like the .260 REMINGTON or 7 MM-08. They both shoot flatter and have nearly as much power. The lesser recoil would also mean more hits and only hits are going to drop an opponent.

Jim

 

[Todjaeger]

ADRIAN, I have to ask, have you actually fired the M14 or SCAR? I do not intend any insult, but I have fired the M1A, H&K 91 (semi-auto version of the G3) and the M1 GARAND. If you shoot any of them, recoil will become a problem you notice. 100 rounds in a single session, through an H&K 91, left me with a sore shoulder and bruises.
You may not even be bothered by the recoil, but the issued rifle and round are carried by a lot of people, not just gun enthusiasts. I worked with a guy who used to shoot a .44 magnum with the original wooden grips and thought nothing of it. I only did it once and that cured me of that desire.

When we compare recoil for different rounds, I am not talking about 40 rounds on the range. I am talking about 100 to 200 rounds at a time. For many soldiers, the end result will be a flinch when they shoot and a miss.
Also the time between shots is longer for most people. Recovery time can be critical in a close range battle and a longer recovery time does not help you hit a target at medium ranges.

I have not personally fired either the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO, or the .30-06 Springfield (yet) and understand that there is some concern regarding recoil. However, I have to point out that both rounds were standard issue rounds used by the US military for extended periods of time. In the case of the 7.62 x 51 mm NATO, it was the standard US Army issue round in 1952 and remained the standard round for ~15 years, until the 5.56 x 45 mm became standard with the widespread deployment of the M-16 and various derivatives. The 7.62 x 51 mm NATO remained the standard round used by many members of NATO until well into the 1980's. In the case of the .30-06 Springfield round, that was the standard US rifle and LMG round for nearly fifty years. That suggests to me that the US has built up considerable experience in fielding a larger calibre round that is currently standard issue, while managing to achieve satisfactory performance in both World Wars.

Granted, there might be a greater number of smaller-statured personnel in the service today, what is really more important given the function of a military or defence force? Be inclusive so that everyone can serve, or require that a minimum set of basic standards be met in order to serve?

-Cheers