Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US Army: new rifle, just not for everybody
doggtag    2/23/2007 10:36:09 AM
From Army Times, 26 Feb 2007 Better than M4, but you can’t have one By Matthew Cox - Staff writer Posted : Friday Feb 23, 2007 5:27:44 EST Delta Force worked with a gun maker to come up with a better weapon. The 416 is now considered in many circles to be the best carbine in the world, but the regular Army is sticking with the M4 and M16. March 4, 2002. An RPG tore into the right engine of an MH-47 Chinook helicopter loaded with a quick-reaction force of Rangers in the Shahikot Mountains of eastern Afghanistan. The Chinook crashed atop Takur Ghar, a 10,000-foot peak infested with al-Qaida fighters. Enemy fire poured into the fuselage, killing Rangers even before they got off the aircraft. Capt. Nate Self crawled out. “As soon as I got off the ramp, a burst of rounds fired right over my head,” he recalled. He joined a handful of his men in the open, exposed to enemy fire. An RPG exploded within a few feet of their position. “We got up and started firing and moving to some boulders 15 meters away,” he said. Once behind cover, Self tried to fire again, but his weapon jammed. Instinctively, he tried to fix it with “immediate action,” a drill he’d practiced countless times. “I pulled my charging handle back, and there was a round stuck in the chamber,” he recalled. Like the rest of his men, Self always carried a cleaning rod zip-tied to the side of his weapon in case it failed to extract a round from the chamber. “There was only one good way to get it out and that’s to ram it out with a cleaning rod,” he said. “I started to knock the round out by pushing the rod down the barrel, and it broke off. There was nothing I could do with it after that.” The Rangers were fighting for their lives. Self left his covered position and ran under machine-gun fire to search for a working weapon. “I just got up and moved back to the aircraft because I knew we had casualties there. I threw my rifle down and picked up another one.” Self was awarded a Silver Star for his actions that day. When even highly trained infantrymen like Self have problems with their M4 it is a sign there might be a problem with the weapon, not the soldier. The problems had become obvious enough that at the time of the Afghanistan battle, members of the Army’s Delta Force had begun working on a solution. Today, Delta Force is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan with a special carbine that’s dramatically more reliable than the M16s and M4s that the rest of the Army dependsupon. Members of the elite unit linked up with German arms maker Heckler & Koch, which replaced the M4’s gas system with one that experts say significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing parts life. After exhaustive tests with the help of Delta, the H&K 416 was ready in 2004. Members of the elite commando unit — formally known as 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta — have been carrying it in combat ever since. The 416 is now considered in many circles to be the best carbine in the world — a weapon that combines the solid handling, accuracy and familiarity of the M4 with the famed dependability of the rugged AK47. For the foreseeable future, however, the Army is sticking with the M4 and M16 for regular forces. The Army plans to buy about 100,000 M4s in fiscal 2008. For this large a buy, each M4 without accessories costs about $800, Colt Chief Executive Officer William Keys said. As part of the contract, though, each M4 comes with a rail system for mounting optics and flashlights, a backup iron sight, seven magazines and a sling — additions that raise the price for each M4 package to about $1,300, according to Defense Department budget documents. The price of each 416 “will range anywhere from $800 to $1,425 depending on volume and accessories,” said H&K’s CEO John Meyer Jr. To Col. Robert Radcliffe, the man responsible for overseeing the Army’s needs for small arms, the M16 family is “pretty damn good.” It’s simply too expensive, he said, to replace it with anything less than a “significant leap in technology.” Since 2000, that leap centered on development of the XM29 Objective Individual Combat Weapon — a dual system featuring a 5.56mm carbine on the bottom and a 25mm airburst weapon on top, capable of killing enemy behind cover at 1,000 meters. Seven years and more than $100 million later, the 18-pound prototype — three times the weight of an M4 — is still too heavy and bulky for the battlefield. “We think that somewhere around 2010, we should have enough insight into future technologies to take us in a direction we want to go for the next generation of small arms,” said Radcliffe, director of the Infantry Center’s Directorate of Combat Developments at Fort Benning, Ga. “We will have M4s and M16s for years and years and years and years,” he said.“We are buying a bunch of M4s this year ... and we are doing it for all the right reasons, by the way. It’s doing the job we need it to do
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
doggtag    LINKS   2/23/2007 10:37:42 AM
 
a duplicate article is available at DefenseNews.Com here: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2567464&C=landwar
 
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       2/23/2007 11:11:34 AM
This is so ridiculous. We have been using short-stroke piston driven ARs for more than 30 years. The first version was called Type 65, then followed by Type 65K1 and K2. New version of the assault rifle is equivalent to M4 and is designated Type 91. The prototype of Type 91 is Type 86 and was sold to Jordan and several other Middle Eastern countries. Jordanian tested the rifle by buring it into the sand and compared it with AK and M16. They then went on to ask for more Type 86/91. Improvement? What improvement? Also, it is so ridiculous to replace M16 by HK made 416 with 1 billion. Contract ROC State Arsenal and you'll get much cheaper bidder.
 
But, on the other hand, M16/M4 is not broken, why bother fix it?
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       2/23/2007 11:52:49 AM
But, on the other hand, M16/M4 is not broken, why bother fix it?

Not so much as an "ain't broke, don't fix it" argument, but one of reliability improvement: 15,000 rounds between stoppages and failures is a leap beyond the current 5000-6000 rounds between stoppages and failures.

Yes, I understand troops in the field are subject to dirt and grime, but most of their offtime shouldn't be spent concerned primarily with maintaining their small arms weapon.
What about other equipment?
And Common Task proficiency in other areas?
Or getting sufficient rest without worrrying that your weapon might malfunction if you have to awake suddenly and start using it right away. There's obviously a problem if there's minimal guarantee it will work the moment you pick it up if it's been sitting down for a while.
And I don't always buy into those arguments about "it works fine in those environments for other people, so the flaws must be the troops in the field, not the equipment".
 
The US Army replaced MBTs for better designs: M48 to M60 to M1 (and for just over two decades used the same caliber main gun, 105mm),
they've gone from M114 howitzers to M198s to M777s (no change in caliber, 155mm),
even replaced the M60 MG with the M240 for the most part (no change in caliber, 7.62mm),
they've gone from the 45-M1911 to the 9mm M9 (and back in some places),
they've replaced the Dragon ATGM with the Javelin,
they've replaced the Hawk SAM with the Patriot,
they've gone from using half-tracks as APCs toM59s, M75s, M113s, and now to Strykers,
FMTV trucks have replaced the old 5-tons and Duece-and-a-halfs, just as Humvees replaced M151s which replaced Willys Jeeps,
and they use Apache helicopters now instead of Cobras, even though the USMC has shown AH-1s can carry night vision capability and Hellfire missiles also.
 
So why then is it so wrong to pursue a more reliable assault rifle that holds up better (reliability) under the extreme conditions we're engaged in now?
Is it so wrong to admit maybe from time to time we do need to adopt new methods, patterns, tactics, and equipment?
 
Maybe there should be a larger limited production run of these new ARs so some of the regular troops in the field can get hands on with them, let more than just a few SpecOps teams use them, and then let them, the end users (US Army infantry), decide which rifle is better.
 
Let me guess: money first, backed by political excuses?
(that's always what the end issue always boils down to.)
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       2/23/2007 1:52:01 PM
Actually, the modern day M4 and M16 work very well, but a rifle only works when magazine and ammo also work well. A lot of these failures are due to failed cartridge cases or magazines, and it happens to all types of rifles regardless their principle of operation. The US Army has so many rifles that some can be dated back to 1980s, and guess who will get these 1980 guns with a lot of aging problems? Support units.
 
USSOCOM not only have big budget to purchase guns, they also have big budget to purchase quality ammo, which is something that the Army can't have. Spec Ops can also field-test their equipment and personalize before getting into battle. The Army buys a lot more rifles, ammo, mags and spare parts then put them into storage and only take them out when needed. The number is so huge that there must be lemon among them.
 
The two cases mentioned in the original article are failed cartridge case and failed powder. The failed cartridge case broke in the chamber first, and that's why the cartridge case can't be extracted. This also happens to civilian AR shooters who happened to buy surplus army ammo, and piston upper won't save the day. Although it is a rarity, it happens, and, unfortunately, renders the rifle useless until repaired. Low quality powder generates less pressure in hot weather and is one of the primary cause of FTF in AR type rifles. The piston upper doesn't have this kind of problem, if someone did remember to replace the buffer spring every 5 to 10 years. Usually, mags are the primary problem to FTF problem, and there is no miracle cure for that.
 
HK not only makes HK416 but also HK AR mags specifically for 416 rifles and tested them before shipping. It is possible for a deal of 5000 rifles, but really can't be done to a 50,000 rifle contract with reasonable cost.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       2/24/2007 4:26:46 AM
M16 so expensive to manufacture, such tight tolerences. Works good when new and then the problems come out, replace parts, springs even the receiver, but it gets worse and worse..... definately it has a limited shelf life.

If you are a soldier deployed overseas, and then you are suddenly issued with such a weapon in a harsh climate....

It is not an FN FAL or AK that can be reissued, I believe that the M16 types of rifles should only be issued to a particular
soldier throughout his military service and then only with 3 year replacement date, or depending on the nunber or rounds
fired.



 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       2/24/2007 10:00:49 AM
Basically a propaganda piece for HK.  The quality of reporting in Army Times has dropped dramatically since it was purchased by the same folks who bring the world USA Today.  They seem to favor suggestions of scandal these days to sell papers.
 
As for the article itself . . . Wait, let me get this straight?  Impartial sources (who work for HK) say the M4 is broke and the best fix is a rifle . . . made by HK.  Profound.  And, the retired general who lobbied for us to buy HK's last wonder weapon (the melting prone XM8) also thinks the M4 is broken and . . . a rifle from HK is the solution?  Startling. 
 
Almost as startling as hearing the retired general who runs Colt and builds the M4 thinks it is not broken.  Could the Army Times not track down anyone without an agenda to interview?  The exception, of course, is Captain Self, who had a round stuck in the chamber -- a malfunction that has nothing to do with the gas system (piston or direct) and everything to do with the chamber design that the HK 416 shares with the M4.  Explain to me how the same design from a different manufacturer does something different?
 
The article is basically HK trying to drum up business.  HK aggressively markets to government agencies, but in a gang-that-can't-shoot-straight kind of way.  They tried pushing the inferior XM8 design hard, and lost out.  They tried getting SOCOM's pistol business with the inferior Mark 23 design, and ended up with a boat anchor that was hardly purchased.  They tried the pistol thing again, but money fell through and rumors are that HK is no longer the first choice for SOCOM when they bring out the new requirements.  Now they're trying to push the HK 416, which seems like a pretty good design but which does represent a whole bunch of money for not much improvement over the M4/M16.
 
(As a related side note, use of the HK 416 is not restricted to CAG and other Tier 1 units.  Various white-side SOF units are using them as well.  The primary selling point for the rifle is not its claimed reliability, as Army Times mistakenly claims, but rather the fact that the very short barrel versions run well, while getting sub-12" barrel direct gas ARs to run properly is tricky.)
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       2/24/2007 10:11:59 AM

USSOCOM not only have big budget to purchase guns, they also have big budget to purchase quality ammo, which is something that the Army can't have. Spec Ops can also field-test their equipment and personalize before getting into battle. The Army buys a lot more rifles, ammo, mags and spare parts then put them into storage and only take them out when needed. The number is so huge that there must be lemon among them. 

HK not only makes HK416 but also HK AR mags specifically for 416 rifles and tested them before shipping. It is possible for a deal of 5000 rifles, but really can't be done to a 50,000 rifle contract with reasonable cost.


The primary 5.56mm round used by SOCOM units is the same M855 green tip 62 grain round as everyone else in the army, produced by Lake City and a couple other manufacturers (Winchester, IMI, and maybe a couple others, if they're still current).  There is some Mk 262 77 grain ammunition in use that, being intended for sniper rifles (SPR) may be loaded to higher tolerances . . . but having worked with both, I don't see a difference in failure rates related to the ammunition.  With either round, you may get bad batches of rounds, but there's a whole quality assurance network that is in place to address those sorts of events.  The one time I've personally encountered a bad batch of ammo where I work, it was pulled from combat use worldwide within 24-48 hours of reporting the problem, based solely on my unit's reports of ammunition failures.
 
As for the HK mags, they are now standard issue, at least within SOCOM units.  Don't know if the Big Army is getting them yet, but they're noticably heavier than standard aluminum or plastic AR mags and, HK advertising aside, they are easy enough to damage and failure prone that they are, at best, an extremely modest reliability improvement over the existing mags.  Within about a week of getting them, my unit started seeing failures to feed with them.  I've even seen the supposedly failure-proof follower bind and nose-dive with them a time or two, which is about as frequently as I see aluminum USGI mags do the same thing.  (This situation with the magazines tends to make me skeptical concerning HK's claims regarding the HK 416.  If the mags don't live up to the claimed performance standards, why would the rifle?)
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       2/24/2007 10:15:02 AM

 They tried pushing the inferior XM8 design hard, and lost out.  They tried getting SOCOM's pistol business with the inferior Mark 23 design, and ended up with a boat anchor that was hardly purchased. 

Inferior as to what?  The M4 and Beretta M9?

I do agree with your comments, but I don't think H&K weapons have anything wrong with them as such.  I think they would have been better off sticking to roller-delayed locking however.  If American agencies want a short barreled 5.56mm weapon, the H&K53 is perfect.

Now, Norway is even upgrading some of their G3 rifles to keep them in service alongside their new 5.56mm replacement which they are running competitions for now.  Delayed blowback rocks.  I doubt very much anyone will make a finer 5.56mm assault rifle than the G41, for instance.

 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       2/24/2007 11:14:44 AM

The US Army replaced MBTs for better designs: M48 to M60 to M1 (and for just over two decades used the same caliber main gun, 105mm),

they've gone from M114 howitzers to M198s to M777s (no change in caliber, 155mm),

even replaced the M60 MG with the M240 for the most part (no change in caliber, 7.62mm),

they've gone from the 45-M1911 to the 9mm M9 (and back in some places),


So why then is it so wrong to pursue a more reliable assault rifle that holds up better (reliability) under the extreme conditions we're engaged in now?

Is it so wrong to admit maybe from time to time we do need to adopt new methods, patterns, tactics, and equipment?

 

Maybe there should be a larger limited production run of these new ARs so some of the regular troops in the field can get hands on with them, let more than just a few SpecOps teams use them, and then let them, the end users (US Army infantry), decide which rifle is better.

 

Let me guess: money first, backed by political excuses?

(that's always what the end issue always boils down to.)


I know it all boils down to conspiracy theories to you about how the powers that be are sticking it to the troops, etc etc etc, but your thinking (perhaps typically, from what I've seen) betrays a general lack of actual consideration of the topic, or a lack of information about the topic.  Take your pick.
 
Anyway, you're claim that we're somehow monolithic with our rifles while upgrading other kit is so silly as to, hopefully, represent facetious sarcasm.  Otherwise, you just don't know what you're talking about.  Consider:
M16 adopted in the 1960s -- 1:12 twist light barrel, iron sights not adjustable for windage, no forward assist, 20 round magazine.
 
M16A1 -- forward assist added, introduction of 30 round magazine loosely coincides with introduction of M16A1 (a bit later, but you get the point).
 
M16A2 -- adopted in early 1980s.  1:7 twist heavy barrel and windage adjustable sights improve long-range reliability.  Introduced alongside 62 grain M855 round which, again, improves longer range lethality and improves light armor/cover penetration.
 
M4 -- introduced in late 80s.  Compact carbine, etc.
 
M4A1 SOPMOD -- 1990s, begins the exploitation of the AR-15's modularity.  Addition of rails allow mounting of greatly improved optics.  Idea expanded to the M16 (A3/A4) shortly thereafter.  Introduction of the Aimpoint close combat optic, ACOG telescopic sight, PAQ-4 and PEQ-2 infrared illuminators, etc etc etc.
 
Post-Y2K:  Introduction of 77 grain Mk 262 round for precision engagement systems and some general combat use.  Limited Army adoption of EOTech holosights.  Greatly expanded issue of CCOs and ACOGs.  Introduction of accurized M16 platforms for designated marksmen and snipers needing a semi-auto sniper rifle.
 
Or to put things more succinctly, the weapons we're currently issued bear less resemblance to the weapons they issued in Vietnam than an M2A3 Bradley does to an early A-Zero version.
 
Your complaint is about reliability.  Reliability is acceptable with the M16/M4 as is -- the money has been spent on improving target acquisition and engagement (as well as lethality) with the rifles and carbines.  But, your usual conspiracy theories aside, the money has been spent.  My recollection is that you're in a NG maintenance unit, so you may not see the $$$ reflected on your bone-stock M16A2, but in my neck of the army, even support units are getting ACOGs, Aimpoints, Surefire weapon lights, and all sorts of other goodies.  The money is being spent to improve the weapons system, it's just that it's being spent on the things that matter, not on chasing every company's latest advertising brochure/newspaper article on claimed reliability, etc.  With minimal maintenance, even in the desert, the M4/M16 goes bang when the trigger is pulled.  That being the case, I'd much rather they spend the money where it is being spent -- making sure that when it goes bang, it puts steel on target accurately and lethally.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       2/24/2007 11:38:00 AM


Inferior as to what?  The M4 and Beretta M9?

I do agree with your comments, but I don't think H&K weapons have anything wrong with them as such.  I think they would have been better off sticking to roller-delayed locking however.  If American agencies want a short barreled 5.56mm weapon, the H&K53 is perfect.

Now, Norway is even upgrading some of their G3 rifles to keep them in service alongside their new 5.56mm replacement which they are running competitions for now.  Delayed blowback rocks.  I doubt very much anyone will make a finer 5.56mm assault rifle than the G41, for instance.

The XM8 apparently had a tendency to melt under sustained fire during troop trials at Ft. Benning, so on that one I have to say, yes, completely inferior to the M4.
On the Mark 23, don't get me wrong -- the basic USP design is a solid performer.  But HK did so much to sexy-up the Mk 23 that they produced a pistol that no one uses due to weight and very poor ergonomics (grip size won't work for anyone without huge hands).  What was supposed to be the new standard for handguns in SOCOM ended up being bought in very small numbers by the SEALs (Force Recon got some as well) and Tier One units.  None of the people provided them found them particularly preferable to the Sig P226s, custom 1911s, Glocks and other handguns they were already issued.  In essence HK created a wildly accurate and reliable arms room queen that just about never got used, even in the limited quantities purchased.

Now, as to the roller lock HK designs, that is, as you suggest, a whole other story -- beginning with the use of stamped steel instead of polymer when comparing them to the XM8.  I'm certainly not nocking the G3, MP5, etc, as all those weapons have a good reputation for reliability, etc.  My suggestion that HK is pushing inferior products is strictly limited to those two mentioned weapons (XM8, Mk23) they've sold to, or tried to sell to, the US government in the last 10-20 years.  The aggressive marketing of the XM8 was suspect in a lot of ways (their numbers were strongly cooked) and the weapon represented a giant step backwards from the AR-15 (loss of modularity) -- that coupled with my previous comments about HK AR magazines not being all they claim they are -- makes me more than a bit eager to have HK prove any claims to my face before I start writing my congressmen, etc.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics