Army opens competition for 7.62 rifle to replace M4

mac1911 said:
Does the M4 really need a lot of cleaning. I understand maintaining your weapon but how far does one think the M4 can be pushed with out cleaning.,
I ran my POS M4gery with steel cased garbage even 1000+ rounds of Norinco silver box to just under 5k with out cleaning...think I had 4-8 jams.
?
Click to expand...
Opinions are like *******s.. so here's a couple I trust...

My brother, a Marine, prefers an AK47 over the gas impingement M4 due the unreliability he experienced when he was overseas.

Correct me if I'm wrong but SealTeam on here I believe said the piston uppers made a huge improvement in reliability of the M4 at the last NES MRGCI shoot.


I didn't play in the sand, I only played with zoomies (fast neutrons).
 
Couple of different issues here. First, it sounds like the Army may be looking for a standard infantry weapon that can defeat plate body armor. The current conflicts, like most we've been involved in since Korea, are really insurgencies, or turn into insurgencies very quickly. Insurgants don't wear body armor or ceramic plates for protection. Large standing state actors like Russia and China equip their forces with plate armor, so that is the conflict they are planning for. Like Desert Storm and the initial stages of the Iraq war, it will be a fast moving conflict where infantry rely on vehicles for mobility. From the warplanners perspective, being able to effectiviely engage and disable/kill your target will be as/more important than how light your rifle is and how many rounds an infantryman can carry. Again, this isn't humping in the jungles/mountains/cities looking for zips and ragheads in civilian clothes with old AK's. This will be similar to what GI's dealt with in WW II and Korea. High casualties, low life expectancies/maximum damage.

Second, DI has issues. Everyone knows it, but it is ignored for many reasons. The dirtier the environment and the more use the weapon sees in a short time without proper maintenance, the more likely weapon malfunctions are to occur. Examples of malfunctions during combat are easily found from front line units. The US military has many options to address this, from new weapon systems like the SCAR (expensive and heavy) to piston-based AR's like HP416's (still expensive). Given the lessons learned with DI based weapons over the last 40+ years, we will change front-line infantry units primary weapon eventually. Maybe it happens with a caliber change, maybe not, but I think it happens sooner rather than later.

Bottom line, we're gearing up to fight the next war and it looks to be more reminiscient of WWII than Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq
 
Al-Jim19 said:
For those referring to weight, one of the main reasons the M14 was ditched in favor of the AR15 (and not the AR10) was the ability for soldiers to carry a lot more ammo for the same weight. Can't recall the exact count but it's somewhere around 2000 (20,000 maybe?) rounds on average before an infantryman connects on his intended target
Click to expand...

Correct. All the talk about lighter weapons with the grunts is a fallacy. Warplanners don't care about that. It was the ability to carry more ammo that favored the M16. Combat loads have remained the same or gotten heavier over the years, regardless of how light equipment and weapons have gotten as new materials have been used.

Think of the evolution of weapons and ammo from WWII to today. The AR platform and 5.56 caliber made sense in 1960's-2000's insurgencies. Does it still make sense in 2020 fighting large land battles in Europe and Asia? We've never fought an adversary that was as well equipped and modern as us where air/naval superiority wasn't guaranteed and infantry forces wore ballistic plate armor. Different opponent, different capabilities, different weapons...
 
The M16/M16A2/M4 has worked quite well for 50 years after its initial growing pains.
The Army and Marines (to a lesser degree) are not infantryman - centered anymore. Basic infantry rifles aren't meant to one-shot-one-kill out at 500+ meters; artillery and air support is.

You don't have to kill the target, just take it out of the fight. A .233 bullet will do that at any range it can connect at.
 
PatMcD said:
The M16/M16A2/M4 has worked quite well for 50 years after its initial growing pains.
The Army and Marines (to a lesser degree) are not infantryman - centered anymore. Basic infantry rifles aren't meant to one-shot-one-kill out at 500+ meters; artillery and air support is.

You don't have to kill the target, just take it out of the fight. A .233 bullet will do that at any range it can connect at.
Click to expand...

See my previous post... inferior equipped opponents, fighting insurgencies, able to maintain air superiority in any theater we operate in are all assumptions we've made for the last 50 years. Ceramic plate armor wasn't available 50 years ago when the round was considered, just ballistic cloth, which couldn't stop rifle rounds.

The idea that our infantry no longer need to fire and maneuver to kill and defeat enemy infantry and just rely on our air superiority and artillary support is similar thinking to the air force going all in with missles and forgoeing guns on F4 Phantoms in Vietnam... looks good on paper but doesn't hold up under fire in a real conflict against Russia/China, and that is what the planners are now considering.

5.56 doesn't penetrate ceramic plate. Plates are worn center mass front and rear where soldiers are taught to aim. It's a factor to consider.
 
I think the Army better figure out what ammo will defeat ceramic plate at the distances they want it to.
Then figure out what length barrel will be required to have enough velocity to do the same.
They better test those at various temperatures as well.

Then they will have something a manufacturer can work with....
 
Last edited:
Until now, I thought the round was 7.62x39. I didn't read the article before. [slap]

I know nothing about rifles anyway . Will be interesting to see which gun goes with a round that big. Maybe the ceramic penetration is just an excuse and they just want to blow people's heads off.
 
mav said:
See my previous post... inferior equipped opponents, fighting insurgencies, able to maintain air superiority in any theater we operate in are all assumptions we've made for the last 50 years. Ceramic plate armor wasn't available 50 years ago when the round was considered, just ballistic cloth, which couldn't stop rifle rounds.

The idea that our infantry no longer need to fire and maneuver to kill and defeat enemy infantry and just rely on our air superiority and artillary support is similar thinking to the air force going all in with missles and forgoeing guns on F4 Phantoms in Vietnam... looks good on paper but doesn't hold up under fire in a real conflict against Russia/China, and that is what the planners are now considering.

5.56 doesn't penetrate ceramic plate. Plates are worn center mass front and rear where soldiers are taught to aim. It's a factor to consider.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? No longer fire and maneuver? When did this happen? This is basic combat doctrine. Suppress the enemy and flank them. Pretty standard stuff. Everyone is complaining the 556 sucks how about being on the wrong end of a SAW with a 200 round drum mag? That's a bad day. You do know each platoon is equipped with 2 7.62 machine guns and 8 556 squad automatic weapons and other assorted mayhem. It's pretty dynamic and deadly combo especially with today's optics.
 
goodlife30 said:
What are you talking about? No longer fire and maneuver? When did this happen? This is basic combat doctrine. Suppress the enemy and flank them. Pretty standard stuff. Everyone is complaining the 556 sucks how about being on the wrong end of a SAW with a 200 round drum mag? That's a bad day. You do know each platoon is equipped with 2 7.62 machine guns and 8 556 squad automatic weapons and other assorted mayhem. It's pretty dynamic and deadly combo especially with today's optics.
Click to expand...

Did you see the post I replied to? Here it is again:

The M16/M16A2/M4 has worked quite well for 50 years after its initial growing pains.
The Army and Marines (to a lesser degree) are not infantryman - centered anymore. Basic infantry rifles aren't meant to one-shot-one-kill out at 500+ meters; artillery and air support is.

You don't have to kill the target, just take it out of the fight. A .233 bullet will do that at any range it can connect at.


My point was that standard infantry doctrine hasn't really changed, just our opponents. Crew served weapons have always been big casualty producers, as is the radio, but the individual infantryman's personal weapon has lost effectiveness against the next generation of opponent, standing armies equipped with ballistic plate armor.

As for SAW's and 7.62MG's, I know all about them: I humped an M60, was an A gunner (ammo and spare barrel/tripod) and a SAW gunner. Doesn't change the fact that there are better options for equipping the infantry in tomorrow's fight than 5.56/DI AR's.
 
Wait... you mean they'd write the RFI to meet one specific product they've already decided they want?

NEVER!

Hell, as long as it's off-the-shelf and there's a place to store all the scraps once PFC Snuffy de-links all the 7.62, it's not the worst idea in the world. I'd go with one per squad.
 
Funny, the regiment, sf, contractors, all kinds of people who kill mother****ers for a living have fielded the SCAR-H for testing, yet most still prefer M4s in 556.

They must not know what they're talking about.

Also, 5.56 has been proven effective against body armor, many times. So stop saying its not effective against armor and thats why we need 7.62.
 
MichaelJames1971 said:
Sure - against 'todays' enemy. Perhaps we need to think about tomorrow's enemy? Perhaps our tactical footprint might need updating?
Click to expand...

Tactical footprint (assuming we are referring to the same thing) is mission dictated.

What makes you think we are not thinking about tomorrow’s enemy? I get it, the last eight years maybe?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Varmint said:
FN probably has a hot Belgian lobbyist, getting Congressmen to pressure the Pentagon. I doubt this is about defeating body armor.
Click to expand...
Based on what I've read 55gr 5.56 is actually a decent choice for defeating armor. A really light, fast bullet has a good chance of penetration, especially at close range. I know little or nothing about 7.62s capabilities.
 
I would be fine getting a scar-h in the training toolbox. I can't see a downside.

I don't think m4 is going anywhere. I'll hop on board with the people who indicated theatre determines battle rattle. Take Congress out of the decision. Let the troops choose their main axe based on their choice.

Yeah. I know. mOA is important. But train-moar!

Sent from my LG-K371 using Tapatalk
 
mav said:
Considering where on my molle gear my ammo pouches were (1:00 and 11:00 o'clock) and how close that is to the family jewels, we might want to stay away from depleted uranium 5.56.
Click to expand...

You don't have to worry as long as you don't get shot by one... Radiation emitted by depleted uranium rounds it seems is likely Alpha particles which are big enough to be stopped by a sheet of paper.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/du_factsheet_4aug98.htm
 
Skysoldier said:
I don't know what it's like today, but when I was in Vietnam I carried more weight in water than ammo!
Click to expand...

I was listening to a primary and secondary podcast where a bunch of green berets were talking about fighting in the jungle and how its a skill the army has essentially forgotten. None of them wear body armor, helmets, none of that shit.

Cant wait to get into a jungle war and have to bleed to relearn all the lessons you guys bled to learn 60 years ago. Which we ****ing surely will, because the army is too ****ing retarded to slack bullshit 670-1 regulations to improve warfighting capabilities of its people. Cant wait to hump IOTVs, ACH, NVGs, tents, sleep systems, and ****ing PT belts through the jungle. I suspect the end result of the initial engagement would resemble the German Wehrmacht in Russia after Stalingrad, broken men in full retreat leaving a trail of expensive equipment behind us.
 
AllaSnackbah said:
I was listening to a primary and secondary podcast where a bunch of green berets were talking about fighting in the jungle and how its a skill the army has essentially forgotten. None of them wear body armor, helmets, none of that shit.

Cant wait to get into a jungle war and have to bleed to relearn all the lessons you guys bled to learn 60 years ago. Which we ****ing surely will, because the army is too ****ing retarded to slack bullshit 670-1 regulations to improve warfighting capabilities of its people. Cant wait to hump IOTVs, ACH, NVGs, tents, sleep systems, and ****ing PT belts through the jungle. I suspect the end result of the initial engagement would resemble the German Wehrmacht in Russia after Stalingrad, broken men in full retreat leaving a trail of expensive equipment behind us.
Click to expand...

As you will find out the military trains to uniform standards and not warfighter standards.

It will change though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AllaSnackbah said:
I was listening to a primary and secondary podcast where a bunch of green berets were talking about fighting in the jungle and how its a skill the army has essentially forgotten. None of them wear body armor, helmets, none of that shit.

Cant wait to get into a jungle war and have to bleed to relearn all the lessons you guys bled to learn 60 years ago. Which we ****ing surely will, because the army is too ****ing retarded to slack bullshit 670-1 regulations to improve warfighting capabilities of its people. Cant wait to hump IOTVs, ACH, NVGs, tents, sleep systems, and ****ing PT belts through the jungle. I suspect the end result of the initial engagement would resemble the German Wehrmacht in Russia after Stalingrad, broken men in full retreat leaving a trail of expensive equipment behind us.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. We own the night with the NVG's. Don't worry about today's soldiers, we are pretty freaking deadly. Ask what is left of the republican guards or the residents of falluja.
 

Similar threads

IDF to replace Tavor with Israeli made AR
Replies
26
Views
998
Varmint
Varmint
Alleged Intruder Dead After Philadelphia Woman Opens Fire
Replies
0
Views
104
Reptile
Reptile
Police: Homeowner Opens Fire on, Kills Hammer-Wielding Gentleman
Replies
15
Views
347
Steve600
Steve600
Foxtrot Mike Ranch Rifle
Replies
2
Views
186
MAGA99
MAGA99
One person dead and two injured after gunman opens fire during St Patrick's Day celebrations outside bars
Replies
6
Views
304
LTCRN
LTCRN
Back
Top Bottom