Competition for M16/M4 replacement opens

[pajama 0]

I say we all grab an FN S2000 and go Sam Fisher

[miles teg 1]

And if the flaws of the M16 are so widely known why not redesign the rifle and fix its problems, shouldnt be harder than designing a rifle from scratch and put it thru severe tests , uh   .

Fixing its flaws means redesigning the whole rifle. In general, with most semi-auto rifles, the tighter the part tolerances, the more prone they are to dirt, carbon buildup, and thus jamming. Carbon buildup is usually the main culprit to jamming. However rifles like the G-36 have a totally redesigned gas system that prevents carbon buildup thus making it a fairly reliable rifle.

But with that said, there are some AK variants like some of the Yugo models, the Finnish Valmets, and a few of the newer Russian AK's that are fairly accurate and still very reliable. But I think the M16 design has been taken as far as its going to go. Its a good rifle but in urban combat I'd rather have an Ak-47 with a folding stock (the folding stock allows for a smaller easier to maneuver weapon during room clearing, which can then be unfolded for more stable distance shooting/spraying).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.

i think you could leave the SA80 out. i heard from a lot of people (most of them being British) the SA80 is utter crap, its heavy, and expensive. and there are a lot better choices out today to choose from than that weapon.

Quote[/b] ]The British Army's issue service rifle.

A poorly researched, badly designed and sloppily constructed weapon, of a layout that generations of designers have been trying to foist on the Army since 1911.

The only outstanding point of the weapon is that it is the most expensive battle rifle available.

It has been kept on purely for political reasons, rather than because it is a good weapon. But in the halls of Westminster political careers deemed to be worth more than brave men's lives.

While the premise of a shorter rifle is laudable, the fact is that this particular 'design' can only be shot from the right shoulder forcing soldiers to shoot from positions without cover thereby putting their lives at greater risk, and negates the British Forces previously unchallenged position as leaders in Urban Operations, (FIBUA/OBUA/MOUT.)

It has previously and erroneously been defined and described as "a good overall weapon" and "undoutably the best weapon series in the world today.... stoppages are all attributed to the rounds.... old magazines would rarely jam with 30 rounds. Do not rate this weapon on what the media says, you have to be like me, live with it and use it regularly to know it." It would be interesting to find out what these gentlemen are comparing the SA80 to.

I too have lived day in and day out with the SA80, but I've also been issued and had many years experience with a large number of other weapons and know their fortés and foibles, and can speak with a certain degree of authority on the subject.

A set of underwater soot-juggling gloves ? That's about as useful as an SA80

well, i think that small point is abit of bollocks. Yes it can only be shot the the right shoulder, but there is this other bit of equipment in use which makes it possible to stick the gun around the corner with exposing your body.

My brother is an Infantryman in the British Army do he works day in, day out with the weapons. And he said it is a good weapon, the media blow everything about the equipment out of propertion. They think everything is abig problem, not some small flaws. And i mean every bit of equipment in the British Army is crap- media talk.

i have heard before that the M16 actually has a higher jam rate then the SA80.

But i dont't wanna turn this into a SA0 debate so lets go bavk the the replacement thing.

[Ares1978 0]

What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.  

I understand why, but they did buy a foreign, already developed pistol and that did cause quite a shit storm.

[MontyVCB 0]

Quote[/b] ]What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.

i think you could leave the SA80 out. i heard from a lot of people (most of them being British) the SA80 is utter crap, its heavy, and expensive. and there are a lot better choices out today to choose from than that weapon.

Quote[/b] ]The British Army's issue service rifle.

A poorly researched, badly designed and sloppily constructed weapon, of a layout that generations of designers have been trying to foist on the Army since 1911.

The only outstanding point of the weapon is that it is the most expensive battle rifle available.

It has been kept on purely for political reasons, rather than because it is a good weapon. But in the halls of Westminster political careers deemed to be worth more than brave men's lives.

While the premise of a shorter rifle is laudable, the fact is that this particular 'design' can only be shot from the right shoulder forcing soldiers to shoot from positions without cover thereby putting their lives at greater risk, and negates the British Forces previously unchallenged position as leaders in Urban Operations, (FIBUA/OBUA/MOUT.)

It has previously and erroneously been defined and described as "a good overall weapon" and "undoutably the best weapon series in the world today.... stoppages are all attributed to the rounds.... old magazines would rarely jam with 30 rounds. Do not rate this weapon on what the media says, you have to be like me, live with it and use it regularly to know it." It would be interesting to find out what these gentlemen are comparing the SA80 to.

I too have lived day in and day out with the SA80, but I've also been issued and had many years experience with a large number of other weapons and know their fortés and foibles, and can speak with a certain degree of authority on the subject.

A set of underwater soot-juggling gloves ? That's about as useful as an SA80

theres nothing wrong with the SA80A2. u can bury the thing and pick it up and it'll fire first time, the A2 got a poor rep in afganistan becuase the soldiers were still being issued with the older poor quality mags, now in iraq they have the new HK designed mags you can't fault the weapon, the only gripe i have about about it is that its a little heavy for a modern assult rifle

[Badgerboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.

i think you could leave the SA80 out. i heard from a lot of people (most of them being British) the SA80 is utter crap, its heavy, and expensive. and there are a lot better choices out today to choose from than that weapon.

Quote[/b] ]The British Army's issue service rifle.

A poorly researched, badly designed and sloppily constructed weapon, of a layout that generations of designers have been trying to foist on the Army since 1911.

The only outstanding point of the weapon is that it is the most expensive battle rifle available.

It has been kept on purely for political reasons, rather than because it is a good weapon. But in the halls of Westminster political careers deemed to be worth more than brave men's lives.

While the premise of a shorter rifle is laudable, the fact is that this particular 'design' can only be shot from the right shoulder forcing soldiers to shoot from positions without cover thereby putting their lives at greater risk, and negates the British Forces previously unchallenged position as leaders in Urban Operations, (FIBUA/OBUA/MOUT.)

It has previously and erroneously been defined and described as "a good overall weapon" and "undoutably the best weapon series in the world today.... stoppages are all attributed to the rounds.... old magazines would rarely jam with 30 rounds. Do not rate this weapon on what the media says, you have to be like me, live with it and use it regularly to know it." It would be interesting to find out what these gentlemen are comparing the SA80 to.

I too have lived day in and day out with the SA80, but I've also been issued and had many years experience with a large number of other weapons and know their fortés and foibles, and can speak with a certain degree of authority on the subject.

A set of underwater soot-juggling gloves ? That's about as useful as an SA80

The SA80 got a re-design from H&K a couple of years back, and now its a superb rifle. It still has a few minor niggles, but its accuracy is top of its class compared to other assault rifles. (SUSAT helps mind ;) )

Yes, the old one was awful, highlights included the gun firing on full auto if you dropped it on the floor, and chunks of it snapping off in your hands.

(Did you know it takes M16 mags! At least is used to, not sure about the new A2 model)

[MontyVCB 0]

it still does

[stgn 39]

What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.  

Not the G36 because the basic design is not as good a combat rifle, sights suks(acording to most), no bolt hold back action(long reloading time), bulky compared to M16, likes to slamfire(what I heard).

Not AUG because its an bullpup type rifle which is not always preferable, have heard its has a few problems.

Not FNC well in the Canadian test it actualy proved to be less relaible than the M16. Breaking firing pins and so.

Not SA80A2 because its a bullpup.

Quote[/b] ]And if the flaws of the M16 are so widely known why not redesign the rifle and fix its problems, shouldnt be harder than designing a rifle from scratch and put it thru severe tests , uh .

flaws and flaws it is what it was supose to be a very light whight rifle. but actualy most of the problems with it has been solved, Colt is just not that quick introducing them.

now adays a M4(note not using direct gas system) can go 40000 with out cleaning though if you use standard springs you have to replace some of them after around 7000 rounds, a solve for that is buying heavy duty springs.

Quote[/b] ] But I think the M16 design has been taken as far as its going to go. Its a good rifle but in urban combat I'd rather have an Ak-47 with a folding stock (the folding stock allows for a smaller easier to maneuver weapon during room clearing, which can then be unfolded for more stable distance shooting/spraying).

Think again a M4 with pusher rod system(no cleaning 40000 rounds, no wight loss) is soon going to be tested by USMC in different versions.

Why would you rather have an Ak47 its heavy, much slower to put it in fire mode(Always have you rifle on safe if you arn't pointing on somthing you want to kill) makes noice when you put it in fire mode, charging handle is on the right side(unless you a leftie not preferable), buttstock is too short to be used by most european people, why would you have the stock folded when moving through a building would only make you less likely to hit enything.

And if the AR15 realy was that bad a rifle why is it that Most special forces has em in some sort or shape, and the SAS did not chose the G36 no they chose the canadian SFW(C8A2,heavy 16" barrel, frew features).

STGN

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]What I really dont understand is...

Why don't they just buy an already developed rifle, which is already in use by different NATO countries?

Surely the H&K G36, AUG, FN FNC or the SA80(A2) will do fine... and it'll be hell a lot cheaper, because the rifles are already developed.

i think you could leave the SA80 out. i heard from a lot of people (most of them being British) the SA80 is utter crap, its heavy, and expensive. and there are a lot better choices out today to choose from than that weapon.

Quote[/b] ]The British Army's issue service rifle.

A poorly researched, badly designed and sloppily constructed weapon, of a layout that generations of designers have been trying to foist on the Army since 1911.

The only outstanding point of the weapon is that it is the most expensive battle rifle available.

It has been kept on purely for political reasons, rather than because it is a good weapon. But in the halls of Westminster political careers deemed to be worth more than brave men's lives.

While the premise of a shorter rifle is laudable, the fact is that this particular 'design' can only be shot from the right shoulder forcing soldiers to shoot from positions without cover thereby putting their lives at greater risk, and negates the British Forces previously unchallenged position as leaders in Urban Operations, (FIBUA/OBUA/MOUT.)

It has previously and erroneously been defined and described as "a good overall weapon" and "undoutably the best weapon series in the world today.... stoppages are all attributed to the rounds.... old magazines would rarely jam with 30 rounds. Do not rate this weapon on what the media says, you have to be like me, live with it and use it regularly to know it." It would be interesting to find out what these gentlemen are comparing the SA80 to.

I too have lived day in and day out with the SA80, but I've also been issued and had many years experience with a large number of other weapons and know their fortés and foibles, and can speak with a certain degree of authority on the subject.

A set of underwater soot-juggling gloves ? That's about as useful as an SA80

theres nothing wrong with the SA80A2. u can bury the thing and pick it up and it'll fire first time, the A2 got a poor rep in afganistan becuase the soldiers were still being issued with the older poor quality mags, now in iraq they have the new HK designed mags you can't fault the weapon, the only gripe i have about about it is that its a little heavy for a modern assult rifle  

Yer, if you know noticed turned its attention to "melting" boots and radios that don't work in tanks.

Would you actually be able to use radios in tanks if you got your engine on etc? Wouldn't be able to hear the dam thing. I'm sure they use hand signals.

[Ares1978 0]

Why would you rather have an Ak47 its heavy, much slower to put it in fire mode(Always have you rifle on safe if you arn't pointing on somthing you want to kill) makes noice when you put it in fire mode, charging handle is on the right side(unless you a leftie not preferable), buttstock is too short to be used by most european people, why would you have the stock folded when moving through a building would only make you less likely to hit enything.

Why is the weight a problem? I carried an AK -related rifle (milled receiver) around for 8 months without any problem with the weight. Even if you are thinking about manouvering the weapon, it's more a balance issue than a weight issue.

The same goes for the safety, you flip it in a fraction of a second, so unless you are playing quick draw with somebody, it's not that big a deal. As for the noise, jam a toothpick or a match between the safety and the receiver, and it is completely silent. Of course, you can always use the safety without the snapping sound, but that is slower. But if you are in a hurry, you probably don't have to worry about the noise. Besides, when do you need a infantryman's rifle to be silent?

The charging handle is on the right side, and it's fine even if you are right-handed. First of all, you don't want your finger anywhere near the trigger when you use the handle, and second, all you have to do is to tilt it a bit and you can charge it with your left hand without any problems. It's up to the user.

If you aren't used to the weapon, you are always going to be slow. But once you get used to it, it's not significantly slower or harder to use. Besides, the reliability more than makes up for its deficiencies.

I agree with what you say about the stock, though. Especially the folding stock. However, it's always easier to learn to use a stock that is too short, than one that's too long. I also agree that not using the stock only makes it less likely to hit anything.

[stgn 39]

Why would you rather have an Ak47 its heavy, much slower to put it in fire mode(Always have you rifle on safe if you arn't pointing on somthing you want to kill) makes noice when you put it in fire mode, charging handle is on the right side(unless you a leftie not preferable), buttstock is too short to be used by most european people, why would you have the stock folded when moving through a building would only make you less likely to hit enything.

Why is the weight a problem? I carried an AK -related rifle (milled receiver) around for 8 months without any problem with the weight. Even if you are thinking about manouvering the weapon, it's more a balance issue than a weight issue.

The same goes for the safety, you flip it in a fraction of a second, so unless you are playing quick draw with somebody, it's not that big a deal. As for the noise, jam a toothpick or a match between the safety and the receiver, and it is completely silent. Of course, you can always use the safety without the snapping sound, but that is slower. But if you are in a hurry, you probably don't have to worry about the noise. Besides, when do you need a infantryman's rifle to be silent?

The charging handle is on the right side, and it's fine even if you are right-handed. First of all, you don't want your finger anywhere near the trigger when you use the handle, and second, all you have to do is to tilt it a bit and you can charge it with your left hand without any problems. It's up to the user.

If you aren't used to the weapon, you are always going to be slow. But once you get used to it, it's not significantly slower or harder to use. Besides, the reliability more than makes up for its deficiencies.

I agree with what you say about the stock, though. Especially the folding stock. However, it's always easier to learn to use a stock that is too short, than one that's too long. I also agree that not using the stock only makes it less likely to hit anything.

I should have mentioned that I was comparing it to an M4 style weapon, which I think is problery has the best weapon handling for CQB(though it makes a hell of alot of noise when fired indside i've heard and is not as light as an MP5).

when preparing to lunch an ambush I could imagine it would be quit handy to have a somewhat silent running weapon.

STGN

[miles teg 1]

I agree with Ares. AK's are not that heavy. I've found the Russian made standard AKM's to be very nicely balanced and very comfortable with the weight not that much more then an M16A2. As for firing in CQB without a shoulder stock, you can do it, but it requires technique. You simply aim at the lower torso because on full auto the muzzle rise will cause the next few rounds to impact in the center of the torso, neck, and if you're lucky, head. But perhaps a better solution is simply a An AK with an extending stock that can be collapsed completely or locked in a short position (for cqb) and locked in a fully extended position for longer range shooting.

Regardless, I've had way too many jams on a well maintained M16A2 (I cleaned my rifle constantly) to fully trust an M16 variant in a CQB situation. That new system mentioned sounds interesting. But also alot of jams are just caused by dirty magazines being inserted into the magazine well but that usually only happens when you have magazines laying on the ground like at a firing range. However in dusty conditions it alot gets a fairn amount of jams from just the dust buildup in the rifle. The M16's don't like dust at all. Even with the dust cover up as much as possible its hard to remember to keep that thing up all the time especially if you're in combat.

As for the G-36, I heard the opposite about its sights. A friend of mine got to test it out alot in field conditions and said that the sights kicked ass and that he had no jams at all.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[stgn 39]

As for the G-36, I heard the opposite about its sights.  A friend of mine got to test it out alot in field conditions and said that the sights kicked ass and that he had no jams at all.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Well what i have read is that they are too small to be effektiv in combat and some SWAT guy said that they had tested the rifle and the sights braked constantly. plus A former Danish soldier who took a Gun(and other things) course(somthing involving black ops) in USA said that the G36 its has troubles shooting technicaly, compared to AR15 and MP5 which just run. He did not elaborate on the troubles with G36. On M16 and dust, first Im no expert but the system runs best wet(a C7 can go about 6000 rounds not being cleaned only getting lubicated afetr about 600 rounds if I remember correctly) and its a good idear to use the FA.

On HK M416 the dust cover is gone and it is said to run as well as a XM8 and the system Im talking about is the "same" in another design. So maby the uber sensitive to dust has been delt with?

[stgn 39]

I just saw this over at AR15.com, proudly presenting the SUPMOD M4:

%20.jpg"]http://www.alliedaerospace.com/images/Mods/M-4/supmodm4[1]%20.jpg The new super weapon

STGN        

[Bordoy 0]

I just saw this over at AR15.com, proudly presenting the SUPMOD M4:

%20.jpg]http://www.alliedaerospace.com/images....%20.jpg The new super weapon

STGN        

Whats the difference between that and the SOPMOD?

[MontyVCB 0]

a new tape interface system (TIS) and a spud suppressor, not to mention a keyring laser

[4 IN 1 0]

I say we all grab an FN S2000 and go Sam Fisher

this is one of the best idea i have ever seen

[Bordoy 0]

Surely thet could make mechanical arms which attack to u so you have a mini-gun. But you'll be out of ammo in 1 minutes.

[Bordoy 0]

Weapon replacement status

March 21, 2005

New and improved firepower

The Army’s on the hunt for its next generation of infantry weapons — and the XM8 is not a done deal

Army Times

By Matthew Cox

Times staff writer

The Army wants arms makers to come up with replacements for virtually all of its infantry weapons, including its lightest machine gun.

The Army will hold an open competition this summer to select a replacement for its M16 rifles, M4 carbines and M249 squad automatic weapons by early fall.

The winning company will be awarded a low-rate initial production contract to produce up to 4,900 weapons systems, and could receive an initial full-rate production contract to make more than 134,000 weapons, according to the March 4 pre-solicitation notice posted on the Internet.

This new family of weapons could be ready for fielding by the second half of fiscal 2006.

The new weapons would fulfill an Army demand for lighter, more durable small arms to replace the aging designs that have long served the troops.

The XM8 was well along in development as the Army’s next weapon, but the announcement means the program will have to prove it can outperform the rest of the small-arms industry.

The Heckler & Koch-made XM8 family of prototypes features a compact model for close quarters, a standard carbine and a designated marksman/squad automatic rifle model with a longer, heavier barrel and bipod legs for stability. Army weapons developers have spent $29 million testing the XM8 in arctic, desert and tropical conditions to replace the venerable M16 family.

The Army’s Infantry Center, the service’s small-arms proponent, has no problem with a new family of weapons for the infantry squad, as long as it includes a light machine gun model to replace the nearly worn-out M249 SAW.

“We see that as our number one need,†said Maj. Glenn Dean, chief of small arms at the Infantry Center, Fort Benning, Ga. “If I only replaced one weapon in the squad, it would be the SAW.â€

The Infantry Center’s stance prompted the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology in late January to order a competition to decide which commercial weapons maker can best meet this new requirement.

As a result, the XM8 — which does not include a light machine gun variant — is on hold.

“We have halted testing to let the competition be completed,†said Col. Michael Smith, who runs Project Manager Soldier Weapons, the Army office that has been developing the XM8.

Smith said the decision was made to hold off on operational tests slated for October because it’s unclear if H&K will emerge as the ultimate winner.

“It may not be XM8,†Smith said. “Our bottom line is we want the best weapon for the soldier. If someone has a better weapon than the XM8, I’m ready to support them 100 percent.â€

Smith’s office has been working on the XM8 prototype as an unopposed replacement for the M16 since late 2003. It was part of a longer-range effort to perfect an over-and-under-style weapon, known as the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or XM29, developed by Alliant Techsystems and Heckler & Koch.

The XM29 fires special air-bursting projectiles and standard 5.56mm ammunition. But at 18 pounds, it’s still too heavy to meet the Army’s requirements, so planners decided to perfect each of XM29’s components separately, allowing soldiers to take advantage of new technology sooner. The XM8 is one of those components.

The March 4 “Pre-solicitation Notice for the Objective Individual Combat Weapon Increment I family of weapons†invites small-arms makers to try to meet an Infantry Center requirement, which the Army approved in October, for a “non developmental family of weapons that are capable of firing U.S. standard M855 and M856†5.56mm ammunition.

OICW Increment II deals with the separate development of the air-burst technology of XM29, and OICW Increment III would bring the two components back together when technology is available.

The OICW Increment I requirement is intended to replace current weapons systems, including the M4, M16 and selected M9 pistols for the active Army, the notice states. The special compact, carbine and designated marksman models must share 80 percent of the same parts.

The requirement also calls for the family of weapons to include a light machine gun model rather than the XM8’s squad automatic rifle variant.

Currently, each infantry squad contains two M249 SAWs that serve as light support weapons because of their 5.56mm ammunition and high rate of fire. While very popular with soldiers, the SAW is beginning to wear out, according to the Infantry Center.

“A lot of our SAWs are 20 years old,†Dean said, describing how SAWs are rebuilt, but in many cases not fast enough to keep up with everyday wear and tear under combat conditions. “You see soldiers carrying SAWs held together with the zip ties.â€

And despite its light machine gun status, the SAW weighs more than 20 pounds when loaded with a 200-round belt of 5.56mm ammo. “In the long run, we like something more durable and something that is lighter,†Dean said.

This will likely be a challenge since light machine guns are traditionally heavier than automatic rifles so they can handle the heat buildup from the high rate of sustained fire, Smith said, adding that any replacement should be lighter than the current SAW.

The XM8’s squad automatic rifle model is not designed to serve as a light machine gun. It’s not designed for sustained fire and lacks the capability for barrel changes in less than 30 seconds, a key feature in ensuring barrels don’t overheat.

Because of these differences, the LMG model will only be required to share 50 percent of the parts with the other models in the family. Still, the requirement will likely prove difficult for all competitors.

“The light machine gun is a challenge … because of that, we have a level technical playing field for all the contractors,†Smith said.

But that didn’t deter major small-arms companies such as Colt, FN Herstal USA Inc. and Steyr-Mannlicher from saying they were ready to compete when the Army polled the weapons-making community last November in what’s known as a “sources sought†document — to see which other companies were willing to contend with XM8, Smith said.

“The sources-sought shows that the small-arms community had the capability to provide us with a family [of nondevelopmental weapons] so we would take them right into testing,†Smith said.

Even though the Army wants to replace the SAW, it’s not going anywhere in the near future, Dean said.

The Army’s push to grow the force from 33 brigades to 48 modular brigades known as units of action means it will need more SAWs in the short term, Dean said. Currently, the Army is planning to buy another 12,000 SAWs.

Other specific requirements are that each of the models include a common multipurpose sighting system that enables the soldier to rapidly and effectively hit stationary and moving targets at both close range and the maximum effective range of the model:

• 500 meters for the carbine.

• 150 meters for the special compact.

• 600 meters for the designated marksman.

• 600 meters and beyond for the light machine gun.

Also, the weapons must be equipped with limited-visibility fire control with infrared aim light, illuminator and visible red laser pointer. The infrared aiming light and illuminator must be greater than or equal to the capability of the current-issue AN/PEQ-2A.

A formal request for proposal is slated to be issued “on or about†March 23, the notice states. Interested companies will be required to submit four of each type of the four different variants by late spring.

Submissions will be put through a series of tests, to include live-fire exercises, to see if they meet the requirements.

Whether the XM8 comes out on top or not, its achievements in testing influenced the Infantry Center direction in mapping out the requirement for new infantry weapons, Dean said. “It has certainly demonstrated the possibilities of technology available … more so than any other system has done.â€

Smith said he’s looking forward to seeing the results of the competition.

“It’s going to give us a family of four 5.56mm weapons … with extensive commonality,†he said. “It gives the commander the capability to configure his weapons based on the mission, with higher reliability than ever before — about four times the reliability over what they had before. That’s in requirement.â€

NEW PISTOL INFO

The push for more pistol punch

Army tests new ammo, technology in search for future handgun

Army Times

By Matthew Cox

Times staff writer

The Army is testing potent pistol ammo, including .45-caliber rounds, as a possible alternative for 9mm, the M9 pistol round often criticized for its lack of stopping power.

Since World War I, the 9mm cartridge has seen action in conflicts all over the world and is the standard pistol caliber for NATO forces. Still, soldiers have questioned the performance of the lightweight ammunition since the Army chose it as a replacement for the combat-proven .45 two decades ago.

Continued complaints from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war on terrorism began prompted officials at the Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., to take a serious look at alternatives to the M9 pistol.

“The feeling is that we need to assess a caliber beyond the 9mm,†said Maj. Glenn Dean, chief of the small arms division at Benning, citing the most common complaint from soldiers: “We’d like more stopping power.â€

;Complaints about reliability and a lack of accessories also prompted Dean’s office, the Army’s proponent for small arms, to scour the commercial pistol market last summer for off-the-shelf options for a Future Handgun System. “We are assessing the current technology to define what a future handgun should do, and send it to the Army,†Dean said.

As a combat developer, Dean’s job is to stay on top of the needs of soldiers and turn them into future small-arms requirements for the Army.

Since the U.S. military began operations in Afghanistan in 2001, small-arms officials at Benning have talked to soldiers who say they have little confidence in the M9 9mm in the combat zone, Dean said.

Under the Soldier Enhancement Program, Benning officials began looking for solutions on the commercial market. They started out with about 85 different semi-automatic handguns from major manufacturers such as Glock, Sigarms Inc. and Smith & Wesson.

The goal, though, was not to find a perfect pistol, Dean said. Instead, 14 pistols, in a mix of 9mm, .40 and .45 calibers, were selected for soldiers to shoot, so small-arms officials could study how individual features such as calibers and safety devices performed, Dean said.

Ten soldiers participated in two weeks of shooting tests. They were men and women, commissioned and noncommissioned officers. Their job specialties ranged from infantrymen and military police to drill sergeants and signal soldiers.

Officials examined collected data such as shot placement, qualification scores, reliability and safety, Dean said. Other factors studied included how fast soldiers could recover from the shot recoil, aim and shoot again.

Some of the features examined in the test that could show up in the Future Handgun System proposal are based on past complaints about the M9, Dean said. Some of these include magazine releases that can be operated easier while wearing cold-weather gloves and safeties and decocking devices mounted on the pistol frame rather than the slide for simpler, one-handed operation.

The test also looked at pistols like the M9 that feature double-action/single-action operation versus single- and double-action-only models.

The M9 allows soldiers to shoot in double-action mode — pulling the trigger with the hammer in the down position — and in single-action mode, in which the hammer is cocked to the rear before the first shot to make the trigger easier to pull. Revolutionary improvements in triggers over the past five years could fix this, Dean said.

In both modes, the hammer remains in the rear position after each shot and requires a decocking device that lets the soldier drop the hammer safely while a round is in the chamber when the shooting is over.

A double-action-only operation eliminates the need for a decocker since the hammer remains in the down position after each shot, Dean said.

The data gathered from the experiment will likely be ready sometime in March, Dean said. If his office decides to make a recommendation, Dean said it could go before the senior leadership by this summer.

If the Army decides to move forward, weapons developers hope to invite commercial pistol makers to participate in an open competition to select a new service pistol.

“We do expect to release a [request for proposal] by late summer for a Future Handgun System,†said Col. Michael Smith, the head of Army’s Project Manager Soldier Weapons. “It really is an exciting time.â€

Dean remains optimistic but knows that the program will have to compete against other expensive programs, including an effort to replace the Army’s M16s and M249 squad automatic weapons.

“The challenge is actually getting the requirement approved,†Dean said. “To be realistic, no army has won a war based on a pistol.â€

Many see fewer pistols in the Army’s future, Dean said, describing how ultralight, compact carbines may replace pistols for tank crewmen and other soldiers who operate in tight places.

On the other hand, carrying a pistol as a backup weapon has always been a top priority among American soldiers.

“Ever since the Revolutionary War, all the soldiers have wanted a pistol and a big knife,†said Charlie Pavlick, project officer for individual and special purpose weapons. “Soldiers have found ways to get them whether they were authorized them or not.â€

But the Army’s current pistol has never truly won the confidence of soldiers since the Army chose it as a replacement for the M1911A1 .45 automatic pistol in 1985.

The lighter 9mm round gave soldiers 15 rounds, compared to the seven-round capacity of the 1911. But it came at a cost of knock-down power.

The Army adopted the M1911A1 to fill the need for greater stopping power after the .38 service revolver often failed to put down determined Moro warriors during the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of the century.

Soldier complaints about the M9 often deal with unreliable magazines and a lack of mountable accessories such as some type of integrated laser sight system, Dean said.

Special operations soldiers are the ones using pistols most often in combat, but a desire for more hitting power, Dean said, is a common complaint his office could not ignore.

“There is a certain percentage of those comments, we think are echoing other comments, but we have heard it enough from folks that are actually operators,†Dean said.

[miles teg 1]

Very interesting article.

The XM8 I think will probably win as it probably is the most advanced rifle of its type and HK in general makes really high quality stuff. But ya never know. Colt or Beretta, or hell, even one of the Russian manufacturers may show something really unique. To be honest, I think the US army should stop looking at rifles that only look like Star Wars laser guns and instead take a close look at variants of the latest models of Russian rifles that perhaps can be configured into carbines. If accuracy is high enough perhaps even designated marksman variants could be made.

Other interesting rifles out there include some of the newer Beretta rifles, the Finnish Valmet series of rifles, Swiss SIG series of assault rifles, the French FAMAS rifle, the Austrian Styr Aug, the FN SCAR, the Israeli IMI Tavor TAR-21 rifle, and the South African Vektor CR-21 (which I believe is related to the Tavor).

Lots of good stuff out there.

That HK M4 variant mentioned earlier however I think will be a strong contender. If the M4 can indeed be made more reliable then that would probably be the best way to go simply because its so versatile and US troops are already familiar and comfortable with it. So my bet is either on the XM8 or the HK M4.

As for pistols, I think they should simply bring back a extended magazine version of the old Colt 1911 pistol. Thats a great pistol and the recoil is not as hard as some writers make it out to be. Its extremely reliable, has excellent knockdowm power and with an extended magazine should meet most needs. Another interesting option would be MAC-10 SMG's (.45 cal) or IMI MicroUzi pistols. Both of these are reliable weapons and the MicroUzi has a proven combat record and can be easily outfitted with a wide variety of Spec Ops stuff like laser pointers, silencers, and reflex sights.

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/uzi/Uzi-Micro.html

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ran 0]

http://dboy.cpgl.net/France/FaMas/f_es200402.jpg

http://dboy.cpgl.net/France/FaMas/f_es200401.jpg

look at what they did to my baby .......

-edit-

http://www.giat-industries.fr/asp/fr/pdf/fr_ftech_famas.pdf

the DGA (the organism responsible for the acquisition of everything related to weapons and french armed forces) notified the GIAT of its will to get roughly 20 000 FAMAS F1 rifles taken to the FAMAS surbaissé standard, a lower-profile FAMAS ... and this is to be done before 2008 normally...

It's the carrying handle which made all its look ... and now they're removing it ... raah

[DrFin 0]

and in the end ...lets just go back to the m-14 ...

[Wilco 944]

My dad's friend owns an Armory in Fairfax, Virginia.  They deal with the Military and law enforcement.  Supposedly the Army is thinking about going with the FN SCAR since the XM8 project is all but dead.

http://www.cbd-net.com/index.php/search/show/475187

Sorry if this is old news, don't feel like reading all of these pages.

Edit: Looks like it's just for Special Forces

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Yer, if you know noticed turned its attention to "melting" boots and radios that don't work in tanks.

Would you actually be able to use radios in tanks if you got your engine on etc? Wouldn't be able to hear the dam thing. I'm sure they use hand signals.

The boots are crap for deserts.

There is an extremely technical solution to using radios inside tanks and being able to hear them - headphones and mics

Regarding the SA80:

It has good and bad points.

Good points: Its accurate. More accurate than the M16 series.

Its quite short -which is good

It makes an excellent club.

The sling design on the rifle is good - again much better than the M16

Bad points:

Compared to any other modern rifle, its phenomenally heavy. The LSW weighs pretty much what a PARA MINIME weighs, AFAIR.

And the A2 is even heavier.

The gas system is antiquated, evn on the A2. The G36 gas system beats it hands down. It builds up far too much carbon far too quickly.

Its difficult and fiddly to clean.

It is not, however, that unreliable in and of itself.

What makes it unreliable (and I'm talking about both the A1 and the A2) is obsessive over-cleaning. It actually works better when a few rounds have been fired through it. Over cleaning also makes it get dirty quicker, and creates a great deal of wear and tear on the rifle... making it worn out and unreliable.

[stgn 39]

Yer, if you know noticed turned its attention to "melting" boots and radios that don't work in tanks.

Would you actually be able to use radios in tanks if you got your engine on etc? Wouldn't be able to hear the dam thing. I'm sure they use hand signals.

The boots are crap for deserts.

There is an extremely technical solution to using radios inside tanks and being able to hear them - headphones and mics

Regarding the SA80:

It has good and bad points.

Good points: Its accurate.  More accurate than the M16 series.

Its quite short -which is good

It makes an excellent club.

The sling design on the rifle is good - again much better than the M16

Bad points:

Compared to any other modern rifle, its phenomenally heavy.  The LSW weighs pretty much what a PARA MINIME weighs, AFAIR.

And the A2 is even heavier.

The gas system is antiquated, evn on the A2.  The G36 gas system beats it hands down.  It builds up far too much carbon far too quickly.

Its difficult and fiddly to clean.  

It is not, however, that unreliable in and of itself.

What makes it unreliable (and I'm talking about both the A1 and the A2) is obsessive over-cleaning.  It actually works better when a few rounds have been fired through it.  Over cleaning also makes it get dirty quicker, and creates a great deal of wear and tear on the rifle... making it worn out and unreliable.

From looking at pictures of SA80 internals it seems that the rifle has a FREE FLOAT BARREL which means that it is gonna be alot more accurate than example the M16A2 which does not have a free float barrel, standard. Now a guy who knows somthing about this said that comparing a FFP to a non FFP is like comparing appels to bananas(or somthing can't remmber the fruits). This is also why a XM8BC out shoots a M4A1 carbine with about 1.5 MOA, though it should be noted that because the M4 has a metal reciver it, in a FFP comfiguration, would be more accurate than an XM8. And actualy because of the light direct gas system of the M16, I think that it actualy is more accurate than an SA80(the gas system adds wight on the barrel making it more inaccurate) in a FFP configuration. I just wanted to mention cause as another man said most men in the army is more inaccurate than an M16 so it realy only matters for snipers and sharp shooters.

STGN