U.S. Army explores continuing carbine upgrades

[Trooper]

http://www.military1.com/army/article/56...dium=email

The U.S. Army is exploring a new round of upgrades to its ubiquitous M4/M4A1 series carbine

I thought that there was no money for anything

[Variable]

They want an M4A1 "plus" (M4A1+)? Has Obamunism carried down to the level of instilling socialist "newspeak" into the military? That'd be double plus ungood!LOL

Sounds like they're looking for a free-float rail, a better trigger, and some bling. If I was Colt I'd toss a 6940 with a newly redesigned single stage Geissele select fire trigger assembly and maybe a Blackout or Surefire style muzzle device on it?

[stanc]

The U.S. Army is exploring a new round of upgrades to its ubiquitous M4/M4A1 series carbine

I thought that there was no money for anything

"Exploring" available technology doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually be bought.

And if they should decide to buy something, they always manage to find the money...

[am4966]

Yeah get the blackout MD and they can eliminate flash better but then get a new issue the ping that it makes. Besides it's just talk of getting better weapons to our troops.

[Variable]

Yeah get the blackout MD and they can eliminate flash better but then get a new issue the ping that it makes. Besides it's just talk of getting better weapons to our troops.

Just grind the prongs on an angle and the ping goes away. I'd grind mine, but I kinda like the ping.LOL

I laughed back when they first came out and people griped about the tuning fork ring. "It will give your position away"... Ahem, if you fire a round, it's a bit louder than the ping.

Anywhoo, it's just because the prongs are equidistant. If you change their length relative to each other it cancels out the harmonic and they don't ring. Silencerco did it with their Saker mount.

[Wheelhorse]

They have made 92 improvements since 1990 and just now getting to this?
"enhanced trigger module that will provide for “a single-stage trigger, free of creep"

[cory]

From an adjacent, slightly older thread where the Marine Corps is doing very similar things.

In regards to the new muzzle device, bwaites had the best solution and I won't attempt to steal his thunder so here's what he said.

It would interesting to do a comparison of 16" rifle barrels and see at what point the extra mass becomes a liability. With 14.5 or 16 inch barrels, I bet 8-12 ounces buys a lot more stiffness and heat sink capability. Comps get better an better, but I think the real winner would be a lightweight 4-6" suppressor that would be good for 2-3000 rounds and then disposable. (Think about how that technology would bring the price of suppressors down!)

There is plenty of aftermarket stuff that would make the rifle easier to shoot and would be really cost effective at lengthening he rifle life.

[LRRPF52]

They are basically playing catch up to SOPMOD Block II, which is where the current M4 configuration came from with the SOPMOD Block I, without the optics and suppressor units that were initially made available to SOCOM.

SOPMOD Block II now has the addition of Geissele SSF triggers, which just won the SOCOM contract after over a year of trials.

Here is the SOPMOD Block II upgrade sheet:

[stanc]

"Exploring" available technology doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually be bought.

Like I said...

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/.../85702010/

[mdewitt71]

We were not even able to complete the MWOs (Modification Work Orders) to the M4s last year..... As of today, still have thousands due updates from 2015 (ambi levers, new triggers, and hand guard/ rails). Not too mention all the money being spent to test the new modular pistol. I just shipped out over 300 M9s leaving the Army MP School worn out and broke to be spending more money than a new one would cost for replacements.

[n9nwo]

We are not going to see a new rifle until we have a new cartridge. Since the M1 Garand every new rifle has been because we had a new cartridge (M14 -- 7.62x51, M16/M4 -- 5.56x45).

The M4/M4A1/M16 has dominated. Not enough new technology to move away from the current rifle. The weak spot is the cartridge, not the rifle.

The 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39) might be able to do that. I doubt that we will go to another version of the 6.5mm (like 6.5x45, 6.5x51 gives us the same weakness of the 7.62x51). The advantage of the 6.5x39 is that it will fit in the mag well of the M4 thus just a barrel and bolt swap will upgrade the current pool of weapons, giving time to select a new rifle. I would favor something like the Tavor X95 myself.

[Texas]

We are not going to see a new rifle until we have a new cartridge. Since the M1 Garand every new rifle has been because we had a new cartridge (M14 -- 7.62x51, M16/M4 -- 5.56x45).

The M4/M4A1/M16 has dominated. Not enough new technology to move away from the current rifle. The weak spot is the cartridge, not the rifle.

The 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39) might be able to do that. I doubt that we will go to another version of the 6.5mm (like 6.5x45, 6.5x51 gives us the same weakness of the 7.62x51). The advantage of the 6.5x39 is that it will fit in the mag well of the M4 thus just a barrel and bolt swap will upgrade the current pool of weapons, giving time to select a new rifle. I would favor something like the Tavor X95 myself.

I know there is a lot of discontent around the 5.56X45 in the military, and there is about $2 billion budgeted for the upgrade of the M16/M4 system. The 6.5X39 would be welcome by a number of well respected military leaders. I have had the opportunity to discuss this with Army and Marine Corp personnel. The M249 can be configured to fire the 6.5X39 which could illiminate the need for an M240 and the 7.62X51 cartridge and provide for a one caliber supply chain.

[Lightning8]

I do not care how you "up gun" a SAW it will not replace a M240 and the 7.62x51.

[LRRPF52]

I do not care how you "up gun" a SAW it will not replace a M240 and the 7.62x51.

6.5mm LSAT exceeds the capabilities of the M240 and PKM, at half the weight or less, with constant recoil and the ability to carry much more ammo in smaller volume.

7.62 NATO is the problem with our system, not 5.56, especially with M855A1 in the system now. The new M80A1 7.62 NATO has an even lower BC than the M80 7.62 FMJBT projectile.

[stanc]

6.5mm LSAT exceeds the capabilities of the M240 and PKM, at half the weight or less, with constant recoil and the ability to carry much more ammo in smaller volume.

A 6.5mm LSAT machine gun could certainly replace the 7.62mm M240. But then, the 6.5mm LSAT cartridge is in the same power class as 6.5 Creedmoor.

However, the capability of a 6.5 Grendel M249 SAW to replace the 7.62mm M240 is much less certain.

[Texas]

7.62 NATO is the problem with our system, not 5.56, especially with M855A1 in the system now. The new M80A1 7.62 NATO has an even lower BC than the M80 7.62 FMJBT projectile.

Has the barrel erosion and bolt breakage problem been solved with the M855A1? The original M855A1 cut barrel life about in half on M4s and the increased pressure necessary to get the velocity needed for projectile performance was causing problems with bolts. Also as I recall, the government lost a patent infringement case on the projectile running costs up to about 8.5 cents per projectile which is significant compared to the M855 or M193.

The complaints I was hearing about the 5.56 were due to over penetration.

[Lightning8]

6.5mm LSAT exceeds the capabilities of the M240 and PKM, at half the weight or less, with constant recoil and the ability to carry much more ammo in smaller volume.

7.62 NATO is the problem with our system, not 5.56, especially with M855A1 in the system now. The new M80A1 7.62 NATO has an even lower BC than the M80 7.62 FMJBT projectile.

I was referring to the SAW - I do not think the 6.5mm LSAT will be used in the SAW. I hope we can get an effective new service cartridge but my bet is on the plasma rifle before caseless.

[biodsl]

I hope we can get an effective new service cartridge but my bet is on the plasma rifle before caseless.

Phased, in the 40 watt range preferably.

[LRRPF52]

I was referring to the SAW - I do not think the 6.5mm LSAT will be used in the SAW. I hope we can get an effective new service cartridge but my bet is on the plasma rifle before caseless.

LSAT isn't caseless, it's polymer cased with the projectile inside.

It's a SAW-killer in that it is more reliable, much lighter, constant recoil, handles more like an assault rifle, and doesn't suffer from the brass-cased cartridge issues that M855A1 causes, when using the M855A1 projectile.

[n9nwo]

I know there is a lot of discontent around the 5.56X45 in the military, and there is about $2 billion budgeted for the upgrade of the M16/M4 system. The 6.5X39 would be welcome by a number of well respected military leaders. I have had the opportunity to discuss this with Army and Marine Corp personnel. The M249 can be configured to fire the 6.5X39 which could illiminate the need for an M240 and the 7.62X51 cartridge and provide for a one caliber supply chain.

There are two nearly perfect calibers (in terms of BC), 6.5 and .338 (8.59). It has been suggested that if we moved to the 6.5x39 for the SAW and infantry rifle (and DMR) then we should upgrade the m240 to 8.6x63 (.338 NM) which would give the M240 nearly the impact of the .50 M2 but with less recoil and weight.

Similarly we need to merge the three cannon calibers (20mm, 25mm, 30mm) into the 25mm (1 inch) which also is nearly a perfect BC. A 25mm makes more sense than the M2 .50 anyway.