“The Army announced today it is formally concluding its Individual Carbine competition without selecting a winner to replace the M4 Carbine,” military.com reports. According to a June 13 Army press release, “None of the carbines evaluated during the testing phase of the competition met the minimum scoring requirement needed to continue to the next phase of the evaluation.” In other words, “no competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability” to justify replacing the M4. What, no mention  of lethality? Anyway, Robinson Armament, LWRC, Remington Defense, Knight’s Armament, FN Herstal and Heckler & Koch are all bummed. Colt—also in the running to replace the M4—not so much. The Army is spending $21.2m on 12k Colt M4A1s in 2014. [h/t LB]

Want to start a different discussion or ask a question on another topic? Click here to go to TTAG’s Free Fire Zone.

Recommended For You

95 Responses to BREAKING: Army Kills Competition to Replace M4

    • Because that would kill 300 Blackouts chief advantage of letting it easily go back and forth from sub sonic to super sonic, and with a suppressor or without.

    • There is no cartridge that will fit in an M4 STANAG magazine that is a significant improvement over the 5.56 to justify a change in firearm. Every change in longarm issued by the US military came with a change in cartridge technology, except one.

      The Springfield 1861 replaced the Model 1842 going from smoothbore to rifled.

      The 1861 was replaced by the 1873 Trapdoor going to breech loading metallic cartridges.

      Next was the 1886 Krag-Jorgensen, the first smokeless powder rifle issued.

      Then the 1903 Springfield, the first spitzer bullet cartridge issued.

      Then the M1 Garand, which was supposed to shoot a .270 cal intermediate cartridge but was kept in .30-06 due to the amount of 06 ammo on hand left over from WWI.

      The M14 replaced the M1 with the 7.62×51, changing powder types and improving cartridge efficiency.

      Last is the 5.56 replacing the 7.62 going from M14 to M16/M4.

      The .300 AAC, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel are not so much better than the 5.56 as to justify a change. Something new will need to come along that is so much an improvement in ballistic technology as to justify the expense of rearming the entire US military.

      • I disagree with you on two fronts: First, weapons such as the Tavor have improved the bullpup to the point that it is vastly superior to the M4. Second, any of the three replacement rounds are much more suited to the shorter barrel lengths that the military has decided upon in the M4 and M249. While some 5.56 loadings such as the Mk. 318 are an improvement over the M855 green tip, they still suffer from the same issues in shorter barrels. The 6.5 Grendel would likely be the best all around bet for the military due to its long range abilities. Afghanistan has shown the weakness of the 5.56 at ranges exceeding 300 yards. The 6.5 is half way between a 5.56 and 7.62.

        • I think also, if the Tavor was vastly superior, our very own red-blooded bearded jesus’es would be carrying them.

          they dont. Other “elite” units are also not flocking to them (and they would if it was indeed vastly superior).

          Other nations are also not necessarily flocking to the Tavor either, buying M16s and M4s instead.

          Btw, the Mk 318 is designed specifically for shorter barrels. The Mk 262 also performs well in a 10.5″ barrel. Both perform better than M855.

          In response to J, no, the 6.8 and 6.5 do not warrant a replacement to the 5.56. They still carry the drawbacks of heavier calibers, namely heavier cartridge weight, more recoil, and a increased propensity to burn out barrels faster (especially the 6.5).

          The 5.56 has evolved considerably from the M855. There have been more effective cartridges available for decades.

        • Foghorn’s main complaint about the Tavor was its trigger, and I think he either got a bad one or is just too used to lighter triggers. The trigger on my Tavor is rather great. Its heavy, but weight isn’t everything. This is a combat rifle, not a bench rest rifle.

        • My first dumbest comment reply was to the Peter, this one goes to Jonathan.
          “Vastly superior to the M4”. This is what you said about the Tavor. How? Where is this info? Why are the Israeli’s still using M4s for the most part? What Tavor shoots Grendel 6.5? Do you understand the cost and labor involved with changing out the main weapon from the entire US Army?

          I have to assume you are just talking OUTOFASS.
          Are we planning to be in Afghanistan forever? If not than redesigning a rifle for the entire Army is probably not a great idea. I have two nephews, a cousin and a friend that used the M4 or a version of it in both Iraq and Afghanistan and no real complaints from them. Have you served?

        • The IDF has equipped the entire army with the Tavor and announced in late 2012 that they would be equipping the reserve units with them as well. Just because the US hasn’t started to adopt a weapon doesn’t mean that it isn’t better than the M4. The M4 is based on a 60 year old design. Improvements of the tavor include: gas piston, quick barrel change, caliber change, shorter overall length, full length barrel in an SBR length, etc. The platform is battle tests by the IDF and I have yet to see a bad review of the US civilian version. As far as the 6.5, it is heavier in weight and recoil over the 5.56, however it has a vast increase in energy and range out of the same platform. Any time the military wishes to make a change in weapon systems the cost is going to be heavy. However, cost of small arms is nothing compared to the money spent on other military programs. Thus, I am not convinced cost is the over riding factor. The military higher ups never like new technology. Did they want a 5.56 over the 7.62 back in the 1960’s? I think not.

        • The 6.5 still carries over problems associated with a larger caliber.

          More recoil, heavier ammunition, faster barrel wear, etc.

          A sound concept in theory. Although 5.56 has evolved considerably since the M855 green tip.

        • First, I agree that there are better rounds out there for the 5.56. I like the mk. 318 quite a bit and would gladly use it. Second, how much heavier? How much faster throat erosion? How much more weight will it add? I don’t feel as if you can just brush off the 6.5 Grendel that way as a 5.56 replacement. To reduce weight of the rounds you could offer the standard ammo in a 85-100 grain configuration similar to the technology used in the mk 318. In addition, a 123 grain OTM would be used for the squad masksman. I believe a rifle similar to the special purpose rifles used now would have 800 ft-lbs at 500 yards. That is much more than the present arms. As far as being in Afghanistan, it looks like we will be there forever. However, increasing capabilities gives the grunts on the ground more options and flexibility. I don’t believe in good enough for our boys.

        • First, I agree that there are better rounds out there for the 5.56. I like the mk. 318 quite a bit and would gladly use it.

          “Second, how much heavier? How much faster throat erosion? How much more weight will it add?”

          Empirically, I cannot say. I don’t have either and there is no standardized “load” for the US military, therefore one cannot provide a “equal” comparison.

          Utilizing some reasoning, we know that the 6.5 and 6.8 are larger and heavier bullets yes? then the cartridges would be heavier in loaded magazines.

          We know the recoil is heavier than a 5.56 but lighter than a 7.62 NATO.

          Perhaps it is a “compromise” between 7.62 and 5.56. One cannot balk at that.

          I agree that such a cartridge would have been a true intermediate size when compared to the 5.56. Does it warrant enough of a improvement to replace 5.56 and 7.62?

          Perhaps the concept of a “universal” cartridge is more ideal?

      • .300 blk doesn’t have the range to compete. If thats the case, we should see the 6.8spc or 6.5 Grendel in combat. Both would outperform the .300 blk out in terms of range and lethality. Remember,the military( in fact any of tbe worlds militaries) are stuck mentally in fighting there last major wars! The brits still wish they were using the FAL, we don’t know anything but the M16, and from what I’ve been reading, the russian troops that have seen action in chechnya still
        sneak in the AK 47 over their issued AK 74s…

        Also to Jonathan, the tavor is designed for IDF specifications which are a compact, lightweight assault weapon they can use for CQB in the townships.it surpasses the M4 in that regard, and has less stoppages( not much less, but less). Also, the IDF doesn’t want to be concerned with buying foreign made weapons. While th US is an ally to ISRAEL and the IWI can and does make M4 clones, they wanted their own home grown weapon. The TAVOR is a “better” weapon for ISRAEL, not exactly a better weapon than the M4. If the shtf, you best believe the IDF will have PLENTY of M16s/M4s to back up their TAVORS, and won’t be ashamed to use them…..

  1. In other words the budget is too tight and even if a much improved weapon had been found it would cost too much money to re-equip and train the troops on the new weapon.

    • Exactly. It’s not worth re-equipping the force at great cost until a real game changer comes along. Yeah there have been some great improvements on display recently, but nothing ‘new’

      • None of which will stop the Pentagon from fielding a replacement. Just look at the ongoing camo fiasco. ACU was adopted, even though it’s obviously worse than no camo at all!

        • No the ACU has real problems the M-4 never had a real issue and it was corrupt congressmen and senators who got crappy FN money to press this ICC glad it died when Military Brass found no logic in to a crap POC thing like FN’s plastic BM.

          Glad to see the m-4 staying.

  2. Yeah its all about $$$$$$$$ The M-4 will still kill you and is reliable enough; but sooner rather than later we might not have effective solutions for other problems/threats.

    All things being equal its funny that the US has in effect been using the M-16 and its variants since the mid 60’s; in that time most of the rest of the Western world has gone through 2-4 new rifles in that time.

    I see no reason beyond cost that our troops are not using the H&K 416 or one of its variants.

    • Well, cost would probably be one reason for the HK 416 not being deployed. Also, doesn’t it shoot the same 5.56 round? I know that it is a piston gun, but at the drop of a hat, folks will line up to tell you that a piston gun has no real advantage over a DI gun on the battlefield. Don’t know if I agree, but then again, I don’t have the experience of using either in battle conditions, so what do I know?

      • I don’t see why people think pistons are the bee’s knees. I’m in A-stan and were having problems with IARs (416) jamming on bzo ranges because its so dry. Yet “crappy” DI weapons like m4s and m16s are doing fine. Lethality doesn’t come from the weapon system, it comes from the caliber and getting NATO to switch would take forever if it happened at all. I personally have no problem with a DI gun. Even one where I’m the 15th owner of it, I don’t have any real reliability issues from. I doesn’t matter how great the gun does in trials, every gun malfunctions. People need to stop drinking the piston Kool-aid.

        • +100! Pistons are not the “next evolution” of the AR 15/ M16/M4. If that were the case, Stoner would have built a piston system for the original rifle. The US military had a chance at the AR 18 and passed on it( apparently its performance was below the AR 15. Even sadder, the brits used same piston design in their SA 80, and it took YEARS for them to have HK ” fix that weapon platform”)

          The HK 416 design offers an option to an older design. When the USMC fields the IAR, theyll have a beater gun that can run a little harder than the M16 a4, won’t weigh as much as the M249,but will have acceptible accuracy. There is no such thing as a perfect gun,. But in real world applications the AR 15/ M16/M4, and its variants(C7/C8, HK 416/417)SR 25, are ending up more and more on our allies military shelves, and in the hands of their troops. Watch and see if the French don’t go with the C8, or even the HK416, over their horrific famas…

      • A large selling point of the AR-15 was the fact that it functioned reliably without a heavy gas piston system.

        Personally, I see no problem with the current DI design. In fact, I’ve grown to like it.

    • The “base” government price on a HK Mp5 was under a $1000.00 back when I was in the military – 20 years ago. I know because I bought some for one of my units. I suspect the Government rate on a 416 is also a bunch cheaper than the civilian price.

      • Of course HK would price it lower for the military…

        You’re a civilian?

        Remember: HK. Becuase you suck. And we hate you.

        • See the Scar lovers crying and having temper tantrums. Good, your lousy logic lost get over it.

    • The 416 is not superior.

      external pistols, especially short stroke ones, have their fair share of problems that are created.

      They are not measurably more reliable than the internal piston of the Stoner design either. SF at Fort Carson didn’t find them any more mechanically reliable than the Mk 18.

      The only advantages they give are over the beach and when used with a suppressor (which is why DEVGRU used them). Other than that, they are another case of strengths/weaknesses without a wider margin between the two differentials than the Stoner internal piston.

      Long stroke pistons are more superior in AR designs in my opinion. Although one would have to actually test them empirically against everything else.

    • The ACU issue – you are correct. Its major issue is one you’d imagine they could easily see: IT’S THE WRONG COLOR. By which I mean the sage-similar green, not the background color, which isn’t terrible. A simple field test, I’m certain, bared its myriad faults. The digital pixelation isn’t so much the problem. It works reasonably well in sagebrush, and that’s it. The brass HAD to know it sucked rotten eggs; they were bought off somehow. If they adopt Multicam wide scale, it will be a HUGE improvement.

      But I bet they don’t. Da Brass is itchy with our tax money. ATACS is absolutely brilliant, but unlike Multicam, it is a two-pattern system. I am in awe of its effectiveness. It’s so good I doubt it will adopted.

      • the military will abandon the “universal camo” approach and go back to environment specific patterns.

        the whole thing is a clusterf^ck.

  3. I just want to know if there is going to be a clearance sale on any of these “failed” projects. I’d line up like a ammo flipper at Walmart at 6am for one of these.

  4. Isn’t this what people were predicting would happen anyways?

    Army seems to have a history of killing their small arms programs… maybe after we bring home the troops from Afghanistan, there will be more time refit and re-evaluate the current inventory of M4s. I pray to God recent developments don’t lead to boots on the ground in Syria or anywhere else.

    • Ever wonder why the Marines stuck to the standard M16, and allow only certain specialists, NCOs et al to carry the M4? The ARMY complains about range but deploys SHORT BARRALED RIFLES( M4s) to front line troops! Fighting in Afghanistan seems to dropped back the US combat doctrine to WW2 battlefield scenarios, where longer ranged shooting was required( 500+meters). Other than afghanistan, modern warfare is going to be mainly urban,and in that respect, the M4 holds its own

  5. Other priorities have been established in the last couple weeks by Dear Leader

    1.) War on mythical “sexual asst” plague in the mil
    2.) Declares war on Syria (Russian/Chicom backed) allied with Mohammandan radicals. (Remember “Wag the Dog”?)

  6. Personally I consider this a good development .We know that the lethality of a rifle depends on the skill level of its user.Rather then waste money in the search for a shinier rifle,perhaps we should teach our troops how to capably use the one they already have.

    • You can lead a horse to water… however, if you don’t take actions to teach how to shoot, it ain’t happening. Da Brass has seen little use for marksmanship for nearly all my life. Firepower, firepower, firepower.Why teach them to shoot when they’re viewed as expendable, infinitely-renewable resource? NEXT!!!

  7. I read this, and my first reaction was, “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!” I was pumped to see the next carbine, myself.

  8. The problem was the standard round not m-4. Green tip rounds were meant to be fired from a 20 inch saw barrel for maximum effectiveness, and they are no where near as effective at range with a 14.5 inch m-4 carbine barrel.

    Other than that if you PMCSed your weapon properly and kept it clean there were little to no issues with it that other guns wouldn’t have.

    • I agree. I think there needs to be an improvement in the ammo selection, specifically, the weight of the projectile.

      • I haven’t seen how the new round performs so I can’t comment, but going back to the xm193 might not be a bad idea. As for caliber switch the .300 AAC would be nice, but unrealistic as they would have to convince NATO to switch.

    • Oh man, I had this argument so many times in the service. Yes, if you follow the very strict maintenance protocol the M16/M4 family is as reliable as anything else. But an infantryman’s weapon shouldn’t be so demanding on maintenance. Keeping your weapon clean might be a nice way to check discipline but nobody’s life should rest on whether or not the guy on watch spent a hour cleaning his rifle that day.

    • Yup and green tip werent even ideal against the enemy were shooting either.

      There is a difference in density between well trained Comblock troops clad in body armor and steel helmets and malnourished third world insurgents wearing a man dress.

  9. I am wondering when a product improvement program comes along to bring the M16 series to the peak of its design. When might we (if ever) see the army steering the platform towards developments that KAC has engineered? When will we see new superior materials integrated into the M16 platform? The system has more room to grow yet.

    • I’m clearly not a big military hardware-type dude; what are differences between the XM (or XEM, I thought it was) and the M-4? I was under the impression the differences were slight…

      The military is stuck on the carbine as a battle concept. With the weight they carry on their backs – I’m not certain that’s always a necessity, either, except on recon and LURP situations – it’s not hard to see why. Like golems they move under all that weight! Actually, “move” is a misnomer; “lurch” and “wobble” is more accurate.

    • I think you’re right, but the problem seems to be that the platform is already so expensive. Anyone know what Da Brass pays for an M-16 or M-4?

  10. I think the most obvious improvement would be switch to non-FMJ ammo. The USA is not a signatory to that part of the Hague convention, and even if it was it would be okay to use against a non-standard military, just like hollowpoints are used by police.

    • HP ammo is used by the military, mainly SOCOM but when a HP bullet is used; it is used for “flight stability”, which a BT HP round defiantly provides.

    • The Mk 318 Mod 0 barrier penetrating round is a hollow point. Excuse me – a JAG approved OTM created by a reverse jacket taper.

    • OTM are extremely effective against human bodies.

      I think the military has too much of a emphasis on armor piercing capabilities when it comes to individual rifles.

      We already have light anti-armor capability: M203s, 50 cal, AT4, Gustov, etc etc

      There is no reason for infantrymen to emphasize armor piercing capabilities when they are fighting infantrymen anyways.

      • Agreed. M14 with new stock. I’ve heard that when the troops got to Astan they immediately began asking for heavier rifles because of the ranges involved there. A bunch of m14’s were pulled out of storage, worked over by the armorers and sent out to them.

  11. Well, that’s pretty much what I expected anyway. From talking with vets of firefights, there’s so much approval necessary to actually fire a weapon anymore, what’s the point of investing in a more lethal rifle, if we’re not going to use it?

  12. Normal in US Army do not fix any thing untill enough people die with it. Same thing happen with Hummer just keep drive them make some what safer from ied untill some one realize that not good enough .

  13. Face it w/o caliber change there was no other rifle on the market better than the M-4A1. Not worth the price most where Euro crap companies while M-4 is made by American workers. And this whole competition was made due to political debates in the last of the Bush years so it should die and glad it did.

    • eurocrap? The best manufactures in the world are European. You’re probably also of the opinion that a ‘vette can outperform an aventador.

      • Nope. but, that corvette can be repaired by any shade tree mechanic and will probably be on the road many yrs from now! Most of the modern euro guns don’t have the lpng history of the M4s and are still going through teething problems, like tbe G36( overheating), FAMAS, which the french are seriously looking to REPLACE, the SA 80/L 85 ( which may get dumped for the G36 if the MoD can pull that off), and nobodu knows what the italians current rifle can really do….

    • The requirement for all weapon systems adopted by US military is that they’re manufactured in US, regardless of where the design originates. M9, M249 etc are all made in US by American workers. Any new rifle adopted through this program would have also been made by American workers.

      Anyway, this whole thing is laughable. It is, what, the third time they announce a competition and then abruptly end it? Guys, just go license SG 550 (aka “AK done right”) and be done with it!

      • yes but all 100% of the money and influence goes to the nation of Origin and American jobs and power are lost.

        Some the Scar lovers are still crying and having temper tantrums. Good, your lousy logic lost get over it.

        The main point is if we stay with 5.56mm stay with the best platform M-4/M-16 made to shoot 5.56mm. If we went to 6.8mm or 6.5mm then a ACR would have been awesome. But NATO makes us stay with 5.56mm so the M-4 is the best choice for a SBRed carbine.

        My personal preference is for a long barreled M-16A2 or A4. The USMC agrees with me on that.

  14. I think there is plenty of room for the 300 AAC, 6.5 Grendel, and 6.8 SPC. Perhaps NATO wouldn’t approve, but I really don’t give a crap about NATO. I don’t see a better CQB caliber than the 300, the 6.5 is the long range champ, and the 6.8 gives a lot of benefits of both worlds. If nothing else, I don’t see why the 300 can’t be worked into the current logistics train, since it uses everything on a standard AR except the barrel.

  15. Personally I don’t think there’s a rifle out there that is significantly better than a properly equipped AR, but when the military went the light, fast bullet route they went a little to the extreme with the 5.56. I’m partial to the 6.8SPC myself – seems like the perfect compromise. I can understand the appeal of the 300 Blackout for those who want a rifle that functions well both suppressed and subsonic as well as supersonic, but in it’s supersonic phase it seems a little too much like a 7.62×39, not a 500m round. That’s fine if you’re hunting hogs in the brush, but not the battlefield.

    I also don’t get the appeal of the short barreled M4s (especially with such a light round). They make fine home defense weapons since they pack more wallup than most handguns, but once you hear “allahu akbar” a third or fourth shot might not be in the cards. If you’re looking for one single all around, do everything military rifle I’d pick a 6.8SPC with an 18″(+) barrel. You get the power of a 7.62×39 at close range and a trajectory of a 7.62×51 at longer ranges, with the energy of a .357 magnum at 600 yards. And they don’t even have to replace the whole rifle!

    • I think a HK 416 upper in 6.8 SPC is the best cost-effective combination. You are only replacing the upper and keeping the serviceable lower receiver. The magazines only need a change in the follower and you lose about 10% of the original capacity of the magazines.

      I thought in Afghanistan that the full-length rifles would be a better choice with the distances involved, and even more so with an optic fitted. The M4 carbines might be more handy in CQB or when operating from vehicles or helicopters, but how much close-combat was actually happening?

    • I think we should have gone Canadian and issued the 20″ barrel M16 with a collapsable buttstock. Replace the hand guard with a free float tube, folding front sights, and modular rail attachments for a flashlight and laser. Done deal. You have a bad ass infantry rifle.

  16. The sound is hinky; keeps cutting in and out.

    Just as Multicam is being more widely adopted to replace the god-awful ACU, they’re doing trials to replace that. Your tax money tossed around like confetti!

  17. The issue come down fact if Amy does see issue what useing than rath spend it money on some thing it does see has issue on like find camouflage uniforms does make them stand out with sighn round neck say shoot me I am US army man. Air Force Marines Navy have same issue with f35 jet being now most costly program in Pentagon history. Mean that F35 may be better fighter than ones gone replace but cost so much time money get right that all fighter plans gone replace are still gone be fliying in combat zones long after frist handful F35 ever get deploy. Infact Russia China may have fighter jets far more advanced buy time F35 comes out any numbers. Yet does beg questuion if other counrty round world are developing better 233 military rifles than US and even body armor stop round would be wise not keep developing some thing better than what where useing now???

    • “Richard says:
      June 14, 2013 at 02:51
      The issue come down fact if Amy does see issue what useing than rath spend it money on some thing it does see has issue on like find camouflage uniforms does make them stand out with sighn round neck say shoot me I am US army man. Air Force Marines Navy have same issue with f35 jet being now most costly program in Pentagon history. Mean that F35 may be better fighter than ones gone replace but cost so much time money get right that all fighter plans gone replace are still gone be fliying in combat zones long after frist handful F35 ever get deploy. Infact Russia China may have fighter jets far more advanced buy time F35 comes out any numbers. Yet does beg questuion if other counrty round world are developing better 233 military rifles than US and even body armor stop round would be wise not keep developing some thing better than what where useing now???”

      TRANSLATION PLEASE!!!

  18. They seem to do this every year,last year they dropped the SCAR,as a replacement.lately most battle rifles are getting to where they are so close to each other in reliability and performance that there is no reason to spend the money to reequip with about what you already have.It is going to take something really groundbreaking to win a new contract.Also gonna be hard to go to another caliber,due to NATO forces,at this time are cash strapped,and there is so much 5.56 in inventory,in USA and NATO armories.Don’t think our military would go for a bull pup either,but I could be wrong.Keep your powder dry.

  19. 21.2 million for 12k M4s??? That works out to just under $1767 per M4. Before all the crazyness started you could pick up a Colt 6920 through retail channels for around $1200. The whole point of a high volume contract is to push the cost down. I remember reading somewhere a few years back that the replacement cost of an M16 was about $500.

    • There are other factors at play, quality control, mandated parts inventory, Congressional Party Fund, Lemurs

    • That’s usually a long-term contract, and includes repairs, spares, and a few other things. Think of it as a “lifetime cost” rather than a “cash and carry” cost.

      Also, they have to pay for the lemurs.

    • 1200?

      try 900. I said the same thing until someone here corrected me and proved me wrong (i dont remember who it was).

  20. Question: can average troops regularly hit a human silhouette target at 300+ meters using iron sights on any rifle?

    If the answer is “no”, then it seems to me it doesn’t matter what rifle/caliber our military issues to the troops because they will not hit anything anyway. Why not have most of the guys in a platoon carry short barreled rifles with iron sights and then maybe three guys carry large caliber rifles with scopes? The guys with the short barreled rifles obviously handle close quarters combat and open engagements out to 200 meters or so. Then the guys with the large caliber rifles take on anything between 50 and 600 meters. And make sure the three guys with large caliber rifles and scopes have one or two 1911s (in .45 ACP of course) with multiple magazines if a close quarters combat situation goes south.

    That seems simple and effective to me. Is that a sensible solution?

    • “Question: can average troops regularly hit a human silhouette target at 300+ meters using iron sights on any rifle?”

      If you’d ever been in the military (well, the Army anyway) you’d know the answer. Which is YES. It’s part of standard qualification. Targets are from 25 yards out to 300.

  21. Why would Colt be so happy? I was under the impression that they lost the contract for the M-4 to Remington, then protested it and then both lost to FN. Royalties are nice but I’m sure a contract for a whole new weapons system would have been nicer.

  22. “Program Executive Office Soldier officials said that “no competitor demonstrated a significant improvement in weapon reliability” to justify buying a new carbine.”

    ‘Xactly…same reason I didn’t jump on the gas piston, 6.8, 6.5 or 300 band wagon.

  23. Good… now lets stop wasting tax-payer’s money.

    Want to “fix” the M4? Just replace every follower with Magpul Anti-Tilt followers or the new USGI tan followers. Throw out bad mags, don’t keep them in circulation.

  24. That’s great id say, the m4a1 is a god of a carbine and any improvements needed can be easily done to the rifle. I can understand wanting something better but as it stands this is about as good as it gets. Seems to me they should worry more about the round then the rifle.

  25. I have independently arrived at the same conclusion as the military….

    I see no reason to trade in my $1,000 M4’s for $3,ooo+ Scar’s….

    What does not make economic sense at the individual level… works at the govt level too. Too bad the govt rarely thinks this way.

  26. The question of an individual rifle is not made clearer by the fact that it is in no way an individual rifle. The standard infantry rifle must be so flexible as to meet a great many and often greatly dissimilar tasks while also remaining light, reliable and capable of maintenance and operation by a large number of people. The M-16/M4 rifles are a compromise. They lack the range, accuracy and lethality of a battle rifle, but serve much better in a firepower superiority role, and make a battle rifle practically obsolete in MOUT.
    Astan merely demonstrates the weaknesses of the Assault rifle; lack of range and lethality. However, even supplied with 1000 yard rifles the average soldier is not better served unless the weapon comes with extensive training.
    The real issue with a conflict like Astan is that beyond 300 meters on relatively open ground rifles are not the preferred weapon. Specifically supporting fires such as artillery and air power would be called for in such a circumstance (armor also comes to mind). Given the lack of assets committed to the theater and the stupefying rules of engagement, there is a political solution to the problem that has absolutely nothing to do with an individual rifle.

  27. There are plenty of better choices out there. But then you need to redo the entire system. Different ammo, repair parts, training for the personnel. On the battlefield everyone has the same magazines so for a period of time while fielding the “new weapon” it would be a super PITA.

    Then there is the cost. weapons, ammo, parts, inventory etc… At a time when they are hiring freeze/furloughing every DoD civilian (those personnel would be instrumental in the changeover). Add the work, and short the personnel, sure that will work.

    Fact is the M-4 is a capable personnal weapon system. Our enemies use a weapon system from 1947 mostly. The M-4 is good enough for the IRS, so its probably still OK for the military.

  28. they’ll stick with 5.56×45 and 7.62×51 because that’s the standard with NATO, the UN, etc. You need things organized when you combine to make ‘One World’ global military forces, ya know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *