The Army Has Ditched Its Plans for a New, Short-Term Rifle Replacement

[Seventyfive]

The issue isn't the 5.56 round or the AR15 platform in general. We're talking direct impingement vs gas piston. DI shoots gas back into the gun to cycle the bolt carrier while a gas piston is what pushes the bolt carrier. The latter is cleaner and more reliable.

 

[mesyn191]

DI shoots gas back into the gun to cycle the bolt carrier while a gas piston is what pushes the bolt carrier. The latter is cleaner and more reliable.

DI is dirtier but piston isn't necessarily anymore reliable at all. Other things like the magazine are far far more important to reliability in a semi or fully automatic weapon.

IRL an AR15 is only a bit less reliable than a AK47 or AK74 while having less felt recoil impulse, weighing less, and being more accurate. That makes the reliability trade off worth while. The STANAG magazine is actually the AR15's biggest issue. They were originally spec'd and designed to be disposable but the military decided to reuse them and that became common practice despite the issues associated with that (ie. relatively delicate feed lips bend up easily, mediocre mag spring wears out fast, etc.). Its only been in the last 10-15yr that STANAG mags started to get better made and you saw stuff like good plastic mags from Magpul become available.

If you bother to watch the videos that got posted on the previous page you can see the AR15 beating the various AK and other piston platform guns quite handily in some fairly nasty mud tests.

The bigger issue with the AR15 platform at this point is durability. Much is made of the AK's (slim) reliability lead over the AR15 but its really when it comes to durability that the AK wins out. You can abuse a AK for a long time and it'll still work OK. You can't abuse a AR15 for long and expect something to not break.

 

[mesyn191]

I hope they switch to 6.5mm. It really is the best cartridge out there at the moment.

I agree. But 6.5 Creedmore not the 6.5 Grendel. Also they should use the FAN FAL design not the AR-10 in my opinion.

6.5mm anything will probably never happen as a general issue replacement for 5.56. The cartridge is too big and heavy, which will also require a bigger and heavier gun, while also offering less manageable semi and full auto fire. The current focus is to drop weight big time which is why they're doing crazy stuff like building titanium receiver FN MAG M240L's and looking into telescoping case plastic cartridges.

More realistically the US isn't even planning on switching to another general issue cartridge at this point. Really all they need to do to improve terminal ballistics is switch to a 77 grain 5.56 projectile with a more modern design to improve long range effectiveness too.

lets go 5.45x39

The military looked at adopting something like that back in the 70's or 80's and decided it wasn't a big enough advantage so it got ditched. Google stuff like 5.56FABRL

US Army should follow SOCOM's lead and pick up HK416s.

HK416's are stupid expensive for what you get (piston AR15-esque gun) and heavy to boot. I'm not saying they're bad guns, just not worth the price and not even necessarily all that more reliable.

 

[Seventyfive]

DI is dirtier but piston isn't necessarily anymore reliable at all. Other things like the magazine are far far more important to reliability in a semi or fully automatic weapon.

IRL an AR15 is only a bit less reliable than a AK47 or AK74 while having less felt recoil impulse, weighing less, and being more accurate. That makes the reliability trade off worth while. The STANAG magazine is actually the AR15's biggest issue. They were originally spec'd and designed to be disposable but the military decided to reuse them and that became common practice despite the issues associated with that (ie. relatively delicate feed lips bend up easily, mediocre mag spring wears out fast, etc.). Its only been in the last 10-15yr that STANAG mags started to get better made and you saw stuff like good plastic mags from Magpul become available.

If you bother to watch the videos that got posted on the previous page you can see the AR15 beating the various AK and other piston platform guns quite handily in some fairly nasty mud tests.

The bigger issue with the AR15 platform at this point is durability. Much is made of the AK's (slim) reliability lead over the AR15 but its really when it comes to durability that the AK wins out. You can abuse a AK for a long time and it'll still work OK. You can't abuse a AR15 for long and expect something to not break.

I own a piston AR15 and my buddy has a DI AR15... after shooting for 1 day in the desert, we popped open the uppers and mine was basically as clean as when we started. His was already filling with dust and carbon. I can only imagine what they would look like after a full week of operation. I think the idea that you clean your gun after every use is good in practice but I think it may not always be practical. There's a reason the Sig 516 and HK 416 both use pistons. Non AR but common use FN Scar also uses a piston. At a certain point it became apparent to basically every high end gun manufacturer that the piston is the natural evolution of the assault rifle (until we find something better).

 

[mesyn191]

I own a piston AR15 and my buddy has a DI AR15... after shooting for 1 day in the desert, we popped open the uppers and mine was basically as clean as when we started. His was already filling with dust and carbon. I can only imagine what they would look like after a full week of operation.

Yeah that is normal but that isn't a issue given the aluminum anodized receiver the AR15 uses + its design. People shoot AR15's thousands of rounds without cleaning and they'll be gunked up but still work.

You don't even need to clean most of that out of a AR15. The only spots you really have to clean every time you shoot it are the barrel, "star chamber", the internal bolt surfaces, and the gas rings. Takes like 15 min if you go slow.

I think the idea that you clean your gun after every use is good in practice but I think it may not always be practical.

You're supposed to clean a piston gun after every use too.

You just don't always have to pull the piston each time. Most piston guns the piston needs cleaning every 500-1000 rounds. The barrel, locking surfaces, and bolt will need cleaning every time no matter what. That goes double if you shoot corrosive ammo. It is faster to clean but the difference isn't large at all. Its only if you want to detail clean a AR15 vs a piston gun that the difference is large.

There's a reason the Sig 516 and HK 416 both use pistons.

Piston gas systems are common place because they're easier to design and somewhat more tolerant of crap ammo. Those are certainly advantages but there is no guaranteed reliability advantage at all with pistons.

Look at MPA's MPAR556's issues. Or all those AR piston conversions that were crap or that would damage the receiver. Piston designs are not always automagically better. The gas system is only 1 part of the gun. All the other stuff matters lots too.

edit: adding this video since its InRange's "final" AR15 mud test where they use a Vietnam era gun dunked in mud and it still works fine. Also addresses where some of the myths came from about its reliability issues:


tl&dw: at introduction military didn't use the proper chromed barrels to save costs + changed the powder from spec to save costs + didn't give cleaning training + didn't give cleaning kits initially either. All those issues were fixed pretty quick though in that war and that Vietnam era Colt SP1 AR15 did just fine with heavy mud.

 

[Dan_D]

The Army has officially scrapped its search for a short-term replacement for the M4/M16 rifle platform. These weapons have been criticized for jamming and overheating, and officials say that the range and stopping power of the 5.56 mm round currently in use underperform that of rounds used by adversaries.

The Army’s Interim Combat Service Rifle program’s funds have been reallocated to its longer-term goal to create the Next Generation Squad Weapon, according to an Army posting on the federal business opportunities website this week. The program, launched in August, originally sought up to 50,000 commercially available, 7.62 mm rifles to bridge the reported small arms overmatch and new 5.56 mm-resistant body armor being fielded by adversaries.

The M16 family of rifles, and by extension, the M4 have a host of issues. Overheating isn't one of them.

That myth even made it to Afghanistan and Iraq where it became fact.

In 2008 Afghan firefight, U.S. weapons failed: M4 rifle criticized as jam prone
“We hated it,” said Marine veteran John Culbertson. “Because if it got any grime or corruption or dirt in it, which you always get in any rifle out in the field, it’s going to malfunction.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/

The M16/M4 have always been prone to carbon fouling and never have handled grime and dirt very well. They are better than people often think they are, but they need constant cleaning and lots of lube.

So just switch to AR10’s and call it a day.

That's a horrible idea. The AR10 type design is old. There are newer, and better designs out there for the .308 cartridge. Not only that, I'd argue that there are older designs that are inherintly better than the AR10. Not only that, but the AR10 isn't standardized the way the AR15 / M16 family of rifles is. We do also employ the M110 in some situations, so we are already using that. That said, the AR10 is a heavy design. The ergonomics are generally good, but aspects of the design like the charging handle and all the problems with direct impingment come with it. The AR10 is needlessly heavy compared to newer designs. The AR10 is not the way forward anymore than the FN FAL is. So everyone paroting that needs to be realistic.

Simple: Colt Firearms. Don't underestimate how powerful their lobby is.

This is simply untrue. For starters, Colt is no longer the primary provider of M4 and M16 rifles to the military. FN is.

Out of curiosity, as someone who lives in a gun free part of the world and has never held a firearm, why is this the best at the moment?

6.5 Creedmoor? There are lots of reasons people say this. They bring up ballistic coefficients, bullet drop data, and so on. I'm not sure this is a realistic way forward either. There are lots of bullet designs that are great on paper, but the people spouting these suggestions are not seeing the whole picture. It isn't about getting the best quality bullet. The fact of the matter is the military wants mass produced rounds, not the match grade 6.5 Creedmoor rounds civilian shooters masturbate to. The fact is, NATO supply lines and existing stockpiles of ammunition come into play. The military is likely to return to 7.62x51mm rather than adopt a newer design.

They already have the perfect .30 cal platform with the SCAR MK17. Throw a can on it and the recoil impulse is a dream. Accuracy is top notch. Can fill multiple roles including conversions to .556 if needed. Short stroke piston in the gas block increases reliability to FAL / AK levels (just gotta check those seals). It's a great platform and we already have it.

M14...I carried them in the Navy. Great rifles, but extremely LONG and HEAVY.

M16 / M4... Great rifles. You have to keep them clean. .556 can be really good when the right rounds are used. I prefer .30 cal.

I think the SCAR-17's recoil characteristics are over rated. My M1A SOCOM 16 CQB has better recoil characteristics than the SCAR 17 does. That said, the SCAR 17, used in conjunction with body armor isn't nearly as bad. The SCAR 17's got many advantages as you stated, but recoil impulse is not one of them. The SIG 716, Springfield M1A, and probably several other .308 semi-automatics are at least as good as the SCAR in this area. For accuracy, versatility and durability, the SCAR is a great choice. The HK 416 and HK 417 would be good choices as well. Obviously, if 5.56 is the problem, then rechambering the 416 in something else like .300 Blackout or 6.8SPC II would be a possible way forward.

The 6.5mm bullet has one of the best ballistic coefficients of all projectiles (it is rocket science, so you could have fun researching what that means) which allows for exceptional accuracy. A larger mass also allows for greater energy displacement, which is commonly but inaccurately called "knock-down power."

The statement itself is not a good one, as there are many different calibers that use the 6.5mm bullet. The Swedes, Japanese, and Italians had all varying, incompatible ammunition using the 6.5 mm bullet. For the civilian market, there's 6.5x57, 6.5 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoore, 6.5 Weatherby Magnum, and more. Each one of these has their advantages and disadvantages, so the statement to simply "switch to 6.5mm" is a very complicated subject when discussing the implementation in the infantryman's rifle.

Exactly. Again I bring up supply lines. The military probably wants to stick to NATO standard ammunition. In light of that, I still think they'll go with a 7.62x51mm bullet. We still use it, just not in our main rifles. Other countries still use it. There are plenty of stock piles of it and it's proven, effective and reasonably cheap.

 

[Dan_D]

6.5mm anything will probably never happen as a general issue replacement for 5.56. The cartridge is too big and heavy, which will also require a bigger and heavier gun, while also offering less manageable semi and full auto fire. The current focus is to drop weight big time which is why they're doing crazy stuff like building titanium receiver FN MAG M240L's and looking into telescoping case plastic cartridges.

More realistically the US isn't even planning on switching to another general issue cartridge at this point. Really all they need to do to improve terminal ballistics is switch to a 77 grain 5.56 projectile with a more modern design to improve long range effectiveness too.


The military looked at adopting something like that back in the 70's or 80's and decided it wasn't a big enough advantage so it got ditched. Google stuff like 5.56FABRL


HK416's are stupid expensive for what you get (piston AR15-esque gun) and heavy to boot. I'm not saying they're bad guns, just not worth the price and not even necessarily all that more reliable.

What you think of as the HK 416's price is based on the price of HK's MR556 rifles and the post-86 dealer sample HK-416 uppers that were sold on the civilian market back in the day. The HK 416 is not really that expensive. I've seen pricing on them for LEO and military sales, as well as post-86 dealer sample pricing. A Colt M4 was around $550 or so last time I looked. The HK 416 was somewhere around $1,100 or $1,200. It's expensive, but if sold in bulk, it might be even cheaper than that and close that gap somewhat. Price is a probable reason why we'll never adopt the HK 417 or 416 rifles in any large quantities, however, it's not the 3k+ people seem to think it is if you aren't a civilian. The HK SP5K is about $2500 in most gun shops. The actual MP5K PDW with more features is a mere $1,100. The point being that military and law enforcement pricing isn't nearly as ridiculous as it is for the civilian buyers.

 

[JNavy89GT]

I own a piston AR15 and my buddy has a DI AR15... after shooting for 1 day in the desert, we popped open the uppers and mine was basically as clean as when we started. His was already filling with dust and carbon. I can only imagine what they would look like after a full week of operation. I think the idea that you clean your gun after every use is good in practice but I think it may not always be practical. There's a reason the Sig 516 and HK 416 both use pistons. Non AR but common use FN Scar also uses a piston. At a certain point it became apparent to basically every high end gun manufacturer that the piston is the natural evolution of the assault rifle (until we find something better).

Having owned over 10+ DI AR's I can say with confidence that I've worried about how clean the rifle needs to be to function well. As an experiment I've left one gun uncleaned(except for barrel cleaning periodically), for over 1 year, with >1,500 rounds through it. No issues except a dirty BCG. 10k might be a challenge, but IMO it's a non issue that the carbon etc... is causing issues.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

The M16 family of rifles, and by extension, the M4 have a host of issues. Overheating isn't one of them.

I've seen testing done where you put as many rounds through a gun as rapidly as possible (like you would with a machine gun with swappable barrels).

It's possible to get a barrel hot enough that you can cook a round off.

Granted, you have to put like 800-1200 rounds through it as fast as possible. But it can be done. You get a nice, bright hot spot on the barrel and look out!

But yeah, even in combat use, you're NEVER going to see this sort of weapon abuse happen.

 

[Dan_D]

I've seen testing done where you put as many rounds through a gun as rapidly as possible (like you would with a machine gun with swappable barrels).

It's possible to get a barrel hot enough that you can cook a round off.

Granted, you have to put like 800-1200 rounds through it as fast as possible. But it can be done. You get a nice, bright hot spot on the barrel and look out!

But yeah, even in combat use, you're NEVER going to see this sort of weapon abuse happen.

Absolutely. I never meant to say it was impossible. It's however, unlikely and not common. The M16 and M4 were never designed for high volumes of sustained full auto fire.

 

[Seventyfive]

Look at MPA's MPAR556's issues. Or all those AR piston conversions that were crap or that would damage the receiver. Piston designs are not always automagically better. The gas system is only 1 part of the gun. All the other stuff matters lots too.

Totally agree. I think the big issue with some of the piston conversions is that the system was originally designed for DI. To slap on a piston without a full redesign definitely it will not function as well as something built for piston from the ground up. However, I do recall there was an army testing done where the HK416 still had massively less stoppages than the M4 which would speak to the reliability.

 

[CAD4466HK]

Have a question for all you gun nuts, since reliability of the M4 / M16 has been brought up, would the use of brass shells by the U.S have anything to do with jamming in extreme conditions? I remember my grandfather talking about his rifle jamming in Korea due to the brass expanding and shrinking in extreme cold, and more than one time being envious of the enemy for having steel shells that did not suffer from this. Had a uncle that also echoed this when he was over in Nam, but it had to do with the shells bulging in the clip from sustained fire and heat. I had never heard of this before or since. But I have heard the Soviet's used steel shells in their AK's in Afghanistan.

 

[lcpiper]

Megalith, ever actually, um, use an M16 or M4? If you had, you would have put scare quotes around your "overheating and jamming" link. Vietnam called, and it wants its myth back.

5.56 is still a decent round, especially with the newer projectiles and loads, and what the article doesn't mention is that our troops already field body armor than can stop 7.62x39 rounds (AK47 family of rounds), and that the bad guys have access to that stuff as well. And 7.62x51(.308) isn't the answer either.

That said, there are better, more modern alternatives to 5.56 that bridge the gap between lethality, penetration and weight, but none of them solve the logistics problem of replacing billions (seriously) rounds of 5.56 in inventory and millions of weapons. And that doesn't include the problems this would present to our allies, most of which all use 5.56 now too.

The Army did a study long ago in preparation to award the contract for the replacement to the M-60 GPMG. At that time, they found the 6mm round, (Rem .243), was the best blend of lethality and portability available. I don't know what caliber they would find optimum for today, but when this other contract ran trials for testing, all the 6mm machineguns tested failed. Then Minimi asked if they could run their 5.56mm machinegun through the tests and accept for the calliber, it passed everything and even offered many additional benefits, so the Army bought it, and called it the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW).

 

[lcpiper]

I agree.
But 6.5 Creedmore not the 6.5 Grendel.

Also they should use the FAN FAL design not the AR-10 in my opinion.

I'd rather have the Springfield design as in the M1A and M14.

 

[Schtask]

I'd rather have the Springfield design as in the M1A and M14.

Ever try to clear a building or ship with an M14? It's not pleasant. M14s have their problems as well. It's an old design and a complete pain in the ass to keep maintained compared to the ease of the SCAR, SR25 or MK110 SASS. The SCAR 17 comes in a shorty as well.

 

[Schtask]

I think the SCAR-17's recoil characteristics are over rated. My M1A SOCOM 16 CQB has better recoil characteristics than the SCAR 17 does. That said, the SCAR 17, used in conjunction with body armor isn't nearly as bad. The SCAR 17's got many advantages as you stated, but recoil impulse is not one of them. The SIG 716, Springfield M1A, and probably several other .308 semi-automatics are at least as good as the SCAR in this area. For accuracy, versatility and durability, the SCAR is a great choice. The HK 416 and HK 417 would be good choices as well. Obviously, if 5.56 is the problem, then rechambering the 416 in something else like .300 Blackout or 6.8SPC II would be a possible way forward.

Throw a can on the SCAR and then throw one on the M1A... Recoil Impulse is significantly better on the SCAR. The 716 is a good platform, though it has had issues. The HK 416 / 17 are awesome. The fit and finish is amazing. The cost is....Really high. Having carried the M14 in the Navy back in 2001 - 06 I can say that I love the rifle....but there are much better alternatives out there.

 

[Chunder]

Call the wambulance! The proletariat are calling u to your Antifa meeting!

Can't refute the facts, so you attempt labeling with identity politics and insults. Thank you for your mature and well thought out response. Glad we had this civil discussion.

 

[Dan_D]

Throw a can on the SCAR and then throw one on the M1A... Recoil Impulse is significantly better on the SCAR. The 716 is a good platform, though it has had issues. The HK 416 / 17 are awesome. The fit and finish is amazing. The cost is....Really high. Having carried the M14 in the Navy back in 2001 - 06 I can say that I love the rifle....but there are much better alternatives out there.

I was speaking about recoil impulse in a non-suppressed configuration alone. The SCAR 17 isn't bad, but it doesn't have the best recoil impulse I've felt on a .308 rifle by any means. It's better than your average AR10 platform gun or even the HK G3/91 and clones of that design. However, I've fired the SIG 716, SCAR 17 and M1A SOCOM 16 CQB specifically around the same time and the SCAR 17 was the worst of them regarding recoil. I own two out of those three and I've nearly bought an FN SCAR 17 on a few occasions. The gun does really well for the low weight, but that's not it's standout feature as far as I'm concerned. For the manual of arms and reliability, I'll take the SCAR 17 over any alternative I've mentioned in a shit hit the fan or combat scenario. However, I was only refering to felt recoil alone. That said, I understand where you are coming from. My SIG P220 and HK USP Tactical in .45ACP are great guns, but they aren't high end 1911 good. Throw a can on them and shit changes. All of that is irrelevant to the average grunt who isn't issued a suppressor.

Getting back to the cost point, the SCAR 17 isn't cheap either. But again, as I said, the HK 417, SCAR H and any other select-fire weapon come in far cheaper than their civilian counterparts do when we are talking about military contract, SOT III dealer transfer, or LEO pricing. I've seen these prices on a lot of guns. At one point the HK G36 was $1,000 compared to a contract M4 which cost around $500 or so per unit. Meanwhile a gimped ass HK SL8 rifle with the same basic design was double that price. A Colt LE6921 SBR was double the price of a military contract M4. Of course that doesn't include the tax stamp costs either.

The M14 is not a valid alternative to the M4/M16 family of rifles. Cost aside, the SCAR or HK 417 are the best options as the training employed on the M4/M16 manual of arms mostly transfers over. We do use the M14 design as the M21, but it's a dated design based on an even more dated design. I love those rifles for the shooting experience they provide, but again, it's got some short comings. The safety sucks, the charging handle isn't great, the rock and lock magazine insertion is worse than that of an AK if you screw it up. It's harder to recover from on the M14. The M14 is heavy. The original wood furniture of course isn't a problem as there are plenty of alternatives to update the ergonomics of the M14 in that area. Cost wise, the M14 or any derrivative of it is going to be more expensive than anything that uses M4/M16 parts. There are a lot of alternatives to the M4 carbine on the market. However, you run into one of two problems. Either the weapon is lacking in some area or it costs too damn much. The SCAR H and HK 417 are examples of good choices to replace the M4, but the price is simply too high on those guns. If you look beyond .308 then more options open up but that comes with it's own set of issues as well.

 

[lcpiper]

The Intermin Combat Service Rifle program that was just canceled was the answer to another failed program that cost hundreds of millions and had funds transferred to this new and now canceled program, and has had the funds transferred to the Next Generation Squad Weapon program... These companies are making a big profit off of taxpayers while playing their games. The increasing ineffectiveness of our 5.56mm weapons is a serious problem,.....................................

Ummm, na. I don't know how you call these "failed programs" The Military, just like the rest of the government is always changing their minds about what they want or need. It happens almost as fast as people get promoted or move to other jobs.

Of course we should all be acquainted with government programs that don't reach fruition, but I know first hand that it's usually more the fault of the government than the contractor companies. The government let's a contract, of course companies will pick up that hat and go for the contracts, it's business. If the government screws around and fails to follow through which is it that you think this is corporate greed? Those companies want the new contract, the business, the products being made, sold, serviced, etc. Where's the big bucks in developing a prototype that never gets to bid and contract award?

Why is it you think this is in the defense company's hands to make happen? I think your placing the blame on the wrong heads.

So I started looking;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_Carbine#Design_requirements

So the Army had two programs running, one was this Individual Carbine Program intended to find an existing commercially available replacement for the M4 that required no development. It was a 1.8 Billion dollar program. The war is winding down in Iraq, the military is looking at a draw down, there is a simultaneous program to improve the existing M4/M16 and if successful, it's supposed to be the go-to option instead of buying gone of these other weapons. And the Army still has existing purchase orders in the pipe through 2018.

On 19 March 2013, the Defense Department released a testimony as part of their efforts to improve spending efficiency and reduce overall waste. Part of the testimony was the Pentagon Inspector General's reconsideration of the Individual Carbine program to replace the M4. An audit of the acquisition process was launched to re-evaluate the $1.8 billion program.

On 2 May 2013, the Army announced it was considering cancelling the Individual Carbine competition.

On 6 June 2013, the House Armed Services Committee passed an amendment to the 2014 budget that would prevent the Army from cancelling the IC program before user evaluations. Committee members voted unanimously for the amendment that would require user evaluations, a business case analysis, and reports back to congressional defense committees before a final decision is made. If passed into law, it would not take effect until 1 October 2013, which gave the Army four months to decide the fate of the program without violating a congressional directive.

On 13 June 2013, the U.S. Army formally cancelled the Individual Carbine competition.

Reading here you will find that the Army has already made purchases of M4A1 rifles to replace some of their older M4s with, service wears on rifles and they were buying new ones with some improvements already..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine

But there is still the M4/M16 PIP (Improvement Program) running as of June 21 2013;
https://www.defensemedianetwork.com...-after-individual-carbine-program-conclusion/

The M4 product improvement program (PIP) is the effort by the U.S. Army to modernize its inventory of M4 service rifles. Phase I consists of converting and replacing regular M4s with the M4A1 version. This variant of the rifle is fully automatic and has a heavier barrel, and is given ambidextrous fire controls. Phase II of the PIP explored developing a new bolt carrier. 11 designs were submitted. The competition was scheduled to conclude in summer 2013, but ended in April 2012. Over six months of testing revealed that the current bolt carrier assembly outperformed the competing designs, especially in the areas of reliability, durability, and high-temp and low-temp tests. Phase II also includes a competition for a free-floating forward rail assembly. The Army may award contracts to up to three finalists in early 2013, with the selection of a final winner in early 2014. If the Army determines that the winning rail system should be procured, delivery of new rail is anticipated by the summer of 2014.[28]

In March 2015, the Army launched a market survey to see what the small-arms industry could offer to further enhance the M4A1 to an "M4A1+" standard. Several upgrade options include an extended forward rail that will allow for a free-floated barrel for improved accuracy with a low-profile gas block that would do away with the traditional triangular fixed front sight, removable front and rear flip-up back-up iron sights, a coyote tan or "neutral color" rail for reduced visual detection, a more effective flash suppressor/muzzle brake, an improved charging handle, and a new single-stage trigger module.[29] In June 2016, the M4A1+ was canceled after reviewing the offerings and determining that there were no major upgrades currently offered.

You will see articles saying that an M4 upgrade program was cancelled in June 2016, that is the M4A1+, or Phase III for the PIP, not the entire PIP.

So in this time, what is the Army actually buying and from who?
In September 2010, the Army announced it would buy 12,000 M4A1s from Colt Firearms by the end of 2010, and would order 25,000 more M4A1s by early 2011.

The service branch planned to buy 12,000 M4A1 conversion kits in early 2011. In late 2011, the Army bought 65,000 more conversion kits. From there the Army had to decide if it would upgrade all of its M4s.[21]

On 21 April 2012, the U.S. Army announced to begin purchasing over 120,000 M4A1 carbines to start reequipping front line units from the original M4 to the new M4A1 version. The first 24,000 were to be made by Remington Arms Company. Remington was to produce the M4A1s from mid-2013 to mid-2014.[22] After completion of that contract, it was to be between Colt and Remington to produce over 100,000 more M4A1s for the U.S. Army. Because of efforts from Colt to sue the Army to force them not to use Remington to produce M4s, the Army reworked the original solicitation for new M4A1s to avoid legal issues from Colt.[23] On 16 November 2012, Colt's protest of Remington receiving the M4A1 production contract was dismissed.[24] Instead of the contract being re-awarded to Remington, the Army awarded the contract for 120,000 M4A1 carbines worth $77 million to FN Herstal on 22 February 2013.[25][26] The order is expected to be completed by 2018.

So the Army bought a total of 77,000 conversion kits, (doesn't say from whom, but I am assuming Colt).
And they bought 12,000 from Colt, (Possibly another 25,000), and 120,000 from FN Herstal.

But this is all part of the PIP, a program to replace the M4s with M4A1s, including three phases that;
Phase I - They bought enough new rifles and kits to replace approximately 210,000 M4 rifles.
Phase II - determined that they didn't need to go to Gas Piston systems
Phase III - determined that there weren't any other really worthwhile upgrades commercially available for the M4A1.

This was a completed program from what I see and nothing at all failed about it. Of course the PIP doesn't bring us a replacement for the M4 does it, the long term better rifle the Army wants.

They announced the ICR looking for a 7.62 NATO Rifle, selective fire, commercially available with no development spin up, and decided to cancel it, maybe 7.62 NATA just isn't the way to go.

And then there is the existing Next Generation Squad Weapon.

“The NGSW will be a long term solution to meet the identified capability gap instead of the ICSR, which was an interim solution

Furthermore I see references to the NGSAR, which I think is the same thing as the NGSW with the following intent;

.............although the NGSAR is primarily intended to replace the M249, it remains to be seen where it will be able to fulfill other roles like DMR, MMG, and carbine. The repeated suggestion that the NGSAR will be “carbine-like” or may be able to fulfill the carbine’s role suggests that the resulting weapon would be magazine-fed, rather than belt-fed like the M249 it would replace.

They are thinking really futuristic here and it looks to me like they are looking at replacing the M249 SAW with something that is more like a smart weapon, and potentially compact enough that it can just be the next carbine "individual weapon" and we won't even need special Squad Weapons like the SAW and the "almost a sniper rifle". This program is a development cycle procurement program and it's classified so it could be awhile before we here more about it.

So this is what I am learning with an hour's research on all these failed programs that are lining greedy corporations who have the fix in while the homeless starve in the streets. I think this is a new record for one of my "books", sry. Complex subject.

 

[lcpiper]

Ever try to clear a building or ship with an M14? It's not pleasant. M14s have their problems as well. It's an old design and a complete pain in the ass to keep maintained compared to the ease of the SCAR, SR25 or MK110 SASS. The SCAR 17 comes in a shorty as well.

The Army was only clearing buildings cause they were playing cop. When they are playing soldier, they just blow the damned thing to hell and move the fuck on.

Sailors and Marines clear ships, they can buy whatever they want to

 

[lcpiper]

The M16 family of rifles, and by extension, the M4 have a host of issues. Overheating isn't one of them.



The M16/M4 have always been prone to carbon fouling and never have handled grime and dirt very well. They are better than people often think they are, but they need constant cleaning and lots of lube.



That's a horrible idea. The AR10 type design is old. There are newer, and better designs out there for the .308 cartridge. Not only that, I'd argue that there are older designs that are inherintly better than the AR10. Not only that, but the AR10 isn't standardized the way the AR15 / M16 family of rifles is. We do also employ the M110 in some situations, so we are already using that. That said, the AR10 is a heavy design. The ergonomics are generally good, but aspects of the design like the charging handle and all the problems with direct impingment come with it. The AR10 is needlessly heavy compared to newer designs. The AR10 is not the way forward anymore than the FN FAL is. So everyone paroting that needs to be realistic.



This is simply untrue. For starters, Colt is no longer the primary provider of M4 and M16 rifles to the military. FN is.



6.5 Creedmoor? There are lots of reasons people say this. They bring up ballistic coefficients, bullet drop data, and so on. I'm not sure this is a realistic way forward either. There are lots of bullet designs that are great on paper, but the people spouting these suggestions are not seeing the whole picture. It isn't about getting the best quality bullet. The fact of the matter is the military wants mass produced rounds, not the match grade 6.5 Creedmoor rounds civilian shooters masturbate to. The fact is, NATO supply lines and existing stockpiles of ammunition come into play. The military is likely to return to 7.62x51mm rather than adopt a newer design.



I think the SCAR-17's recoil characteristics are over rated. My M1A SOCOM 16 CQB has better recoil characteristics than the SCAR 17 does. That said, the SCAR 17, used in conjunction with body armor isn't nearly as bad. The SCAR 17's got many advantages as you stated, but recoil impulse is not one of them. The SIG 716, Springfield M1A, and probably several other .308 semi-automatics are at least as good as the SCAR in this area. For accuracy, versatility and durability, the SCAR is a great choice. The HK 416 and HK 417 would be good choices as well. Obviously, if 5.56 is the problem, then rechambering the 416 in something else like .300 Blackout or 6.8SPC II would be a possible way forward.



Exactly. Again I bring up supply lines. The military probably wants to stick to NATO standard ammunition. In light of that, I still think they'll go with a 7.62x51mm bullet. We still use it, just not in our main rifles. Other countries still use it. There are plenty of stock piles of it and it's proven, effective and reasonably cheap.

Great comments all the way down except ...... as I posted above, the M4A1 improvement Program is a done deal. The Army tanked the 7.62 NATO idea for the SCAR 17 or it's competitors. And from what I am reading, the only thing they have going is the NGSW or NGSAR which is the same thing from what I am reading, and they seem to be looking way past existing calibers, NATO standardization, or even traditional munitions. They are talking SABOT and Death Ray here. The Army is basically saying forget all the standard requirements and bring us the next generation of Individual Weapon and make it so damned good that we don't need any specialized weapons cause if we can see it, we can kill it and do it with just one round.

Of course there is a problem with this. First, you don't know what these Defense Contractors will come up with, but there is a good chance that some will build some completely impractical pieces of garbage, others will play it safe and come up with something far more traditional that won't realistically meet these pie in the sky dreams, and maybe someone will manage to pull a rabbit out of their ass and actually bring the Army their super rifle, maybe.

 

[Schtask]

I was speaking about recoil impulse in a non-suppressed configuration alone. The SCAR 17 isn't bad, but it doesn't have the best recoil impulse I've felt on a .308 rifle by any means. It's better than your average AR10 platform gun or even the HK G3/91 and clones of that design. However, I've fired the SIG 716, SCAR 17 and M1A SOCOM 16 CQB specifically around the same time and the SCAR 17 was the worst of them regarding recoil. I own two out of those three and I've nearly bought an FN SCAR 17 on a few occasions. The gun does really well for the low weight, but that's not it's standout feature as far as I'm concerned. For the manual of arms and reliability, I'll take the SCAR 17 over any alternative I've mentioned in a shit hit the fan or combat scenario. However, I was only refering to felt recoil alone. That said, I understand where you are coming from. My SIG P220 and HK USP Tactical in .45ACP are great guns, but they aren't high end 1911 good. Throw a can on them and shit changes. All of that is irrelevant to the average grunt who isn't issued a suppressor.

Getting back to the cost point, the SCAR 17 isn't cheap either. But again, as I said, the HK 417, SCAR H and any other select-fire weapon come in far cheaper than their civilian counterparts do when we are talking about military contract, SOT III dealer transfer, or LEO pricing. I've seen these prices on a lot of guns. At one point the HK G36 was $1,000 compared to a contract M4 which cost around $500 or so per unit. Meanwhile a gimped ass HK SL8 rifle with the same basic design was double that price. A Colt LE6921 SBR was double the price of a military contract M4. Of course that doesn't include the tax stamp costs either.

The M14 is not a valid alternative to the M4/M16 family of rifles. Cost aside, the SCAR or HK 417 are the best options as the training employed on the M4/M16 manual of arms mostly transfers over. We do use the M14 design as the M21, but it's a dated design based on an even more dated design. I love those rifles for the shooting experience they provide, but again, it's got some short comings. The safety sucks, the charging handle isn't great, the rock and lock magazine insertion is worse than that of an AK if you screw it up. It's harder to recover from on the M14. The M14 is heavy. The original wood furniture of course isn't a problem as there are plenty of alternatives to update the ergonomics of the M14 in that area. Cost wise, the M14 or any derrivative of it is going to be more expensive than anything that uses M4/M16 parts. There are a lot of alternatives to the M4 carbine on the market. However, you run into one of two problems. Either the weapon is lacking in some area or it costs too damn much. The SCAR H and HK 417 are examples of good choices to replace the M4, but the price is simply too high on those guns. If you look beyond .308 then more options open up but that comes with it's own set of issues as well.

I wonder if you were using one with an incorrect gas setting on the block. I've seen that before. If it's set up for suppressor use it really opens up that inlet to the piston and will slam the shit out of the bolt. With a can on it's fine, but without one....Yikes. That being said, if you shot a well set up 17 vs. an M1a / 14 / HK91 / FAL you would see a market improvement favoring the 17. The can just makes it even better. The 716 is equally as nice recoil wise. I almost bought one, but decided the SCAR was enough. I still have an SA M1A, and shoot it regularly. For nostalgia purposes.

The Army was only clearing buildings cause they were playing cop. When they are playing soldier, they just blow the damned thing to hell and move the fuck on.

Sailors and Marines clear ships, they can buy whatever they want to

TBH I usually used a mossberg 500 and the 92 for that. I left the rifle stuff to the other guys...but I was usually 3rd one in after the door so it made sense.

 

[Dan_D]

I wonder if you were using one with an incorrect gas setting on the block. I've seen that before. If it's set up for suppressor use it really opens up that inlet to the piston and will slam the shit out of the bolt. With a can on it's fine, but without one....Yikes. That being said, if you shot a well set up 17 vs. an M1a / 14 / HK91 / FAL you would see a market improvement favoring the 17. The can just makes it even better. The 716 is equally as nice recoil wise. I almost bought one, but decided the SCAR was enough. I still have an SA M1A, and shoot it regularly. For nostalgia purposes.




TBH I usually used a mossberg 500 and the 92 for that. I left the rifle stuff to the other guys...but I was usually 3rd one in after the door so it made sense.

It's possible the gas setting was setup incorrectly on the FN SCAR. However, it was a rental gun at my friend's shop and it's never been suppressed. That said, I may take it for a spin and check that next time. The recoil wasn't horrendous by any means but it was significantly more pronounced compared to the other two guns. That said, I've done Saiga 12 conversions and I've seen plenty of those which were overgassed to the point of tearing themselves apart. The SCAR didn't feel like that to me.

 

[jacuzz1]

AR10 with Gas piston system . I trust that LWRC already supplies SOCOM forces with such a weapon, that way you could use 762 snatched from the bodies of your adversary. My .556 Stag Model 8 is a gas piston system and runs cooler and cleaner. I can fire 500 rounds down range and the bolt carrier group stays clean. I just brush off the piston spring, brush the crown of the piston and run a boresnake and she is go to go. In realty, I am anal and clean everything after each trip to the range but I went 500 rounds before the first cleaning just to see if what they said about gas piston rigs was true. I live in Connecticut so unless I move, I will not have a chance to buy another AR but if I did, it would be another Stag or if I could afford it, definately a LWRC https://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/lwrc/m4-ar-15/rifles/308win/

 

[Dan_D]

AR10 with Gas piston system . I trust that LWRC already supplies SOCOM forces with such a weapon, that way you could use 762 x 39 snatched from the bodies of your adversary. My .556 Stag Model 8 is a gas piston system and runs cooler and cleaner. I can fire 500 rounds down range and the bolt carrier group stays clean. I just brush off the piston spring, brush the crown of the piston and run a boresnake and she is go to go. In realty, I am anal and clean everything after each trip to the range but I went 500 rounds before the first cleaning just to see if what they said about gas piston rigs was true. I live in Connecticut so unless I move, I will not have a chance to buy another AR but if I did, it would be another Stag or if I could afford it, definately a LWRC https://www.tombstonetactical.com/catalog/lwrc/m4-ar-15/rifles/308win/

While military rifle pricing is usually better than civilian pricing, a 3k+ rifle isn't going to get purchased to replace a $500 contract grade M4 carbine. It just isn't realistic. Even at a third of the retail price, it costs too much.

 

[jacuzz1]

While military rifle pricing is usually better than civilian pricing, a 3k+ rifle isn't going to get purchased to replace a $500 contract grade M4 carbine. It just isn't realistic. Even at a third of the retail price, it costs too much.

Good Point, do they let you buy your own? lol

 

[Dan_D]

Good Point, do they let you buy your own? lol

No.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

And then there is the existing Next Generation Squad Weapon.
Furthermore I see references to the NGSAR, which I think is the same thing as the NGSW with the following intent;


They are thinking really futuristic here and it looks to me like they are looking at replacing the M249 SAW with something that is more like a smart weapon, and potentially compact enough that it can just be the next carbine "individual weapon" and we won't even need special Squad Weapons like the SAW and the "almost a sniper rifle". This program is a development cycle procurement program and it's classified so it could be awhile before we here more about it.

There is already an M249 'replacement'; the USMC is buying 'heavy' HK416's, and slapping 45 round magazines into them. This is the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR).

As for the 'smart weapon' stuff, it makes a ton of sense, but it's hard to imagine that we're anywhere close to building something 'smart' that has the reliable suppression capabilities of an automatic firearm with a large ammo supply.

 

[FrgMstr]

Having owned over 10+ DI AR's I can say with confidence that I've worried about how clean the rifle needs to be to function well. As an experiment I've left one gun uncleaned(except for barrel cleaning periodically), for over 1 year, with >1,500 rounds through it. No issues except a dirty BCG. 10k might be a challenge, but IMO it's a non issue that the carbon etc... is causing issues.

My Colt 6920 made 6000 rounds iirc before I had a single FTE. Cleared it and ran on. But I did finally clean it that day. Only ran good brass through it.

I have a couple of piston ARs, those run nice, but have not put those to the test.

 

[LuxTerra]

Yup. Someone already said it, there's no best at everything. You can optimize for various parameters, but no one weapon system does it all. Also, weapon systems fail. It's a fact of life. AR15 reliability isn't much of an issue and hasn't been for decades. Overheating is mostly a function of how much mass your barrel has, but everyone loves those skinny barrels because they are so light! The real question has always been, what compromises do you want to make?

Sure you could go to a larger caliber, but weight and ammo quantity goes way down. Also, recoil goes up. OAL also hurts urban/CCQB.

Sure you could go with a magnum cartridge in whatever caliber you want, but recoil goes way, way up and they tend to eat barrels like there's no tomorrow...at least by military standards. Also, not much point to most magnum calibers without longer barrels. Also, to burn efficiently, most have shoulder designs that do NOT feed in automatic rifles very well.

Etc.

As for the AK47, it's a fine weapon system, but it's not without compromises as well. Ergonomics isn't great, quality is not a word you'd use for any user control. If it's properly built it's heavy, it if isn't it you get an unreliable AK. Even the most accurate AKs (RPK milled receivers) can't hold a candle to even a modest AR15. However, it has good points as well.

TANSTAAFL

 

[LuxTerra]

The issue isn't the 5.56 round or the AR15 platform in general. We're talking direct impingement vs gas piston. DI shoots gas back into the gun to cycle the bolt carrier while a gas piston is what pushes the bolt carrier. The latter is cleaner and more reliable.

Yes, but there's a price to pay. You can't add that much weight and moving parts to a barrel and expect it be as accurate as the DI. Accurate guns free float the barrel for a very good reason.

 

[LuxTerra]

Have a question for all you gun nuts, since reliability of the M4 / M16 has been brought up, would the use of brass shells by the U.S have anything to do with jamming in extreme conditions? I remember my grandfather talking about his rifle jamming in Korea due to the brass expanding and shrinking in extreme cold, and more than one time being envious of the enemy for having steel shells that did not suffer from this. Had a uncle that also echoed this when he was over in Nam, but it had to do with the shells bulging in the clip from sustained fire and heat. I had never heard of this before or since. But I have heard the Soviet's used steel shells in their AK's in Afghanistan.

The only reason to use steel is for cost. It's cheaper, but doesn't work as well. In fact, it must be coated to aid in extraction or else they tend to jam. Also to prevent rusting. At this point, practically every military not shooting an AK47 (and even some that do) use brass and has more or less always done so. It's the superior choice and is actually less likely to jam; 50-65k PSI does interesting things to metals.

There's whole books written as to the reliability problems specifically with the M16 during Vietnam. There's several reasons, but many hand to do with cost cutting and not building the system to spec (e.g. not using clean burning powder, not issuing cleaning kits, etc.). Today, statistically, it's not a problem. There are bad implementations, there are lemons, and there is user errors. Nothing works 100%, not even AKs and Glocks...I've seen both fail, sometimes spectacularly.

What usually happens with most complaints/myths is that someone has a problem (it happens, it's life) and decides to blame something they don't like for whatever reason. Even if there's no valid technical reason or rationale for that being the actual root cause. It happens with all complex systems, but guns are especially susceptible because essentially every soldier gets one and your life depends on it working. That's a recipe for either extreme love or hate of the weapon system; often both, just by different people.

That being said, there are known failure modes for every weapon system. Without a detailed description and investigation, it's hard to say exactly might have actually been wrong with their rifles.

 

[Flogger23m]

Same basic platform just a bigger frame and much larger round.

Why not to something more reliable in the larger caliber?
FN-FAL

Both are bad choices. 7.62x51 is on its death bed. Special forces are about to make the transition. It is very inefficient from a weight and recoil perspective. And magazines over a 20 round capacity become too long to be practical. That an the 9mm / 4.6MM SMG (MP5 and MP7 and similar) are fading away. 6.5 Grendal I believe is what SOCOM is experimenting with as it is much more efficient than 7.62x51, and they will be testing precision rifles and in the future probably GPMGs. 6-8" 300 Blackout PDWs will replace the old SMGs. 5.56 is still considered ideal for standard issue/rifles. Essentially, 5.56 = rifles and automatic rifles. 6.5 for snipers and GPMGs. 300 BO for suppressed or PDWs.

I believe the backlash was so big over this "intern rifle" that they had to kill it. Thankfully they did, because it would have been a massive waste of money and no one wanted it anyways.

As for the FAL it is heavy, expensive, less modular and less accurate. I'd love to have one because it looks so badass and has a lot of history, but there are a number of better modern alternatives.

 

[Schtask]

Both are bad choices. 7.62x51 is on its death bed. Special forces are about to make the transition. It is very inefficient from a weight and recoil perspective. And magazines over a 20 round capacity become too long to be practical. That an the 9mm / 4.6MM SMG (MP5 and MP7 and similar) are fading away. 6.5 Grendal I believe is what SOCOM is experimenting with as it is much more efficient than 7.62x51, and they will be testing precision rifles and in the future probably GPMGs. 6-8" 300 Blackout PDWs will replace the old SMGs. 5.56 is still considered ideal for standard issue/rifles. Essentially, 5.56 = rifles and automatic rifles. 6.5 for snipers and GPMGs. 300 BO for suppressed or PDWs.

I believe the backlash was so big over this "intern rifle" that they had to kill it. Thankfully they did, because it would have been a massive waste of money and no one wanted it anyways.

As for the FAL it is heavy, expensive, less modular and less accurate. I'd love to have one because it looks so badass and has a lot of history, but there are a number of better modern alternatives.

If you want real nostalgia I'll let you shoot my HK91. Kind of like a FAL, only it sucks. The HK91 ejects the brass further than the maximum effective range of the bullet it just shot and crimps the casing neck with nice little pin stripes so you can't reload it again. I'm sure HK calls that a feature. Yup...Nothing like those good old roller locking bolt set ups. lol ... TBH I would take a FAL over many modern day battle rifles, though compared to some modern day platforms it would be my last choice. That gun is a plus sized model.

 

[griff30]

Both are bad choices. 7.62x51 is on its death bed. Special forces are about to make the transition. It is very inefficient from a weight and recoil perspective. And magazines over a 20 round capacity become too long to be practical. That an the 9mm / 4.6MM SMG (MP5 and MP7 and similar) are fading away. 6.5 Grendal I believe is what SOCOM is experimenting with as it is much more efficient than 7.62x51, and they will be testing precision rifles and in the future probably GPMGs. 6-8" 300 Blackout PDWs will replace the old SMGs. 5.56 is still considered ideal for standard issue/rifles. Essentially, 5.56 = rifles and automatic rifles. 6.5 for snipers and GPMGs. 300 BO for suppressed or PDWs.

I believe the backlash was so big over this "intern rifle" that they had to kill it. Thankfully they did, because it would have been a massive waste of money and no one wanted it anyways.

As for the FAL it is heavy, expensive, less modular and less accurate. I'd love to have one because it looks so badass and has a lot of history, but there are a number of better modern alternatives.

I was referring to the idea of an FN-FAL in 6.5 Creedmore not grendal

 

[LuxTerra]

Both are bad choices. 7.62x51 is on its death bed. Special forces are about to make the transition. It is very inefficient from a weight and recoil perspective. And magazines over a 20 round capacity become too long to be practical. That an the 9mm / 4.6MM SMG (MP5 and MP7 and similar) are fading away. 6.5 Grendal I believe is what SOCOM is experimenting with as it is much more efficient than 7.62x51, and they will be testing precision rifles and in the future probably GPMGs. 6-8" 300 Blackout PDWs will replace the old SMGs. 5.56 is still considered ideal for standard issue/rifles. Essentially, 5.56 = rifles and automatic rifles. 6.5 for snipers and GPMGs. 300 BO for suppressed or PDWs.

I believe the backlash was so big over this "intern rifle" that they had to kill it. Thankfully they did, because it would have been a massive waste of money and no one wanted it anyways.

As for the FAL it is heavy, expensive, less modular and less accurate. I'd love to have one because it looks so badass and has a lot of history, but there are a number of better modern alternatives.

SOCOM has it right, but it's hard to implement that across a large military. Not only would it cost more and the logistics get harder, but now they have to train soldiers across multiple platforms (which is still true if all they did is scale an AR15 platform). I'm a huge fan of 300BO for it's intended purpose. 6.5 variants, IMHO, make great DMRs or light sniper rifles, but there's still a role for heavier calibers (e.g. 300WM and 338LM).

100% agree, 7.62x51 is on it's way out, but these things take decades to prove the value and then implement at scale.

 

[aaronspink]

SOCOM has it right, but it's hard to implement that across a large military. Not only would it cost more and the logistics get harder, but now they have to train soldiers across multiple platforms (which is still true if all they did is scale an AR15 platform). I'm a huge fan of 300BO for it's intended purpose. 6.5 variants, IMHO, make great DMRs or light sniper rifles, but there's still a role for heavier calibers (e.g. 300WM and 338LM).

100% agree, 7.62x51 is on it's way out, but these things take decades to prove the value and then implement at scale.

Really the next real change for caliber will likely be as a result of the LSAT work on CT ammunition that would allow replacing LMGs with 6.5mm while resulting in reduced weight and increased reliability (and possibly killing the MMG in the process). Main problem with LSAT CTA would probably be that it is too good in the MG role and the mechanisms for AR/carbines are still not good (aka it solves all the MG issues but it really doesn't provide a benefit in non-MG applications). Without a change in bullet format, I think selling a caliber change is going to be hard to do with the large installed base.

 

[Seventyfive]

Yes, but there's a price to pay. You can't add that much weight and moving parts to a barrel and expect it be as accurate as the DI. Accurate guns free float the barrel for a very good reason.

The gun I have is accurate to about 3 MOA but that is probably my shortcoming and not the gun...

The MR556 is 1MOA as tested by a professional
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2012/2/24/heckler-koch-mr556a1/

 

[FrgMstr]

If you want real nostalgia I'll let you shoot my HK91. Kind of like a FAL, only it sucks. The HK91 ejects the brass further than the maximum effective range of the bullet it just shot and crimps the casing neck with nice little pin stripes so you can't reload it again. I'm sure HK calls that a feature. Yup...Nothing like those good old roller locking bolt set ups. lol ... TBH I would take a FAL over many modern day battle rifles, though compared to some modern day platforms it would be my last choice. That gun is a plus sized model.

I have a PTR91 and that thing is deadly accurate. Good hog gun, but I would not want to have to pack it around for days or put multiple mags through it in a day.

 

[FrgMstr]

I've got a PTR 91 as well! Awesome gun...and you're right... It shoots better than I do. But I'm sure you've seen what it does to brass. lol.... As a reloader I like my brass reusable.

You mean shrapnel?

That said, it is not much problem putting the round on an 8" target with open sights at 400 yards either.