The Army's Next-Generation Rifle Will Be "The iPhone of Lethality," Officials Say

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,459
No. Bullpups have inherent disadvantages that are difficult to overcome. They tend to have an awkward balance, they are slower to reload, difficult to impossible to reload while maintaining a sight picture, lack adjustable stocks and have shitty triggers. A lack of forward rail space is a problem in military applications where IR lasers, lights and other devices need to be mounted.

Even being more compact overall is a hard sell given how short some AR variants are. Rounds can be designed to achieve ballistic effectiveness without having barrels longer than 8 or 9 inches as we've seen with .300 Blackout.

Drum magazines are also right out. This can limit ammunition capacity. Box magazines in a SAW type variant would be off the table as well. The Tavor in particular, exemplifies everything I'm talking about that's wrong with bullpups in general. It's even worse as it's an absolutely shitty suppressor host.

Don't get me wrong, some bullpups look cool, but they have more inherent disadvantages than advantages. I have yet to see a design which would change my mind on this.

Any design is a trade-off. Bullpups offer longer barrel lengths in a more compact and easily maneuverable size.

There is no perfect rifle.

Um, reload is not an issue with any modern bullpup (any issues are just training/learning and that has been proven in studies). And traditional rifles have the disadvantage that they are useless with short barrels that can't hit the broad side of a barn.

Modern carbines with shorter barrels and less powerful ammunition were the direct result of studies from WWII showing that soldiers almost never engaged the enemy at anywhere near the effective ranges of the old school high caliber and long barrelled battle rifles. Given this fact, it was seen as much more beneficial to shorten barrels for the sake of maneuverability and go with smaller caliber rounds (like the Nato 5.56x45mm rounds instead of the old heavy 7.62x51mm, or in the case of the eastern bloc, modern 5.45x39mm instead of the 7.62x39mm)

Given that the additional range of larger caliber more powerful rounds, and longer barrels was not being used, it seemed better to offer more maneuverability and the ability to carry more lighter ammunition, instead of less, heavier ammunition.

Heck, the Marines have even switched their main service rifle from the M16 to the M4 now since 2015, and it has been going over VERY well.

To quote the article:

"The move has proved widely popular with the Marine communities who've long complained that their legacy rifle was too long and unwieldy for urban and vehicle-borne operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The M4 is considered by many Marines to be a tactically superior weapon to its predecessor."


That's not to say that it isn't occasionally useful to be able to engage enemies at longer ranges. That's why the typical squad has a Designated Marksman, who uses an older style battle rifle (usually an M14 chambered for the old 7.62x51mm round for U.S. forces) for that purpose, to bridge the gap between full on snipers and regular ground forces.

To say that shorter barrel rifles can't hit a broad side of a barn seems very hyperbolic. They are very well suited to their intended uses, and that is most of them. M16 is typically considered to have an effective accurate range of 600 yards, whereas the shorter barrel M4 is still effective up to 545 yards, and in exchange can be much more effective in tight quarters, especially with its collapsible stock, like firing from the window of a moving Humvee.
 
Last edited:

Aireoth

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
3,232
Long barrels still don't hit the broad side of a barn very well, the reality of rifle combat is that an obscene number of rounds are fired per kill, I've seen statistics ranging from 10,000 to 250,000 rounds per kill.

Assault Rifles are so popular because of the weight of fire doctrine that has been largely adopted since WW2, particularly by the Americans. Enemy units are much less likely to return fire if overwhelmed by incoming fire, even if the odds of dying are astronomical.

Specialist weapons typically do the killing, SAWs, Drones, Arty, and in a pinch the designated marksman and their weapon.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,038
Heck, the Marines have even switched their main service rifle from the M16 to the M4 now since 2015, and it has been going over VERY well.
Like everyone else the Marine Corps fields a mish mash of things based on the AR15 lower. They currently field M16A4's, M4's, M4A1's, and M27's. The M27's are being expanded beyond the squad automatic rifle man and the Commandant is keen on continuing to expand it. As they do so, barrel length is getting pushed back out. The Marines were the least happy with the switch to the M4 as their doctrine of being riflemen first put far more emphasis on ability to engage an enemy with a rifle at distance than the Army does.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,459
I think this could be a welcome development.

I always wondered why we were still using gas operated designs with all of their moving parts and potential for failure in the field.

It would be interesting to see an electrically operated design. Maybe even with a selectable fire-rate.

Could be neat.

I'm interested to see where they will go with it.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,459
Like everyone else the Marine Corps fields a mish mash of things based on the AR15 lower. They currently field M16A4's, M4's, M4A1's, and M27's. The M27's are being expanded beyond the squad automatic rifel man and the Commandant is keen on continuing to expand it. As they do so, barrel length is getting pushed back out. The Marines were the least happy with the switch to the M4 as their doctrine of being riflemen first put far much more emphasis on ability to engage an enemy with a rifle at distance than the Army does.
If you read the linked article, that's not the response it seemed like it got from the field. It seemed like overall Marines on the ground thought the switch to the M4 was long overdue and made them much more effective.
 

Crackinjahcs

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
150
I'll admit I'm not up on the latest rifle tech, but this screams development hole for military budget inflation. Wouldn't surprise me if they're likely facing cutbacks. I imagine field maintenance issues would put a stop to any fancy computer bullshit. Having your gun reboot and stop detecting your thumb print wouldn't be so hot when youre kicking down a door.
+1

There have been many "smart weapon" initiatives in the past but funding and surviving battlefield conditions puts a stop to most of it. When you're in the mud, sand, snow, water, heat, or cold your personal weapon must simply work. In a fight you need to know your weapon will work and in a pinch you can pick up the Soldier's weapon laying next to you and use it also. No biometric bullshit, battery swaps, calibration cycles, or other high tech fuckery. And any enhancement systems they add to the weapon need to be able to be quickly bypassed if necessary, especially if there are any trigger interrupts or fire control systems between trigger squeeze and discharge of the projectile.

And if they can shave 6 pounds off my body armor I will be happy to carry more/heavier ammunition.

Also, if it ain't 10mm explosive tip caseless then back to the drawing board! j/k :cool:
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,038
If you read the linked article, that's not the response it seemed like it got from the field. It seemed like overall Marines on the ground thought the switch to the M4 was long overdue and made them much more effective.
I have read and dealt with far more than what is covered in that article. The M4 was not and is not the flavor of the Marine Corps. The majority of the like for it came from replacement of clapped out gear when it was forced on them. You need to have been around during the M4 cutover and late term development...it is a decent platform but it does nothing better than the A4 except drop length and weight.
 

aaronspink

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,122
I think this could be a welcome development.

I always wondered why we were still using gas operated designs with all of their moving parts and potential for failure in the field.

It would be interesting to see an electrically operated design. Maybe even with a selectable fire-rate.

Could be neat.

I'm interested to see where they will go with it.
yeah, but this isn't going to go anywhere. This is quite literally like the 20th time they've done this. Granted each time ends up production an interesting device like the G11, but ultimately they determine that there isn't any real benefit over the existing AR15 derived design.

Likewise with looking at various non-nato calibers over time. The reality is they aren't going to change rifles or calibers until something like LSAT goes into full production (and probably not even then). The fundamental issue is that 5.56 works fairly well, and at least well enough that anything else is mostly just a toss up. Even the advantages of something like LSAT and CTA are that big of a difference because at the end of the day the brass doesn't care if the soldiers have to carry another 20lbs of ammo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

aaronspink

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,122
If you read the linked article, that's not the response it seemed like it got from the field. It seemed like overall Marines on the ground thought the switch to the M4 was long overdue and made them much more effective.
they literally liked it so much that they immediately set out replacing it with a back door program in the M27. The M4 were better than the old and worn out M16s they were using but still had issues.
 

Dan_D

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,500
Any design is a trade-off. Bullpups offer longer barrel lengths in a more compact and easily maneuverable size.

There is no perfect rifle.
Without question. I'm generally the one making the "there is no perfect one gun fits all" arguments in the handgun threads where first time buyers think they can buy one gun for everything.
 

Flogger23m

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,337
they literally liked it so much that they immediately set out replacing it with a back door program in the M27. The M4 were better than the old and worn out M16s they were using but still had issues.
The main reason for the switch to the M27 is because the M4 is essentially frozen at around year 2000 in terms of specifications, itself essentially being a design subset of the late 80s with minor tweaking to the buffers and a railed top receiver. The platform itself has moved on but both the USMC and Army are reluctant to upgrade it to something contemporary even if that is the logical and better solution. As far as the USMC was concerned, the option was either the same outdated M4 or the M27, itself an improvement over the old M4. The M27 itself is nothing special; it is merely better than the ~2000 specification M4. But the trigger, barrel profile & construction is superior.

The M27 (and other HK 416s) have some issues that traditional AR-15s don't have, but again, if your option is circa 2000 M4 or M27 you'll go with the M27. The Army and USMC should be issuing the M4A1 URGI, which is what the special forces and USAF are moving to. It has a mid length gas system, more durable barrel, drops the M4 profile barrel altogether, lighter rail and other tweaks. It is hard to even call it an "M4" considering how big of a departure it is. And it would be lighter, shorter and more accurate than the M27. But again, that is not how government procurement works. That would be logical and cheap.

Instead, the USMC gets their own oddball rifle that is long and heavy for riflemen, not a great DMR, and a poor SAW while the Army continues to rebuild rifles with older parts that don't last as long. At least the USAF went ahead and is doing the sensible thing.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,038
The main reason for the switch to the M27 is because the M4 is essentially frozen at around year 2000 in terms of specifications, itself essentially being a design subset of the late 80s with minor tweaking to the buffers and a railed top receiver. The platform itself has moved on but both the USMC and Army are reluctant to upgrade it to something contemporary even if that is the logical and better solution. As far as the USMC was concerned, the option was either the same outdated M4 or the M27, itself an improvement over the old M4. The M27 itself is nothing special; it is merely better than the ~2000 specification M4. But the trigger, barrel profile & construction is superior.

The M27 (and other HK 416s) have some issues that traditional AR-15s don't have, but again, if your option is circa 2000 M4 or M27 you'll go with the M27. The Army and USMC should be issuing the M4A1 URGI, which is what the special forces and USAF are moving to. It has a mid length gas system, more durable barrel, drops the M4 profile barrel altogether, lighter rail and other tweaks. It is hard to even call it an "M4" considering how big of a departure it is. And it would be lighter, shorter and more accurate than the M27. But again, that is not how government procurement works. That would be logical and cheap.

Instead, the USMC gets their own oddball rifle that is long and heavy for riflemen, not a great DMR, and a poor SAW while the Army continues to rebuild rifles with older parts that don't last as long. At least the USAF went ahead and is doing the sensible thing.
It's actually really easy to call it an M4...because it is. Nothing about the M4A1 URG-I is nearly as novel as the M27. There is no reason to go to it over the M4A1 if you have been fielding M4's in number. SOCOM is using because they have money to dick with it and the chair force is because they are replacing clapped out gear and may finally eliminate all their no fences or GAU-5s. Plus since the chair force doesn't use them....they will look pretty for the next 50 years like their no fences.
 

Axman

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
2,624
IIRC the Marines didn't get M4A1s, they got mothballed Army M4s. In that sense the URG is a clear improvement.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,038
IIRC the Marines didn't get M4A1s, they got mothballed Army M4s. In that sense the URG is a clear improvement.
You recall incorrectly. The M4A1 is currently in service with the Marine Corps.
 

seanreisk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
1,200
Interesting thread ... Things I think:

- The lack of consensus in this thread shows how hard it is to pick a 'one-size-fits-most' battle rifle. But I do think some people are arm-chairing the debate - answers are not that easy, even now the USMC and Army are using two different kinds of ammunition (and I disagree with the author about some points behind the Mk 318).

- When they say 'iPhone of lethality' they are talking about the evolutionary leap between the flip-phone and the iPhone, and the fact that the iPhone made that leap without introducing new technology.

- The rifle itself is still going to be gas operated. Making a battle rifle that is dependent on a power source is a career-ending idea. The Star Wars stuff will be packed into the sight.

- In my opinion, direct impingement vs. gas piston won't be solved until the military stops using all forms of black powder. I lean towards gas piston, but I understand that it is mildly heavier and has more rotational force than direct impingement.

- Barrel length is important in close quarters, whether that's a vehicle or a building. People who say it isn't have never tried to get a M16A4 with a 20" barrel up and on target when they are the third person to breach into a room. Household staircases are also fun with a long barreled rifle. It is easier to compensate a short barrel with an appropriate ammunition and barrel twist than it is to compensate any form of long barrel while climbing through a kitchen window.

- Minor adjustments matter. A battle rifle is a balance between powder, bullet weight, barrel length, rifle twist, suppressor and gas-block position. I hate watching YouTube videos where some redneck is doing a 'review' by firing 77-grain Black Hills through a vanilla .223 Remington AR-15.

- Move to 6.8mm? Go for it. I bet you'll find that a lot of NATO is ready to make that leap. 6.8mm causes more wear? Boo-hoo, develop stronger lugs, that's a weak excuse.

- In the debate between function and weight I personally lean towards function. There are limits - 9 lbs. is probably a bit much for a loaded rifle weight. But hey, if I were in the Middle East right now I'd be happiest carrying an M203, and that would be about 13 lbs.

- Bullpup? If I had my druthers, I'druther not. Also I am ambidextrous when shooting; bullpups are not. I just don't like bullpups.

- Auto-targeting is a real thing, but I see too many problems for military use (right now), especially in an urban environment. I like tech, I'm in favor of driving aids for cars, but I would hate to be clearing buildings knowing that the guy on overwatch had auto-targeting.

The Army and USMC should be issuing the M4A1 URGI, which is what the special forces and USAF are moving to. At least the USAF went ahead and is doing the sensible thing.
- The Air Force has very little need to ingress and egress crowded vehicles. I can see them ordering rifles with heavy-duty buttplates to reduce the wear from sitting around in the arms room. Unless you're a medic, a TACP, or someone who is counting jets, those URG-I's are gonna get more wear being cleaned.

- Concerning my above comment, I spent time in the Air National Guard after I left the Army, and I believe I am qualified to make jokes about the Air Force.

- If I see a long barreled AR-style rifle with a 360 degree rail system that goes all the way out the front sight I just puke. I don't know why, it just bugs me. It's ugly. It looks stupid. It looks like a redneck clothesline for your fantasy militia hardware. "Hey, JimmyBob, I just got mah Picatinny beer bottle opener!"


These are just my opinions. No one listens to me but my dog, and he ignores me when he wants to.
 

aaronspink

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,122
- Bullpup? If I had my druthers, I'druther not. Also I am ambidextrous when shooting; bullpups are not. I just don't like bullpups.
All modern bullpups are ambi.

- Auto-targeting is a real thing, but I see too many problems for military use (right now), especially in an urban environment. I like tech, I'm in favor of driving aids for cars, but I would hate to be clearing buildings knowing that the guy on overwatch had auto-targeting.
Yeah auto-target is only really useful for DMR/Snipers (added bonus is that it is the same use case that it is being developed for in the civ market: first shot hit probability). For infantry, digitally linked scopes/sights are a much more useful advance. Decoupling rifle sighting from the head seems like a reasonably smart thing to do which greatly increases flexibility and safety. The added bonus of doubling as a surveillance network at fobs is just a bonus.
 

Lunas

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
9,862
what was wrong with the m4 and if they really wanted to follow Iphone design like samsung thinner and lighter keep making them thinner and lighter until the guns have flaws like frame bending and magazines losing capacity the more they are used and in response the fire rate going down.
 

lcpiper

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,585
Um, reload is not an issue with any modern bullpup (any issues are just training/learning and that has been proven in studies). And traditional rifles have the disadvantage that they are useless with short barrels that can't hit the broad side of a barn. An 18" barrel bullpup has a shorter OAL than a 8" carbine. Literally the whole point of these programs is the 8" barrels M4s, which are required to get reasonable CQB OAL rifle lengths, have horrible range. Just going to a bullpup with 5.56 basically doubles range while using the same ammo, same mags, same accessories, etc.

Infantry doesn't need a short barrel unless they are playing stupid cop games. Face it, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were learning experiences ..... where we learned that an Army shouldn't be used as a police force. We warped our entire military around that bullshit and it never should have happened that way.

The problem is that leadership can't back track and admit it was a big mistake, so instead we have to carry along that garbage concept, while we try to rebuild what our Military used to be. With the exception of SOF, the only soldiers who might need a shorter rifle are actually vehicle crewmen, maybe MPs.

Look guys, in real combat, soldiers don't clear buildings when we think the enemy is inside, we just blow the damned thing up.
 

lcpiper

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,585
what was wrong with the m4 and if they really wanted to follow Iphone design like samsung thinner and lighter keep making them thinner and lighter until the guns have flaws like frame bending and magazines losing capacity the more they are used and in response the fire rate going down.

I think some people are misunderstanding the iphone comment.

The point the man was making is that they should focus on the platform. A basic building block that all other weapon requirements can be filled with. If I need a CQB weapon for MPs, add short barrels, a rail kit, adjustable stock, etc. A sniper rifle get's a long barrel, a different stock, etc, A SAW get's a barrel group with easily swapped MG type barrels with integrated bi-pods, and the list goes on. And all along, the base platform remains the same. You can even swap out different calibers under this concept.
 

Fresch

n00b
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
41
Infantry doesn't need a short barrel unless they are playing stupid cop games. Face it, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were learning experiences ..... where we learned that an Army shouldn't be used as a police force. We warped our entire military around that bullshit and it never should have happened that way.

The problem is that leadership can't back track and admit it was a big mistake, so instead we have to carry along that garbage concept, while we try to rebuild what our Military used to be. With the exception of SOF, the only soldiers who might need a shorter rifle are actually vehicle crewmen, maybe MPs.

Look guys, in real combat, soldiers don't clear buildings when we think the enemy is inside, we just blow the damned thing up.
Kind of like walking from one end of Germany to the other disarming/shooting, with 30/06, 308, 45, .
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,459
Infantry doesn't need a short barrel unless they are playing stupid cop games. Face it, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were learning experiences ..... where we learned that an Army shouldn't be used as a police force. We warped our entire military around that bullshit and it never should have happened that way.

The problem is that leadership can't back track and admit it was a big mistake, so instead we have to carry along that garbage concept, while we try to rebuild what our Military used to be. With the exception of SOF, the only soldiers who might need a shorter rifle are actually vehicle crewmen, maybe MPs.

Look guys, in real combat, soldiers don't clear buildings when we think the enemy is inside, we just blow the damned thing up.
You do that, you also wind up blowing up more civilians, women and children.

Sure, it is wrong for fighters to hide with civilians, but that's how insurgencies work, and their friends and families never remember that the fighters were hiding with their loved ones when they were blown up, just that Americans blew them up.

Now you have successfully served as an effective recruitment tool for your enemy.

The rules of engagement necessarily have to change when you aren't fighting a traditional war, where you can count on your opponent having the decency to clear civilians away from the front lines and not hide behind them. You can't just "burn the village, burn the whole fucking village".
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,038
what was wrong with the m4 and if they really wanted to follow Iphone design like samsung thinner and lighter keep making them thinner and lighter until the guns have flaws like frame bending and magazines losing capacity the more they are used and in response the fire rate going down.
Nothing is wrong enough with it or right enough with the replacements. That's why the Army keeps running trials and then deciding to stick with something based on the AR-15 lower.

I think some people are misunderstanding the iphone comment.

The point the man was making is that they should focus on the platform. A basic building block that all other weapon requirements can be filled with. If I need a CQB weapon for MPs, add short barrels, a rail kit, adjustable stock, etc. A sniper rifle get's a long barrel, a different stock, etc, A SAW get's a barrel group with easily swapped MG type barrels with integrated bi-pods, and the list goes on. And all along, the base platform remains the same. You can even swap out different calibers under this concept.
Well, the AR-15 lower does that and has done that for almost 50 years.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
377
iOS inspired? huh... so they are going to remove all the standard ports and have it be completely proprietary, and not work with anything else out there?
 

lcpiper

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,585
You do that, you also wind up blowing up more civilians, women and children.

Sure, it is wrong for fighters to hide with civilians, but that's how insurgencies work, and their friends and families never remember that the fighters were hiding with their loved ones when they were blown up, just that Americans blew them up.

Now you have successfully served as an effective recruitment tool for your enemy.

The rules of engagement necessarily have to change when you aren't fighting a traditional war, where you can count on your opponent having the decency to clear civilians away from the front lines and not hide behind them. You can't just "burn the village, burn the whole fucking village".

You aren't hearing me clearly brother ..... real wars are not against insurgencies. You don't fight an insurgency with a conventional Military. I'll explain why, insurgencies were developed precisely because it's so hard to fight them with a conventional military force, so that's why you find other ways to deal with them. But you don't play into their game.

I'll follow through with exhibit A, in Iraq and Afghanistan, who did most of the actual counter-insurgency work? It was our SOF guys. The regular Army troops were doing security missions and training missions for the national defense forces and police forces. They were providing security cover for the border patrol agencies of those countries. Oh, they got into contact and had scrapes with the insurgents because sometimes the insurgents went after them. But even more so, it was just the tribal guys flexing now and then for their own reasons, like when that Sheik got arrested and his people started throwing mortar rounds at our FOB. They were expressing their displeasure with a round for every day that we kept him locked up.

But the guys who carried most of the fight, went into villages and took out specific targets, those were SOF guys. And that's how you fight insurgencies, with spec ops and mercs, not with regular ground troops.
 

lcpiper

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,585
Nothing is wrong enough with it or right enough with the replacements. That's why the Army keeps running trials and then deciding to stick with something based on the AR-15 lower.



Well, the AR-15 lower does that and has done that for almost 50 years.
Someone what, not really though when it comes to the scope of what this guy is talking about. There is no sniper rifle in the US military based on an Ar and no LMG or SAW based on the AR platform either.

We had the M-16A1 when I joined in 1981, then the A2 and A3, the M4 replaced many of them. Then we had the M-60 and I had to carry that "pig" as well in the day. Later the Army wants a 6mm Light Machinegun and bought the SAW instead because the M249 had some really nice capabilities, very flexible weapon.

But to the best of m6y knowledge, with the exception of a few of the wide diverse trials they did live in Afghanistan looking for a Designated Marksman weapon, there were no M-16/AR-15 based rifles full-filling a sniper role with an "M" in their designation.
 

Flogger23m

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,337
Someone what, not really though when it comes to the scope of what this guy is talking about. There is no sniper rifle in the US military based on an Ar and no LMG or SAW based on the AR platform either.
There are numerous configurations out there:

USMC-081005-M-4507D-005.jpg


And yes, some of them did have full auto M16A1 lowers initially like in this picture. In general the push has been to larger calibers, some of which will work in the same lower. The standard 7.62x51 requires a different receiver but those are still AR based, such as the M110.
 

lcpiper

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,585
There are numerous configurations out there:

View attachment 141342

And yes, some of them did have full auto M16A1 lowers initially like in this picture. In general the push has been to larger calibers, some of which will work in the same lower. The standard 7.62x51 requires a different receiver but those are still AR based, such as the M110.
Are you leaving out the rest of the discussion? Where is the light machinegun part of this?

The author is pointing to the Army who is saying they want to go with a common platform for all.

Someone else said that we have that with the M-16. Well we don't, we only have part of that, and it hap-hazard, and not common.

And I challenge you to find any of those weapons you are pointing to and show me the "M" designator in the name that means it's an officially fielded peace of gear and not a prototype pushed out into the field do to need.

Ohh, and an M-16 lower doesn't make the weapon full-auto. The Army Marksmanship Unit produced several of these but they used target triggers which were not full-auto capable. But that's beside the point, everything in the world got cobbled together and thrown into the sane over the last decade. But if it doesn't have an "M" in front of it's designation it's not fielded equipment.
 

lcpiper

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,585
The M27 does double-duty as a DMR and a LMG. The M110 SASS was an AR and so is the CSASS.

Beat me to it while typing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M27_Infantry_Automatic_Rifle

I'm an Army guy, not a Marine, and I see that this platform is HK's version, based off the M416. Is the HK M416 based off the M16 platform or is their something significantly different?

I am asking, it's looking like the Marines are going to make me eat crow.
 

[Spectre]

[H] Admin
Staff member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
16,038
Someone what, not really though when it comes to the scope of what this guy is talking about. There is no sniper rifle in the US military based on an Ar and no LMG or SAW based on the AR platform either.
Only because they have not been adopted or you just aren't thinking of them. The MK12 is a DMR, Colt made the 655 and 656 as DMR/"sniper" rifles years ago, etc.

For SAW Colt also developed the Colt LMG, ARES developed the Shrike, the IAR was poorly chosen for the role, etc. but the AR-15 lower does provide a basis for all of those roles if the upper is done for the job. If you want an even higher cyclic rate like a LMG then Colt could adopt over the M231 design and give it a much thicker profile and longer barrel, sights, rails, bipod, and handle.
 

Axman

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
2,624
Is the HK M416 based off the M16 platform
Mostly-ish? Definitely kinda-sorta territory.

It uses the same receiver (not originally, I think it had a proprietary lower and they ran into mag compatibility issues but that was early on then they redesigned it, pretty sure anyway) but it's short-stroke piston-driven and switches from a closed bolt to open bolt on full auto.

The Marines keep putting in more orders for them.

Regardless I doubt the military is going to switch from ARs until some fundamentally new ammo concept comes around. They'll just make hotter ammo with a harder penetrator and call it a day.

They're going to go through all the testing, look at other platforms, and then take good ideas from all of them and reverse-engineer them to glom on to what they already got. And then throw it all out once SIG makes them some smart binocs because the whole kit and ammo weighs 30+ pounds and those smart binocs call in great drone strikes.
 

Fresch

n00b
Joined
Mar 14, 2018
Messages
41
Hmm, so 3D printed, wifi, 4K, green ammo, and can come in pink for the non binary.
 

Crackinjahcs

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
150
Like people's preference for firearms differs so do our experiences, Icpiper. In Iraq sometimes we pushed into neighborhoods and buildings, other times we backed off a bit and hit it with a JDAM. Also, we are, by and large, a mounted force where getting in and out of vehicles multiple times in short periods is much easier and faster with something short like an M4 vs. an M16. The variable length of pull (adjustable buttstock) also accommodates smaller users better than a full-size M16.

On the other hand, while in Afghanistan most of my experiences were much longer range. But the effective range of an M4 vs. an M16 in the average Soldier's hands is not much different, no matter what the TM says.

The flexibility that the AR platform offers, swapping attachments, sights/scopes, barrel groups and receivers has given the platform much greater mileage than most other weapon systems, which is why time after time with these "future weapon" contests we end up with the same rifle after millions of dollars in R&D and trials. The platform's main drawbacks are limiting ammunition and magazine choices to what fits through the fixed-size magazine well and how much of a PITA it is to clean the chamber.
 

Lunas

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
9,862
I think some people are misunderstanding the iphone comment.

The point the man was making is that they should focus on the platform. A basic building block that all other weapon requirements can be filled with. If I need a CQB weapon for MPs, add short barrels, a rail kit, adjustable stock, etc. A sniper rifle get's a long barrel, a different stock, etc, A SAW get's a barrel group with easily swapped MG type barrels with integrated bi-pods, and the list goes on. And all along, the base platform remains the same. You can even swap out different calibers under this concept.
then he should not have used iphone as a buzzword to get attention to his article...
 
Top