Military Is Looking For 50,000 New .30 Rifles

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the past few weeks we have learned that the US Marines will be replacing all of their M4 rifles with HK M27 5.56 piston rifles with full auto capabilities and free floated barrels. They are buying 50K of them, adding to the 4K that they already own/use.

800px-thumbnail.jpg


m27_1-630x320.jpeg
 
bubbatime said:
In the past few weeks we have learned that the US Marines will be replacing all of their M4 rifles with HK M27 5.56 piston rifles with full auto capabilities and free floated barrels. They are buying 50K of them, adding to the 4K that they already own/use.


Be interesting to see how long before FN-USA sets their production up to replicate the HK and deliver the same thing for less $$.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted By: HouseTiger
Be interesting to see how long before FN-USA sets their production up to replicate the HK and deliver the same thing for less $$.


If I remember in reading articles after the Bin Laden raid, it was mentioned the H&K 416 was the only AR platform weapon on that mission. Bin Laden died May 2, 2011. And the Navy was obviously using that weapon long before that. So there is somewhat of a long history with the H&K 416 and the Navy / Marines.
 
When I was a young frogman we used to take Ruger 10/22's out with us and boy'-oh-boy' we could salt some targets with those 10/22's !!!

"pew pew pew"

grin.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14


So, while the Army isn't ready to go to an all .30 caliber rifle force, they are spending big $$ (and not making decisions) on improving the 5.56mm round itself by modifying the projectile. Exotic metals, new design, etc. have all been examined. They're well aware that their present rifle is inadequate.


The Army is not spending big $$ improving the 5.56mm round currently because they already have. It's called the M855A1, and it was developed for the M4.

The Army has also conducted a "Carbine Competition" and determined that the competition didn't offer significant enough advantages to justify qualifying a new carbine at that time.

They have also updated their 7.62mm, called the M80A1.
 
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
Originally Posted By: Astro14


So, while the Army isn't ready to go to an all .30 caliber rifle force, they are spending big $$ (and not making decisions) on improving the 5.56mm round itself by modifying the projectile. Exotic metals, new design, etc. have all been examined. They're well aware that their present rifle is inadequate.


The Army is not spending big $$ improving the 5.56mm round currently because they already have. It's called the M855A1, and it was developed for the M4.

The Army has also conducted a "Carbine Competition" and determined that the competition didn't offer significant enough advantages to justify qualifying a new carbine at that time.

They have also updated their 7.62mm, called the M80A1.


I would call the $100 million they spent "big $$", when you're talking ammunition R&D. Yes, they've got the M855A1, but other alloys were considered. So, spending, spent, got it, it was still a lot, and the new round is slightly higher priced than the old.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/5/28/the-m855a1-cartridge-a-long-time-coming/

They did examine the round performance, they spent a lot, and they were looking to address all the shortcomings of the M855.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
I can pretty much agree with most of that. But if we were supposedly that bad with our M1 Garands. One can only come to the conclusion that the Japs were a lot worse with their Arisaka's. As were the Germans with their Mausers. After all we won in both theaters. And one has to keep in mind Stoner originally designed the AR rifle in 7.62. He changed it to 5.56 MM at the request of our military. All the rest has been a often debated, (many times heatedly argued), cluster F, for the last 6 decades. We have now come to the point with this weapon, that it is much like sleeping with an ugly wife for half a century. A divorce would be far too costly to resolve. So about all that's left, is to try to dress it up and put up with it.


Artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, not the infantryman with a rifle.

Well, that was when I was in. It's probably bombs dropped by all manner of aircraft today.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: billt460
I can pretty much agree with most of that. But if we were supposedly that bad with our M1 Garands. One can only come to the conclusion that the Japs were a lot worse with their Arisaka's. As were the Germans with their Mausers. After all we won in both theaters. And one has to keep in mind Stoner originally designed the AR rifle in 7.62. He changed it to 5.56 MM at the request of our military. All the rest has been a often debated, (many times heatedly argued), cluster F, for the last 6 decades. We have now come to the point with this weapon, that it is much like sleeping with an ugly wife for half a century. A divorce would be far too costly to resolve. So about all that's left, is to try to dress it up and put up with it.


Artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, not the infantryman with a rifle.

Well, that was when I was in. It's probably bombs dropped by all manner of aircraft today.


Perhaps. But even if it is, it's equally true on both sides. So it really doesn't change the argument either way.
 
No, but it addresses how one can kill so many enemy combatants and be lousy at marksmanship. Which was the first sentence of the quote to which I responded.
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: UG_Passat
Originally Posted By: Astro14


So, while the Army isn't ready to go to an all .30 caliber rifle force, they are spending big $$ (and not making decisions) on improving the 5.56mm round itself by modifying the projectile. Exotic metals, new design, etc. have all been examined. They're well aware that their present rifle is inadequate.


The Army is not spending big $$ improving the 5.56mm round currently because they already have. It's called the M855A1, and it was developed for the M4.

The Army has also conducted a "Carbine Competition" and determined that the competition didn't offer significant enough advantages to justify qualifying a new carbine at that time.

They have also updated their 7.62mm, called the M80A1.


I would call the $100 million they spent "big $$", when you're talking ammunition R&D. Yes, they've got the M855A1, but other alloys were considered. So, spending, spent, got it, it was still a lot, and the new round is slightly higher priced than the old.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/5/28/the-m855a1-cartridge-a-long-time-coming/

They did examine the round performance, they spent a lot, and they were looking to address all the shortcomings of the M855.


You are saying in the original quote, in present tense, the Army is currently spending big $$ on improving the M855 cartridge.

This is false, because it is past tense. The M855a1 was released in 2010. There is no current effort for a M855A2
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol. Today we've got 30 shot .22's and 15 round 9 MM's, and we can't seem to actually win anything. But back then we trained marksman, not spray and pray tactics.


Not entirely correct, remember there were several weapon systems issued in WWII.

As for "Spray and Pray" tactics, please remember that modern squad based tactics involve large volume suppression of an enemy position while a squad flanks. Mostly by an M240 or M249.

Cheers
 
Originally Posted By: spiritrider


There have been two independent changes to the M-16 that when combined have significantly reduced lethality. Changing from the 55 gr. M193 to the 62 gr. M855 and reducing the M4 barrel to 14.5". It is ironic that the one of the reasons for the bullet change was to increase long range performance and the shortening of the barrel was for CQB. Only the Pentagon could screwed things up this bad.





It is a carbine after all, I am in agreement as long as you are not claiming a shorter barrel effects accuracy.
 
Originally Posted By: SOHCman
Originally Posted By: billt460
In WW II we fought on every type of battlefield and condition imaginable. Jungle, (South Pacific). Beach head invasion, (both South Pacific and European). Forest and mountainous terrain, (Europe). Freezing cold, (Europe). High heat, humidity, and rain, (New Guinea). And while we had other weapons in our inventory, just as we do now, we won it all based on a 8 shot semi auto in .30-06, and a 7 shot .45 pistol. Today we've got 30 shot .22's and 15 round 9 MM's, and we can't seem to actually win anything. But back then we trained marksman, not spray and pray tactics.


Not entirely correct, remember there were several weapon systems issued in WWII.

As for "Spray and Pray" tactics, please remember that modern squad based tactics involve large volume suppression of an enemy position while a squad flanks. Mostly by an M240 or M249.

Cheers




If anyone wants to....read the works of SLA Marshall on small arms fire and efficiency in WW2 and Korea. You will be surprised just how poorly we trained men and how pathetically they performed because of it in the field. "Marksmen" Marines could not hit enemy troops walking without cover at about half their qualifying distance at Koto Ri as an example and anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of men did not persistently fire on the enemy in ww2. Because of his work we started employing better training methods in the later stages of Korea that raised firing rates. It is interesting reading that dispels quite a few myths.

We won a lot in the past and have had mixed results recently because we went from total war to limited war starting in Korea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Kerry Resume For President
2 3
Replies
47
Views
16K
motorguy222
Back
Top