Requirements for Replacement of Currently Issued 5.56 M-855 and 7.62 M-80.

[Tony Williams]

Here's a Portuguese soldier w/MP9 on leg rig in Afghanistan.

Yes, that's the same rig as in my photo, only worn lower. The gun actually clips into it sideways and can be pulled out very quickly (and of course fired single-handed with the stock folded if you're in a hurry).

Incidentally, the scope sight on the one in my pics was a 1.5x Trijicon, which I found extremely well suited to the gun in 6.5mm calibre. If you use it in 9mm (a quick barrel change is all that's needed to swap between calibres), then the shorter range would make a 1x holographic red-dot sight more suitable.

[McCoy]

Why not just outfit the soldiers for geographic specific needs like rifle scopes (Afghanistan) with a 2.5-10 variable range, or say a 1-8x or here's a idea don't use a round that was designed to wound and not kill. But wasn't that the whole idea behind the 5.56 to cause wounding as to take up more resources from the enemy. Why yes, yes it was!

[Tony Williams]

Why not just outfit the soldiers for geographic specific needs like rifle scopes (Afghanistan) with a 2.5-10 variable range, or say a 1-8x

Fine, but the gun/cartridge combination needs to be able to shoot effectively out to long range, or a powerful scope is a waste of effort.

or here's a idea don't use a round that was designed to wound and not kill. But wasn't that the whole idea behind the 5.56 to cause wounding as to take up more resources from the enemy. Why yes, yes it was!

I have heard this one for many decades, but no-one has ever been able to point to the source for it.

I suspect that it is a misunderstanding of the Geneva Convention ban on "causing unnecessary suffering" - which says nothing about not killing the enemy!

[McCoy]

Lookup some of the literature by Martin L. Fackler, MD there are several case studies as well as articles written on the subject.

[stanc]

Lookup some of the literature by Martin L. Fackler, MD there are several case studies as well as articles written on the subject.

Please cite source(s) to substantiate your claim. To tell others to research it to substantiate it for you is hardly kosher.

[JASmith]

Please cite source(s) to substantiate your claim. To tell others to research it to substantiate it for you is hardly kosher.

Stan's advice is on the mark -- get us a link to the source and, preferably, enough of a description of the comment so we can find it. I once had to deal with verifying claims made by someone who cited references with quote snippets in books that were more than 600 pages long. He had the habit of citing a dozen or more similar-sized references, making an independent check of claims difficult, if not impossible.

Having said that, I've seen the speculation since the Vietnam era. Some of it was attributed to the operations research sponsored by Robert MacNamara. The principle was the notion that a wounded soldier takes 3- or 4- soldiers to get him from the field to proper medical treatment, whereas a dead soldier takes none.

I never saw a source document or authoritative statement to verify, but was told that our design objectives for antipersonal munitions was not to kill but to wound. The argument was based on ethics, not on the operations research.

In any event, the logic was both shallow and flawed in that it trivialized the very complex battle environment.

The criteria used for designing munitions then and, I think, now, is time to inability to perform a specified function. The time and function influenced fragment, bullet size, and numbers choices.

So, Fackler's research might shed light on this long-standing concept.

[stanc]

...wasn't that the whole idea behind the 5.56 to cause wounding as to take up more resources from the enemy. Why yes, yes it was!

No, no I'm pretty sure it wasn't. From what I recall reading -- in The Black Rifle, I think -- is that R&D of small caliber, high velocity cartridges was undertaken in the 1950s as a means to improve hit probability, not to cause a higher ratio of wounded vs killed enemy.

Indeed, judging by the wound profile of 5.56x45mm M193 Ball, tissue destruction should be such that lethality would increase, not be reduced.

If wounding had been the desired result, they would have been better served to use a bullet with late yaw and no fragmentation, similar to the 7.62x39mm M43 round.

IMO, the idea that increased wounding was the goal stems from the belief that a tiny .22-caliber bullet could not possibly be as lethal as the old standard .30-caliber projectiles.

[McCoy]

Here You go

[JASmith]

Here You go

I'm a tad annoyed -- almost all of us have Googled Marty Fackler's work and read at least one or two of them. Some of us may even have had conversations with him. (I'm not one of those fortunate ones.)

This explains our surprise at the notion that his writings directly support the notion that wounding is a preferred result compared to killing.

Could you post a link to one of his works that you've read supporting the idea contained in this possible urban rumor? That would help focus the discussion.

[LRRPF52]

Doesn't the M4A1 have full-auto and consistent trigger pull?

Yes, the M4A1 (issued to soldiers in SOCOM) does have the original SAFE-SEMI-AUTO trigger mechanism, however, the poor souls in all the conventional units have the M4 Carbine, which has the worthless SAFE-SEMI-BURST fire control mechanism, which affects the trigger pull in the only mode you really use it in (SEMI), with inconsistent and constantly-increasing pull weights until it trips back down to the cycle again of the burst counter cam, which rides on the right side of the hammer. There is an additional disconnector with an arm that reaches forward to hook into the burst cam, which has two sets of 3 varying tooth sizes, and that disconnector sitting atop the trigger adds varying pull weight with each shot in SEMI.

This is why the M16A2 and M4 in conventional units typically print groups where there are 2 shots touching or close together with a good shooter, and one flyer at 25m. It also makes qualifying that much more difficult for soldiers, who are left with a sense of failure when they were actually applying good fundamentals. There seem to be plans in place right now to go back to the AUTO mechanism for conventional forces, but we'll see. Whoever instituted that BURST mechanism needs to be flogged with the meat hooks, right along with the demon that invented MILES gear.

LRRPF52

[stanc]

Yes, the M4A1 (issued to soldiers in SOCOM) does have the original SAFE-SEMI-AUTO trigger mechanism, however, the poor souls in all the conventional units have the M4 Carbine, which has the worthless SAFE-SEMI-BURST fire control mechanism, which affects the trigger pull in the only mode you really use it in (SEMI), with inconsistent and constantly-increasing pull weights until it trips back down to the cycle again of the burst counter cam, which rides on the right side of the hammer.

FYI, according to http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2...mpetition/ , they have been in the process of modifying M4 carbines to M4A1 standard.

[LRRPF52]

stanc,

I've read that, but it only addresses the new carbine requirement for using the AUTO mechanism. I'll have to check with active duty units and see if they are actually doing this with M4's yet. I also want to emphasize that the benefits of the AUTO mechanism are for the SEMI mode of fire, which Infantry soldiers are almost exclusively trained to use. Recon units (Scouts/LRS, etc.) will use automatic fire during break-contact drills, but there are very few scenarios where a rifleman should be even thinking about using it. Those are when the SAW in his fire team has gone down, but the Team Leader can make that decision and use AUTO on his in that event while riflemen continue to practice good fire discipline engaging targets of opportunity.

Anyone who has fired AUTO from a 30rd magazine-fed weapon knows that it's pretty useless, other than burning a bunch of ammo quickly (especially with the M4A1's cyclic rate). It takes a lot of training to become effective with it from a lightweight carbine or rifle, unless it uses a constant recoil operating mechanism. Then a conscript can become lethal quite quickly...

I would actually like to see a fire-control mechanism on carbines that has 4 modes, with a 2-round burst feature that doesn't affect the trigger weight in SEMI. That is a nice feature to have for CQB. The Colt Model 605B had a 4-way selector switch and fire control system, back in the early 1960's.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]174[/ATTACH]

LRRPF52

[stanc]

stanc, I've read that, but it only addresses the new carbine requirement for using the AUTO mechanism.

Negative. See fourth paragraph from the bottom:

"...the Army continues to move ahead with its M4 Product Improvement Program (PIP) that includes the conversion of M4s to M4A1s..."

[stanc]

I would actually like to see a fire-control mechanism on carbines that has 4 modes, with a 2-round burst feature that doesn't affect the trigger weight in SEMI. That is a nice feature to have for CQB.

Yeah. I also think 2-rd burst is what a PDW (like the B&T MP9) should have in lieu of full-auto. Just imagine cooks and clerks with full-auto PDWs... :eek:

[Tony Williams]

Negative. See fourth paragraph from the bottom:

"...the Army continues to move ahead with its M4 Product Improvement Program (PIP) that includes the conversion of M4s to M4A1s..."

Interesting. I knew about the PIP but didn't realise that it involved the conversion of existing guns as well as buying new ones. Last year, this is what was said about it at NDIA (from my notes of the briefing):

"A three-stage Army programme of improvements to the M4 is to include (in Phase 1) an ambidextrous selector, a full-auto mode and a heavy barrel for longer sustained fire. Phase 2 will see an enhanced rail adaptor plus an improved bolt and carrier, with Phase 3 a possible change to the operating system. In parallel with this, the Army is considering a new carbine, but they're not yet certain whether they need it."

[stanc]

"...the Army is considering a new carbine, but they're not yet certain whether they need it."

IIRC, the article said that the new carbine competition is taking place this month. Wasn't it supposed to be open to calibers other than 5.56 NATO? If so, I wonder if there were any takers?

[Tony Williams]

My understanding is that all of the competitors are in 5.56mm.

I also gather that while 5.56mm M855A1 ammo will be provided for the trials, anyone who used any other calibre would have to provide large quantities of their own milspec ammo.

Clearly, this is ass-backwards. The Army should FIRST sort out what calibre they want THEN have a competition for carbines in that calibre.

The general consensus, by the way, seems to be that while it won't be difficult for other carbines to perform better than the M4, they won't be able to perform so much better that it will be worthwhile changing, especially given the improvements planned for the M4. So no-one is putting much of an effort into this competition.

It has been suggested that, in the light of the ARDEC analysis reportedly showing the clear superiority of 6.5mm and 7mm calibres over 5.56mm and 7.62mm, that the Army should just focus on the M4 PIP for now, while postponing the new carbine competition until they've sorted out the optimum calibre. Whether or not this will happen I don't know - the Army has gone all coy about the ARDEC report.

[LRRPF52]

Tony,

It makes sense to me that the caliber requirement would still be in 5.56 NATO, since this seems to be an interim solution until some other calibers and technologies have matured, especially in the middle of several wars.

None of the carbines I have seen that were suggested or introduced to compete against the M4 come even close to being superior to it currently. That includes the HK416 (major fail), SCAR-L (major fail), & XM8 (major fail). They can wave all the MTBF and MTBS comparisons that were rigged to make newer guns look better, while not lubing the M4, but this cat isn't falling for that trick.

The HK416 has proven less-reliable, heavier, is imbalanced forward, and is 3 times the price. I've already heard unexpected negative reports from end-users with the 416, and they preferred the M4 after experiencing things with it they never had with an M4. (Kabooms, magazine compatibility issues, secretive deficiencies covered with damage control by HK reps, and such)

The SCAR-L has one of the worst line-of-sight above bore offsets I think I have ever seen, and has major issues with heat transfer to the bottom rail of the handguard, which is too short and offers no room for upgrade as with the AR.

The XM8 (re-packaged G36 really) used a barrel trunnion mounted in a polymer receiver. Can we say, "heat transfer" That killed that gun really quick.

Soldiers I know who use the G36 hate it for sight above bore height issues, high-volume anemia, and the size of the magazines, in addition to the awkwardness of using the charge handle with gloves under stress.

When I run high-volume carbine courses, they are often in conditions most people would stay indoors during. I was surprised to see several Kalashnikov variants experiencing numerous failures during the last course, while the AR's ran like champs. This was in -18 to -20 C temps, heavy snow, and heavy wind conditions. The only AK variant that ran well was a Sako Rk92, but by the middle of each day, the 6'4"/240lb officer who was using it could barely let it dangle in a nose-down position due to its excessive weight and imbalance. Mag changes take much longer with the AK's as well, especially when running from vests over winter gear and using slings.

Over the years, I have seen plenty of AK's suffer from malfunctions as much or more often than military M4's and M16's. I think a lot of the "100% reliability" myth of the AK is directly attributed to successful propaganda, because I just don't see it in practice.

What I'm saying is that finding a markedly-superior carbine to the M4 will be no easy task, despite what many of the gun rags and articles are promoting. After looking over and evaluating all of the submissions over the past 10 years, nothing comes close in my mind from a long-term, end-user perspective. It will be a hard nut to crack, especially when you figure in the higher-volume shooting schedules that many units are adopting.

Whatever does end up replacing it will have to fill some very big shoes in terms of performance if it is truly superior and not some politically-driven award to an unholy alliance between government and industry.

LRRPF52

[stanc]

Over the years, I have seen plenty of AK's suffer from malfunctions as much or more often than military M4's and M16's. I think a lot of the "100% reliability" myth of the AK is directly attributed to successful propaganda, because I just don't see it in practice.

There was an article by Peter Kokalis in SOF perhaps 20 years ago that dealt with this. IIRC, the title was "The Enemy's Gun Never Jams." He attributed this outlook to the fact that, during firefights, a soldier is rarely close enough to enemy combatants to be able to see them experiencing stoppages. Since the troops couldn't see malfunctions occurring in enemy weapons, they then concluded that guns such as the AK must never have jammed. An understandable, if erroneous, conclusion.

[Tony Williams]

It makes sense to me that the caliber requirement would still be in 5.56 NATO, since this seems to be an interim solution until some other calibers and technologies have matured, especially in the middle of several wars.

Actually there is no requirement to use 5.56mm - competitors can use whatever they like. But, as I said, if they offer something in other than 5.56mm, they have to provide their own ammo.

The rest of your post reinforces the suggestion I referred to: the interim solution should be the improved M4. Anything that replaces it should not only be a better rifle, but also come in a better calibre IMO.