06-16-2013, 08:51 AM
Army Killed New Carbine Because It Wasn't Twice As Reliable As Current M4, By Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., Breakingdefense.com, June 14, 2013 (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/14/ar...urrent-m4/). To review, in full, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) Amendment #3186, "The Need for Small Arms Modernization by the US Army," scroll down seven paragraphs, of the Report, to the blue-lettered prompt, "Click here for Coburn's case against the M4 in brief." --- "In 2007, the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) tested the reliability of the US Army's standard issue M4 carbine rifle compared to three other carbine rifles. These rifles were exposed to an extreme dust environment and then fired to compare the frequency of stoppages. The Army M4 carbine rifle finished last in this reliability test. . . . Tragically in July of 2008, at the Battle of Wanat, a small outpost of soldiers in Afghanistan were overrun by Taliban insurgents and suffered from failures of their M4 rifles. In November 2008, nineteen small arms manufacturers appeared at an 'Industry Day' in Virginia to showcase to the Army the advances made in small arms technology. Despite this need from the troops and the overwhelming interest of the small arms industry, the Army has said that it will be 2014, at the earliest, when our soldiers might get a new carbine rifle. . . . Unfortunately, there is no mechanism, process, or organization where the users of small arms can formally tell the Army of reliability, or other concerns about their weapons. . . . When soldiers notify their chain of command that there may be issues with the way their weapons are operating, they are usually told that the failure is a lack of proper maintenance. When Congress or the media asks the Pentagon why it isn't fielding new small arms weapons, it is told that there is no approved requirement for a new weapon. When tasked by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to access the Department of Defense's approach to small arms and ammunition, the Army finds that instead of procuring modern weapons, more training on legacy weapons is sufficient. While more lethal and more reliable small arms weapons exist in the commercial market and are in use by our elite special forces and allied nations, hundreds of thousands of troops in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines must use the same legacy small arms weapons that are decades old. In the meantime, the United States continues to deploy brave men and women to combat, with the same weapons that finished last in the Army's own reliability test and have high levels of dissatisfaction with their use, as noted by the Center for Naval Analysis. Also, other Army tests and analysis, as well as ballistic testing going back to World War I, show that the current 5.56mm ammunition that is the Army and NATO standard is not the ideal ammunition for our troups engaging targets greater than 300 meters, as they are in Afghanistan. The Army has no plans to follow up its initial testing with any further development of small arms ammunition to replace the 5.56mm round. The current bureaucratic processes at the Pentagon and the Army do not serve the needs of our soldiers of war. . . . Some of our NATO allies, with much smaller defense budgets, are able to outfit and equip their soldiers with new and modern rifles. America should always ensure that when our soldiers are sent to battle, on behalf of the nation, they go with the best small arms weapons and ammunition available."
I came across the above Report, yesterday. And, as I reviewed it, I was reminded to the pertinent thought-provoking discussions I've looked in on, here, at the 6.5 Grendel Forum. I've chosen to attach the following June 11, 2013 Reply, By Guardsman26, because it addresses, what I consider to be a viable option to the long overdue replacement of the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51 NATO cartridges: the 6.5mm Grendel. And, to afford a desirable increase in velocity, particularly, with the heavier 6.5mm bullets (such as the 139-grain Lapua Scenar, 0.615 BC), I refer to the excellent Thread, How could or should the 6.5mm Grendel be improved?, February 15, 2013 Reply, By LRRPF52, which offers two viable avenues to increased operating pressure capability using the AR-15 length action: 1, such as has been used in the Remington R-15 .30 RAR Bolt-Barrel Extension; 2, such as has been used in the Knights SR15E3 Bolt-Barrel Extension. And, I submit that there are other auto-loading platforms, which are compatible with the 6.5mm Grendel, as well.
I came across the above Report, yesterday. And, as I reviewed it, I was reminded to the pertinent thought-provoking discussions I've looked in on, here, at the 6.5 Grendel Forum. I've chosen to attach the following June 11, 2013 Reply, By Guardsman26, because it addresses, what I consider to be a viable option to the long overdue replacement of the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51 NATO cartridges: the 6.5mm Grendel. And, to afford a desirable increase in velocity, particularly, with the heavier 6.5mm bullets (such as the 139-grain Lapua Scenar, 0.615 BC), I refer to the excellent Thread, How could or should the 6.5mm Grendel be improved?, February 15, 2013 Reply, By LRRPF52, which offers two viable avenues to increased operating pressure capability using the AR-15 length action: 1, such as has been used in the Remington R-15 .30 RAR Bolt-Barrel Extension; 2, such as has been used in the Knights SR15E3 Bolt-Barrel Extension. And, I submit that there are other auto-loading platforms, which are compatible with the 6.5mm Grendel, as well.
Guardsman26 Wrote:With all this talk about the cancellation of the Improved Carbine (IC) Competition, perhaps, at last, the US Army is ready to consider a practical alternative? I agree that the universal re-adoption of 7.62 x 51 mm NATO doesn't make sense - we'd increase the weight load and reduce short-range hit probability. We've tried improving 5.56 mm NATO further with the M855A1 EP, but even that is not conclusively better.
Moreover why persist with either 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm when a palpably better solution is under our noses? Adopting a militarised 6.5 mm Grendel would provide an immediate low-risk, low-cost and easy to implement solution that would offer front-line war fighters with a quantum leap in firepower through increased range and hit probability.
As I've asked elsewhere on the forum, what do we need to do to get the 6.5 Grendel adopted as is or to upgrade it incrementally? The advantage of the current form factor is the ability to fit new uppers on existing M4 lowers. But there are a number crucial questions that I don't believe have yet been answered here:
1. What kind of performance degradation would you get firing a militarised projectile (or lead-free bullet) from a 16" barrel?
2. Is there scope to otherwise improve Grendel performance?
3. Would a smaller 108 grain / 7 gram projectile be preferable?
4. Would a longer cartridge case with increased powder capacity, say 40 grains of powder, make a difference?
5. How much would such a case increase weapon weight?
Some people here seem to believe that the Grendel matches 7.62 mm near enough. Others disagree, but think the difference is irrelevant because 1,000 metres is probably the maximum range for combat engagements and the Grendel performs well at this distance.
I am sure Bill Alexander realises that he is in a strong position to influence future military choices. So Bill what what you do to get the Grendel accepted by the military?