US military and its small arms - teh horror returns...

[Vandervahn]

Two new solicitation notices surfaced...

5.56mm Carbine (interesting is the projected max amount of only 200.000 units)


http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2006/02-February/05-Feb-2006/FBO-00979943.htm

... Subsequent to the production of LRIP quantities, the Government may award multiple Full Rate Production (FRP) options to the winning offeror (up to 200,000 total weapon systems if the total number of options are exercised). ...

5.56mm LMG (interesting is that it does not rule out foreign production)


http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2006/02-February/05-Feb-2006/FBO-00979937.htm

...It is anticipated that establishment of a domestic production capability may be required...

As opposed to

...Production in the United States/Canada will be required for the majority the FRP quantities...

from the Carbine presolicitation

The bookmakers are ready ;)

[ABNINF]

If they're gonna give us another M16/M4 variant, which since they're talking to RRA, I wish they'd just get the HK416 uppers and stop trying to buy an all new weapon.

[Steel_Weasel]

If they're gonna give us another M16/M4 variant, which since they're talking to RRA, I wish they'd just get the HK416 uppers and stop trying to buy an all new weapon.

Screw the 416/417. SCAR has already won the trials and should be procured en masse for all U.S. Troops. It is far superior to the 416/417.

[JoaMei]

Screw the 416/417. SCAR has already won the trials and should be procured en masse for all U.S. Troops. It is far superior to the 416/417.

In what way are they superiour, are you just talking out of your ass?

SCAR is to expensive for general issue, HK416 would save costs because there is no need to retrain everybody to a new system and existing add ons can be used too.

[ABNINF]

Thanks JoaMei, that's exactly what I meant. It would be cheaper to purchase new uppers to place on the existing lowers, and wouldn't require any significant retraining, other than how to disassemble the operating rod. Also, I think it's funny when people talk about guns like the SCAR and the Mk23 because they're "officially" adopted by SOCOM. Here's a news flash, SOCOM uses whatever weapons they choose, and will always purchase and use non-standard weaponry. I mean, the MK23 is the "official" pistol of SOCOM, and was developed by and for special operators, yet very few carry them due to the fact that they're enormous.

[Adam Wilhelm]

In what way are they superiour, are you just talking out of your ass?

SCAR is to expensive for general issue, HK416 would save costs because there is no need to retrain everybody to a new system and existing add ons can be used too.

Existing add ons can also be put on the SCAR.

[crazyman]

my M4 works just fine, thank you very much. now if they talk about replacing the M9, then i'll get excited....the current M4s work for me, dont need anyhing new unless they are going to change caliber or something drastic

[ABNINF]

Yeah, I'm happy with my M4 also.

[SMGLee]

In what way are they superiour, are you just talking out of your ass?

SCAR is to expensive for general issue, HK416 would save costs because there is no need to retrain everybody to a new system and existing add ons can be used too.

right off the bat... the HK upper mate to a 16 lower will not pass the weight requirement.. 6.5lbs... the HK upper withe the front sight/gas regulator and the quad rail is pretty darn heavy. SCAR heavy CQB is schedule to come in at about 6.5lbs, can you imagine the light?

FN is superior by a few....

Monolithic rail..no weak receiver/barrel, rail interface that is known to shear bolts under heavy firing.
selectable rail platform
quick change barrel,
and ability to perform over the beach operation where guns with buffer tube usually fails.
Polymer lower
folding stock with collapisible and cheek rest feature
ambi controls.


On par with 416...
uses M16 magazines
have the same egronomics as the 16,
gas piston operated


price.. lower then you can imagine... it can compete with a Colt M4 that is how cheap FN is planing on keep the rifle.

[SMGLee]

my M4 works just fine, thank you very much. now if they talk about replacing the M9, then i'll get excited....the current M4s work for me, dont need anyhing new unless they are going to change caliber or something drastic

Look at the JSP.. 45caliber pistol is on the way....

[California Joe]

I'm agreeing with him.

Just because.p-)

[Steel_Weasel]

Thanks JoaMei, that's exactly what I meant. It would be cheaper to purchase new uppers to place on the existing lowers, and wouldn't require any significant retraining, other than how to disassemble the operating rod.. .

I'm no secret squirrel but I'm not talking out of my ass. I'm a long time Marine and know what I'm talking about. Cheap...you want cheap eh ? Screw the 416 on that grounds too...you can convert existing M4's to piston operation via LW, Aries, and other for 1/3 the price of a 416.

[ABNINF]

If they can keep the SCAR under cost, and get it to all of the soldiers that would be great. But since they're talking to Rock River Arms, I think they're just looking at a new M16/M4 variant. Which if they're doing that, they just need to do something simple that wont' require a lot of retraining.

[Vandervahn]

I really do not understand why this "retraining" issue is so often mentioned. Its not like there ever before had been a drive to commonality between weapon platforms to accomodate a switch - either you are happy with what you HAVE, or you AREN´T and you go for a new technology -> which ALWAYS means a switch in procedures.

This "downward compatibility" approach is what led us for example to the 640kb main memory disaster of 1990s personal PCs, its simply not a valid argument when when are looking into future concepts and technology. Its not like they are searching for a caseless rifle or laser cannon... and its also not like the 40 year old ergonomics of the current rifles were an universal holy grail that have to be kept unquestioned.

Every time an improvement over current capabilities is sought, this also implies retraining and new procedures. This is equally true and necessary for a firearm as it is for a new jet fighter.

[TacoDelRio]

I really do not understand why this "retraining" issue is so often mentioned. Its not like there ever before had been a drive to commonality between weapon platforms to accomodate a switch - either you are happy with what you HAVE, or you AREN´T and you go for a new technology -> which ALWAYS means a switch in procedures.

This "downward compatibility" approach is what led us for example to the 640kb main memory disaster of 1990s personal PCs, its simply not a valid argument when when are looking into future concepts and technology. Its not like they are searching for a caseless rifle or laser cannon... and its also not like the 40 year old ergonomics of the current rifles were an universal holy grail that have to be kept unquestioned.

Every time an improvement over current capabilities is sought, this also implies retraining and new procedures. This is equally true and necessary for a firearm as it is for a new jet fighter.


Familiarity with a single weapons system helps alot for troops who aren't high speed, IE PAO's, logistics guys, truckers, pencil pushers, guys in the rear with the gear who aren't training as shooters very often.

Other than that, I agree with you on some of that. If a group has a training budget that allows them to put more rounds downrange and get their shooters used to a new weapon, then go for it. I still prefer the same old M16 crap. Everything is "right where it belongs", only from using it so much.

[Durandal]

...you can convert existing M4's to piston operation via LW, Aries, and other for 1/3 the price of a 416.

You are basing that on civilian retail prices....which seldom reflect the actually manufacturing cost or LE/Governmnet/Military contract price.

But I agree with the "simply change the upper on the M4/M16" argument.

I mean, there is nothing wrong with the newest M4X/M16X series...nothing at all.

[Durandal]

right off the bat... the HK upper mate to a 16 lower will not pass the weight requirement.. 6.5lbs... the HK upper withe the front sight/gas regulator and the quad rail is pretty darn heavy.

I would agree to it being heavier, but not "pretty darn heavy". Coming in at 7.3 pounds, the H&K M4 variant is .8 lbs heavier...

[SMGLee]

If they can keep the SCAR under cost, and get it to all of the soldiers that would be great. But since they're talking to Rock River Arms, I think they're just looking at a new M16/M4 variant. Which if they're doing that, they just need to do something simple that wont' require a lot of retraining.

They are NOT talking to Rock river arms...

They are talking about Rock Island Arsenal which is an US gov't small arms facility.

[SMGLee]

I would agree to it being heavier, but not "pretty darn heavy". Coming in at 7.3 pounds, the H&K M4 variant is .8 lbs heavier...

I love your statement about the gov't price vs. the civilian price... that is right on...

but....

.8 lbs is a long days march too heavy for this competition.....PM teams has rejected things that are less in the past..

Although HK conversion does have alot of supporter with in the military... but so does FN.. there is this two camps.. we will have to see which will come out ahead..

[Durandal]

They are NOT talking to Rock river arms...

They are talking about Rock Island Arsenal which is an US gov't small arms facility.

Completely missed that! Yeah, there is NO WAY RRA even comes close to having the political clout to wine and dine and buy into the race (because that is how it works).

I guess this could be an in and out military project controlled and produced by the federal government...RIA, after all, is the ONLY raw goods to final production product manufacturing facility the government/military has.

[Durandal]

I love your statement about the gov't price vs. the civilian price... that is right on...

Tell me about it...prices are through the damn roof right now and profits are VERY high. Supply and demand. It appalls me to see a Springfield M1 Garand (new production) sell for 1200 to 1400 USD.

As if...




.8 lbs is a long days march too heavy for this competition.....PM teams has rejected things that are less in the past...

Sorry, I was only contesting your use of adjectives, not the fact that they would cancel it for weight considerations.

[SMGLee]

Heading to Shot this evening... going to stay for three days.. I will try to get a report up and running by Sunday night...with pics :)

I think there is a few company still in the running... FN and HK is not the only game in town.... have you seen the Colt M5... that is still a sleeping dragon.

yea... I was amused when RRA was mentioned.....RRA might be a good second tier company, they will never be able to get deals like this....

[Vandervahn]

The guy from MurdocOnline (http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003430.html) (http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/003430.html) compared the OICW-1 to these new solicitations.


The Carbine:

Reliability
OICW1 Carbine: 18,000 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
New Carbine: 3800 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
OICW1 Carbine: 2300 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
New Carbine: 600 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
Barrel Life:
OICW1 Carbine: 15,000 rounds minimum
New Carbine: 10,000 rounds minimum
Accuracy:
OICW1 Carbine: >60% at 150m
New Carbine: 50% at 300m
Fire Rate without degrading accuracy:
OICW1 Carbine: Minimum 45 rounds/minute
New Carbine: Minimum 45 rounds/minute
Additional New Carbine requirements:
Mil-Std-1913 (Picatinny-style) rails incorporated into the weapon
Compatibility with the M203 grenade launcher
Weight of no more 6.5 pounds unloaded Murdoc's no expert, but not only does this new requirement look like a major step back from the earlier request, but it looks a lot like the M4 SOPMOD. The biggest difference, of course, between this solicitation and the earlier is the fact that this is calling for a stand-alone carbine, not a modular weapon system sharing 80% parts commonality with a special compact version and a designated marksman version.
Another big difference is that the light machine gun is for a separate stand-alone model, not a variant of the baseline weapon sharing 50% part commonality. Here are the differences between the OICW1 LMG and the New LMG:

Reliability
OICW1 LMG: 18,000 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
New LMG: 16,000 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class III)
OICW1 LMG: 1900 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
New LMG: 1600 mean rounds between essential function failure (Class I and II combined)
Barrel life:
OICW1 LMG: 15,000 rounds minimum
New LMG: 15,000 rounds
Accuracy:
OICW1 LMG: 40% at 600m
New LMG: Not specified
Fire Rate without degrading accuracy:
OICW1 LMG : 72 rounds/minute
New LMG: Not specified ...