Colt M4 will not be allowed to compete in Army carbine replacement trials

Packman73 · Sep 27, 2010

Found this on M4carbine.net
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-competitors-tested-in-carbine-competition-092510w/

Tough test for companies in carbine competition
Click to expand...

By Lance M. Bacon - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Sep 26, 2010 9:02:41 EDT

The M4 will not compete in the forthcoming carbine competition according to the colonel in charge. But, he adds, the winner will have to score “a knockout” if it expects to replace the Army’s primary weapon for the past 20 years.
The announcement comes amid skepticism by some industry leaders who have questioned whether the Army is serious about getting a new carbine at all.
“It is my belief if given the choice tomorrow, the Army would not compete a new rifle,” said Darren Mellors, executive vice president of LWRC International. “They would like to buy more M4 carbines sole-sourced from Colt with a few hand picked incremental improvements.”
Mellors said there are “valid reasons” for this, and acknowledged the M4 as a “highly successful platform” that has served America’s war fighters well. Mellors, like many other weapons manufacturers, believes he has a better weapon — but he isn’t sure if “better” will be good enough.
“The key word the Army is using is ‘measurable improvement,’ ” he said. “Measurable improvement will be the downfall of any contender in a competition if the Army uses the standard testing protocol the M4 was designed to pass.”
Many manufacturers with whom Army Times spoke echoed the sentiment.
Mellors’ solution is to allow industry to propose tests or objective requirements. “If they are going to ask industry for a solution, it has to be in a format where we can demonstrate value to the war fighter and the Army,” he said. “All we want is a level and wide-open playing field.”
Col. Douglas Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons, was adamant that the competition will be exactly that.
“For someone to say that we’re not full and open or that we’re not serious about this is absolutely crazy,” he said. “We couldn’t survive.”
The Army will “spend over $30 million of taxpayer money just in testing to make sure we get this right,” he said. That means there will be congressional oversight. In addition, the Office of the Secretary of Defense will monitor test and evaluation, and the Army chief of staff is getting regular briefings.
“In short, the best weapon is going to win, and I don’t care who that is,” Tamilio said.
The competitors

The carbine competition is one half of a “dual path strategy” designed to give soldiers the best possible weapon. The strategy will make M4 improvements while simultaneously inviting industry to design a new carbine that can outperform the M4.
All of the major players are expected to compete. A few of the notable submissions include:
• The XCR by Robinson Armament Co.
• The M6A4 IAR, or similar variant, from LWRC.
• The Adaptive Combat Rifle by Remington.
• The SR-16 by Knight Armament Co.
• The SCAR by FNH.
• Colt will be looking to keep its corner on the market, and is likely to submit more than a dozen variants in the competition, including the CM901.
Tamilio could not speak to the specifics of the test, as the info is closely held to ensure no one has an unfair advantage. He did describe it as “robust” and said performance specifications will go to industry in the first quarter of fiscal 2011.
Because the tests will be done with enhanced — or “green” — ammo, industry also will get those specs to optimize their weapons for that round, he said. If the submission is other than a 5.56mm or 7.62mm caliber, the manufacturer will have to supply its own ammo.
Although the M4 will not compete, it is the basis on which all others will be judged.
“The only way the M4 would be the weapon of choice is if nothing is significantly better than the M4,” Tamilio said. “It’s like being a boxing champion. You don’t beat him, you don’t win — and this has to be by a knockout.”
Tamilio said he will release a draft request for proposal late this year to give industry a preliminary idea of what is expected. An industry day will follow in which officials will answer questions and provide clarity. The official RfP will go out in the second quarter of fiscal 2011, which begins in January. Manufacturers will have a set time, typically a few months, to respond with their proposed weapons.
The weapons will face off in tests Tamilio describes as “extreme and extensive.” The Army will fire more than 1 million rounds over 12 to 18 months to produce piles of data. The weapons will be tested to their destruction point. Soldiers will be involved in every facet of the testing, Tamilio said.
“Other organizations in the Army and DoD have looked at weapons, tried something, thought it was better, tested it, then came back and went somewhere else because they find things over long terms of testing or usage of weapons,” Tamilio said.
Not this time. The tests will determine whether the weapons maintain accuracy throughout their life cycle — something the military has not tested before. A weapon typically loses accuracy as it ages.
Once the tests are done and a victor is determined, Tamilio will deliver the results to the Army chief of staff. Then the decision makers will determine whether the service should go with the top carbine or an improved M4 as it recapitalizes the force. In an era of diminishing budgets, the winning carbine must hit financial goals as well as it hits targets.
The M4 runs about $1,300 per copy. Tamilio said he hopes the fair and open competition will improve quality while driving down that cost.
If the challenger fails to knock out the M4, soldiers will get the improved M4A1 that provides a heavier barrel and automatic fire. The next 12,000 M4s from Colt will be this variant. Another 25,000 and roughly 65,000 conversion kits would be purchased through open competition, Tamilio said. He expects new start approval in three to four months.
If the challenger scores a knockout, the winner will be required to sell its technical data rights soon after. Tamilio said the victor will get the bulk of the contract, but get two other manufacturers to join in production. Expanding the new contract to three suppliers expands the industrial base and enables a higher rate of production.
“We’re not getting into the same boat we did before,” Tamilio said.
Click to expand...

Found this on M4carbine.net
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-competitors-tested-in-carbine-competition-092510w/

Zombie Runner · Sep 28, 2010

soldiers will get the improved M4A1 that provides a heavier barrel and automatic fire.
Click to expand...

why a heavier barrel? Soldiers already carry around a ton of weight with all their gear...now their guns are gonna be even heavier?!
and the M4 already has automatic fire...

Im currious to see what the results from this "competition" will be.

Caduceus · Sep 28, 2010

Zombie Runner said: ↑

why a heavier barrel? Soldiers already carry around a ton of weight with all their gear...now their guns are gonna be even heavier?!
and the M4 already has automatic fire...

Im currious to see what the results from this "competition" will be.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling the 'heavier barrel' isn't going to be appreciably heavier. C'mon, if someone is carrying an 80lbs ruck, are they going to notice an extra few ounces in their weapon? (rhetorical....)

And I was under the impression that most of the M4's are semi-auto and 3-round burst only. They took away the full-auto option for a few years.

PatHLC128 · Sep 28, 2010

the regular M4's are semi/3 round burst. the M4A1 (already in service) is full auto capable but very few "special" soldiers carry it.

Packman73 · Sep 28, 2010

Zombie Runner said: ↑

why a heavier barrel? Soldiers already carry around a ton of weight with all their gear...now their guns are gonna be even heavier?!
and the M4 already has automatic fire...

Im currious to see what the results from this "competition" will be.
Click to expand...

The M4 profile barrel is fine for 3 rd burst but if more M4A1's are going into the field then they'll need a thicker barrel to sustain full auto fire.

I'd like to see Colt continue on but if a new manufacturer is chosen, I hope it's LWRC.

Caduceus · Sep 28, 2010

PatHLC128 said: ↑

the regular M4's are semi/3 round burst. the M4A1 (already in service) is full auto capable but very few "special" soldiers carry it.
Click to expand...

That's what I remember reading. The auto versions were mainly SF (non branch-specific) oriented.

Zombie Runner · Sep 28, 2010

Hmm I thought the M4 was standard with semi auto/full auto and the m16 was semi/ 3 shot.

thanks.

wrmathis · Sep 29, 2010

nope. every m4 that our pilots have are semi/3round burst

badguybuster · Sep 29, 2010

I'd rather see them completely do away with the M-16. I carried one for 4 years, its a piece of crap. Great for killing varmints, not so much for people. Perhaps issuing an AR-10 would be great?? It fires a 308 round. I did like the M4's tho. Pretty handy little weapon.

ptaco88 · Sep 29, 2010

I love my M4, not so sold on the M68 sight thats comes with it though. Never had a M16 except for Basic Training so i wouldn't know...

kinetik873 · Sep 29, 2010

Josh's BS Opinion:
I would guess that the SCAR or ACR woud be top contenders. Both are multicaliber capable, and are heavily tested and trusted. I am not a fan of the SR25 ( contract issues and costs with KAC shot the platform down in NSW, Reed Knight is smoking some good stuff) and the LWRC looks good, but POF and HK have the same appreciable platforms. I know of a unit or two that are using the HK417's for their all purpose platform (CQB/CCC, mid range, sniper) and its doing the job nicely. I'm not a bg fan of the SCAR and I've stated reasons on here before. The ACR would be my first choice if the made a few minor improvements (ambidextrous charging handle, interchangeable grip, etc.)

Caduceus · Sep 29, 2010

badguybuster said: ↑

I'd rather see them completely do away with the M-16. I carried one for 4 years, its a piece of crap. Great for killing varmints, not so much for people. Perhaps issuing an AR-10 would be great?? It fires a 308 round. I did like the M4's tho. Pretty handy little weapon.
Click to expand...

That's cuz the .223 was never intended to kill people. It was developed with the idea that "every injured soldier requires 10 people to care for him." Thus, the idea was that if you fill the battlefield with injuries, you'll slow down the infrastructure of the opponent, making him non-combat operational. There's also some politics that might have been at work in the selection of the weapon (http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html, page 2 near the bottom)

Of course, they seem to have forgotten that wounded soldiers can still shoot back.

IMHO, I think the .223 is a terrible round for just that reason. I can't say anything about the M16/M4 platform from personal experience, though I do know (like most folks) how many problems plagued it initially. That being said, there have been improvements to the bullet that seem to make it more useful recently (http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_556mm.php)

Packman73 · Sep 29, 2010

badguybuster said: ↑

I'd rather see them completely do away with the M-16. I carried one for 4 years, its a piece of crap. Great for killing varmints, not so much for people. Perhaps issuing an AR-10 would be great?? It fires a 308 round. I did like the M4's tho. Pretty handy little weapon.
Click to expand...

Caduceus said: ↑

That's cuz the .223 was never intended to kill people. It was developed with the idea that "every injured soldier requires 10 people to care for him." Thus, the idea was that if you fill the battlefield with injuries, you'll slow down the infrastructure of the opponent, making him non-combat operational. There's also some politics that might have been at work in the selection of the weapon (http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-1.html, page 2 near the bottom)

Of course, they seem to have forgotten that wounded soldiers can still shoot back.

IMHO, I think the .223 is a terrible round for just that reason. I can't say anything about the M16/M4 platform from personal experience, though I do know (like most folks) how many problems plagued it initially. That being said, there have been improvements to the bullet that seem to make it more useful recently (http://www.olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_556mm.php)
Click to expand...

Just for you guys; (graphic)
http://www.timawa.net/forum/index.php?topic=17111.0

Packman73 · Sep 29, 2010

Btw, Russian Spetsnaz (one of the most respected SFs in the world) use the 5.45x39 which is the Russian equivalent to the .223/5.56.

kinetik873 · Sep 29, 2010

Matt, I wouldn't call them one of the most respected, they just have crappy enemies (minus the chechens). Thats like calling the IDF a world class army....just saying.

Packman73 · Sep 29, 2010

kinetik873 said: ↑

Matt, I wouldn't call them one of the most respected, they just have crappy enemies (minus the chechens). Thats like calling the IDF a world class army....just saying.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's a good analogy.
Although I'd take a SEAL every time, the spetsnaz have a fearsome reputation.

kinetik873 · Sep 29, 2010

I'm probably speaking with a slightly inflated ego about this, they just have a different way of doing things. Sorry for sounding like a pompous ass. Who do you think will win as the replacement for the M16/M4?

Packman73 · Sep 29, 2010

I honestly don't know. From what I understand, the replacement needs to bring a lot of innovation to the table to be considered. I'd like to see them stay with the AR/M4 platform but use a gas piston system and a side charging upper receiver.

kinetik873 · Sep 29, 2010

^If thats the case then LWRC or HK would be my guess, POF is a good one too. I know the ACR was held up for "testing" to be a competitor, and it seems to have a great shot at being a replacement.

Packman73 · Sep 29, 2010

I'll be suprised if they go to the ACR only because of cost. It would be cheaper to replace internals to get FA and piston uppers can be bought to put on existing lowers if that's what they decice to do. I don't care one way or the other but I'm interested in the outcome.

Log in or Sign up

Welcome to Tacoma World!

Colt M4 will not be allowed to compete in Army carbine replacement trials

#1
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#2
Zombie Runner Are these black helicopters for me?

#3
Caduceus Well-Known Member

#4
PatHLC128 College.

#5
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#6
Caduceus Well-Known Member

#7
Zombie Runner Are these black helicopters for me?

#8
wrmathis Dark Lord of the Sith

#9
badguybuster Well-Known Member

#10
ptaco88 Well-Known Member

#11
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#12
Caduceus Well-Known Member

#13
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#14
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#15
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#16
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#17
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#18
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#19
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#20
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

Products Discussed in

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

Welcome to Tacoma World!

Colt M4 will not be allowed to compete in Army carbine replacement trials

#1 Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#2 Zombie Runner Are these black helicopters for me?

#3 Caduceus Well-Known Member

#4 PatHLC128 College.

#5 Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#6 Caduceus Well-Known Member

#7 Zombie Runner Are these black helicopters for me?

#8 wrmathis Dark Lord of the Sith

#9 badguybuster Well-Known Member

#10 ptaco88 Well-Known Member

#11 kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#12 Caduceus Well-Known Member

#13 Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#14 Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#15 kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#16 Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#17 kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#18 Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#19 kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#20 Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

Products Discussed in Entire Site Forum: Guns & Hunting

#1
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#2
Zombie Runner Are these black helicopters for me?

#3
Caduceus Well-Known Member

#4
PatHLC128 College.

#5
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#6
Caduceus Well-Known Member

#7
Zombie Runner Are these black helicopters for me?

#8
wrmathis Dark Lord of the Sith

#9
badguybuster Well-Known Member

#10
ptaco88 Well-Known Member

#11
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#12
Caduceus Well-Known Member

#13
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#14
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#15
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#16
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#17
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#18
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

#19
kinetik873 Well-Known Member

#20
Packman73 [OP] ^^^^ 3%er ^^^^

Products Discussed in