Army Cancels Carbine Competition Because M4 Was Getting Beat?

[Indrid Cold]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ts-after-competing-rifle-outperform/?page=all

As I understand it, the M4 carbine is a version/development of the M16 rifle with a shorter barrel and a collapsible stock (correct me if I'm wrong).
The M16 has long been plagued by reports of poor reliability in harsh environments (like Vietnam and Iraq). I have read suggestions that this is partly because the Army favored a design that stressed accuracy over reliability, typically a very precisely calibrated machine is more difficult to maintain than one with looser tolerances...the AKM has a reputation for being very reliable but fairly inaccurate, by contrast. Same with the Mini-14, popular literature suggests that it will shoot forever with little maintenance but is not something you'd buy for truly accurate shooting...I'm just repeating things I've read here, reality could be totally different.
Anyway, does anybody know what the "better" competing carbine was here? I would imagine it would be VERY difficult to get the Army to seriously consider abandoning the M4/16 family.

 

[jonvi]

I can't answer your question on what is a better weapon. But can say the M16A2 and M16A3 were outstanding weapons. Any issues were a result of Soldiers not properly cleaning their weapons. For some reason the Army is not stressing that as much as they did when I was in.

I was always impressed with the M16.....that I could hit a target at 300 yards with open sights. I can't do that with my 30-06.

I've never fired the M4. The Army adopted those after I got out.

 

[Bridgeburner]

The army seems to be where good weapon designs go to die.

You always hear reports about the M9 too and it's a fantastic weapon.

 

[Indrid Cold]

I can't answer your question on what is a better weapon. But can say the M16A2 and M16A3 were outstanding weapons. Any issues were a result of Soldiers not properly cleaning their weapons. For some reason the Army is not stressing that as much as they did when I was in.

I was always impressed with the M16.....that I could hit a target at 300 yards with open sights. I can't do that with my 30-06.

I've never fired the M4. The Army adopted those after I got out.

Friend of mine had an AR15A2 and loved it. He hand loaded bullets that were big enough for deer hunting and brought down quite a few with it.
That said, his life didn't depend upon it when he was in the woods of MO...but, your opinion as a soldier (apparently?) carries a lot of weight with me. I have always heard that the M16 is very accurate for that type of weapon.

 

[Indrid Cold]

The army seems to be where good weapon designs go to die.

You always hear reports about the M9 too and it's a fantastic weapon.

Sounds like they might be looking to go back to something with stopping power more like the .45.

 

[Bridgeburner]

There really is no such animal as stopping power.

But the 9mm is less than stellar in the full metal jacket flavor that they are forced to use.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

this article mentions a couple weapons

The USA?s M4 Carbine Controversy

Maybe the HK416 was the winner, but don't think anyone will ever verify this. Marines are looking into changing to this

 

[Schmoopy1000]

sounds like the Army will be unwilling to change carbines unless they find one 200% better than the M4A1

Army Killed New Carbine Because It Wasn?t Twice As Reliable As Current M4 « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

 

[4down20]

There really is no such animal as stopping power.

But the 9mm is less than stellar in the full metal jacket flavor that they are forced to use.

We were issued 9mm, but could bring our own .45 and they'd supply the ammo.

 

[Bridgeburner]

That's always a good option. Glad to hear they allowed that.

 

[Indrid Cold]

this article mentions a couple weapons

The USA?s M4 Carbine Controversy

Maybe the HK416 was the winner, but don't think anyone will ever verify this. Marines are looking into changing to this

Unless the interwebz is lying to me, sounds like you can buy an HK416 upper receiver, install it in an M4, and avoid the carbon fouling problems...???
That can't be so incredibly expensive, can it???
I would guess the Army doesn't want to buy anything from the Krauts they had to stomp into submission back in '45...

 

[Bridgeburner]

I would guess the Army doesn't want to buy anything from the Krauts they had to stomp into submission back in '45...

They got over their misgivings enough to buy more than a few M9's from their Italian rivals from 45'.

 

[Indrid Cold]

They got over their misgivings enough to buy more than a few M9's from their Italian rivals from 45'.

At least the Italians tried to switch sides when the going got tough!

 

[Bridgeburner]

True enough hahaha

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

It's not surprising. The rifle is pretty much decades old at this point and new rifles, specifically some of the bulpups, have some great technology in them. I imagine the next military rifle will be one of the bulpup designs because it's hard to beat that in terms of a fighting weapon.

 

[Indrid Cold]

It's not surprising. The rifle is pretty much decades old at this point and new rifles, specifically some of the bulpups, have some great technology in them. I imagine the next military rifle will be one of the bulpup designs because it's hard to beat that in terms of a fighting weapon.

Guess I can see the idea of not spending the $$$ if nothing meets the specs they want to hit, even if the present weapon is not the closest to the desired performance. I still think the idea of using the HK upper receiver that doesn't get fouled easily in the bodies of the present carbines sounds very appealing as well as cost effective, but maybe there are issues with that of which I am ignorant.