Army Kills Plan To Replace M4
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 2 months ago
The Army’s program to replace the M4 carbine with a larger, harder-hitting rifle is dead, canceled after just under two months. But now that the Interim Combat Service Rifle is dead, what’s next?
The Interim Combat Service Rifle was proposed as a means of countering the new generation of cheap, highly effective body armors likely to be worn by America’s enemies . Countries such as Russia are now issuing body armors that can allegedly stop a .30-06 armor piercing bullet. Experts inside and outside the Army believed that the Army’s current issue 5.56-millimeter bullet would not be able to penetrate new armor, and that a larger, heavier bullet that transfers more energy to the target is necessary. Like everything else in the domain of military weapons, it’s an arms race between measure and countermeasure.
Seriously folks, who shoots armor piercing .30-06? No, really. This isn’t rhetorical. What army shoots the Springfield round? And how much body armor would be necessary to stop an armor piercing .30-06? Think through this for a moment. They would be like the Pillsbury dough boy, just with York 45 pound steel plates attached to their front and back. They wouldn’t be able to move, much less fight.
The M4 doesn’t need to be replaced. Via TCJ, there are good suggestions for making your AR run like a gazelle. Do it. Aim for heads and hips. Make sure you have other kinds of weapons such as .308 or 6.5mm Creedmoor, and remember that when you get something, you always give up something. Weapon selection is always a balancing act. Also, for the Army in particular, learn to shoot before considering replacement of your rifle system.
Finally, you do realize that even the arms manufacturers who gave us the AK-47 no longer shoot the 7.62X39, right? All of those rifles have been replaced by the 5.45X39. No major land army on earth now shoots the larger bore cartridges except as DM and sniper rifles.
On September 25, 2017 at 7:38 am, DAN III said:
Myself, I am a big fan of the 300 AAC BLK. The round with supersonic loads, is more capable than 5.56mm at distance, with greater energy than 5.56mm. However, the M16/M4a1 series of 5.56mm chambered weapons is certainly capable to meet and exceed mission requirements of the common grunt.
IMO, Army and USMC need to cease issuing 62 grain rounds and make 77 grain, 5.56mm standard issue. Both services need to equip their troops with lightweight, variable scopes that have good eye relief, good eye box (eye cone if you will), ocular focus and a minimum high power of 6x, preferably 8x. However, current technology does not allow for light weight, short length, 1-8x and 1-10x variable scopes.
The US military does need to replace what they have. Enhance the platform with 77 grain or 85 grain Barnes bullets, good variable optic and an emphasis on spending lots of time and lots of rounds downrange, every month of every year.
On September 25, 2017 at 7:41 am, DAN III said:
Re: First sentence of my last paragraph above. Should read “….does NOT need to replace….”.
My apology for the omission.
On September 25, 2017 at 8:45 am, JTwig said:
I’ve read a lot recently about body armors capable/rated to stop 7.62mm/.308 and even the green-tipped 5.56mm, but are not capable of stopping the FMJ 55gr .223. It seems to me that they can accomplish their stated goals by varying the ammo issued (not making the arguement that the 5.56mm is perfect, only that it could accomplish the goals they stated were important). It also seems that this was a vanity project of some officer looking to get his next promotion, and only marginally about improving the effectiveness of the line-troops.
On September 26, 2017 at 8:05 pm, B M said:
The standard issue ESAPI plate stops a 30-06 AP round, and doesn’t weigh 45 pounds per plate. One can certainly fight in it.
As to 55gr 5.56, if you shoot it at a high velocity out of a longer barrel it certainly goes through steel plates. However, ceramic responds to the heat generated by the kinetic energy transfer quite differently…
On September 26, 2017 at 10:27 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@BM,
I see that you’re right. I would actually be interested in seeing the test data for the ESAPI. As you know, there is a nontrivial difference in muzzle velocity between the .30-06 and the NATO 7.62mm/.308. I am wondering why they chose to model the testing on the .30-06? No one shoots it.
At any rate, it brings into question what all the fuss is about given the new plates that supposedly protect against the .30-06 if the ESAPI already does, because I would assume that other major land armies already have such a plate. Ceramic plates with a steel insert aren’t that hard to fabricate (or even if the plate is something like Titanium, but I doubt it given the huge density difference in Titanium vs. steel).